Sonoma County Grand Jury
2001-2002
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
There are 40 school districts in this county with over 72,000 students and budgets totaling over $500 million.
F2:
Sonoma County has 1.2% of California’s students, but 3.8% of its districts. Of the 58 counties in California, only four (Kern, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Tulare) have more school districts than Sonoma County. San Francisco County has one.
F3:
Sonoma County district populations range from a single-school district with 11 students to a multi-school district with nearly 13,000 students.
F4:
Sonoma County spends approximately $7750 per student; this is close to the California and national averages. By contrast New York state spends about $11,000 per student. Testing performance
F5:
California SAT scores rank below the national average in verbal testing and slightly above in math.
F6:
Sonoma County ranks only slightly above state and national averages in SAT and STAR testing. 58
F7:
Multi-school elementary districts rank higher than single-school districts in academic performance. Smallest districts rank the lowest. (See footnote 1) Administrative efficiency
F8:
Using information gathered from the Educational Efficiency Initiative, Sonoma County’s average cost for administration is about 6.1% of the total education budget.
F9:
Administrative costs vary significantly from district to district (3.6%-15%).
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
All districts should review opportunities for sharing costs and services with neighboring districts (e.g. bus, food, administration, etc.) This includes reviewing all overhead costs. All reviews should be submitted to the County Superintendent of Schools by January 1, 2003.
R2:
The Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools should assume a stronger, more proactive role in evaluating, encouraging, and implementing multi-district cost sharing and consolidation.
R3:
Administrators, school boards, and voters, especially in districts with the highest administrative expense percentage, need to look at the bigger picture and move beyond politics. They should better balance their high expenses for administration against those that directly benefit students.
R4:
The County Superintendent of Schools should conduct an objective countywide study, using an independent consultant, to determine the best strategy for sharing costs, consolidation, and unification. Required Responses to Findings Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools: F1 through F11 Petaluma City Schools Superintendent/Sonoma County Superintendent-elect: F1 through F11 Required Responses to Recommendations Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools: R1 through R3 Petaluma City Schools Superintendent/Sonoma County Superintendent-elect: R1 through R4 All District School Boards: R1, R3 All District School Superintendents: R1, R3 1 Academic Performance Index mean score by school district type: · Small single-school elementary districts (less than 100 students): 734 · Larger single-school elementary districts: 768 · Multi-school elementary districts: 791 2 Administrative expense by school district type: · Small single-school elementary districts: 9.4% · Larger single-school elementary districts: 9% · Multi-school elementary districts: 7.6% · High school districts: 5.1% · Unified (K-12): 5.5% 60
F10:
Administrative costs, as a percent of total budget, averaged much lower in multi-school districts than in single-school districts. (See footnote 2)
F11:
The 10 districts spending the most on administration range from 15% to 9.6% as shown below: Kashia Elementary 15.0% Guerneville Elementary 11.7% Geyserville Unified 11.2% Harmony Union Elementary 10.9% Rincon Valley Union Elementary 10.3% Forestville Union Elementary 10.3% Montgomery Elementary 10.2% Bennett Valley Union Elementary 9.9% Wilmar Union Elementary 9.7% Monte Rio Union Elementary 9.6% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% Conclusions · Higher administrative spending does not necessarily result in higher scores. · Single-school elementary districts spend a much higher percentage on administration AND they perform lower in testing than multi-school districts. · The largest districts in general spend a lower percentage on administration than do the smallest districts. · Reducing administrative costs in the high-administration districts to the county average can increase funds available for instruction expenses. (Example: Rincon Valley could produce greater than $500,000 per year.) · Sonoma County has far too many school districts for its demographics. · Collaboration among districts (sharing of services) can be a powerful move toward lowering costs or increasing share spent on instruction. · Consolidation and unification of school districts should be seriously evaluated. 59
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
As of October 2001 there were no written procedures establishing time lines for scheduling inspections during construction and upon completion of a building. Because of this, the architect/builder sometimes incurred costly delays.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Chief, Santa Rosa Fire Department should implement and monitor the new written policies and procedures that address improvements to the inspection process.
F2:
As of March 2002 timelines for scheduling inspections were in place with written and measurable objectives.
F3:
As of October 2001 there were occasional inconsistencies between the plan checker’s approval of building plans and subsequent findings by the building inspectors even when the structure was built according to the approved plans.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Chief, Santa Rosa Fire Department should implement and monitor the new written policies and procedures that address improvements to the inspection process.
R2:
The Chief, Santa Rosa Fire Department should minimize instances where approved plans are later rescinded or modified by the Fire Marshal. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Chief, Santa Rosa Fire Department: R1 and R2 56
F4:
As of March 2002 personnel changes were made in both the plan checkers section and inspection section of the SRFD that should help minimize inconsistencies between plan checkers and inspectors. In addition, meetings were held with City Building, Utilities, 55 Engineering and Planning Departments in an effort to improve the overall plan review process.
F5:
As of October 2001 there was a customer complaint procedure in place at the Fire Marshal’s office that was used only occasionally.
F6:
As of March 2002 a new procedure was in place that provided all customers with a comprehensive and user-friendly assessment form that provided excellent feedback on customer satisfaction. An assessment of the results after the implementation of the new procedures has shown significant improvement in customer satisfaction. Conclusions The Grand Jury concludes that the Santa Rosa Fire Department has recognized its problems and is taking appropriate actions to correct them. The Grand Jury commends the department for its efforts. However, because the corrective actions are in their formative stages, two
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Little Hoover Commission and the Sacramento County Grand Jury reached the following conclusions: · The format and content of the financial reports often mask, rather than illuminate, useful information · With rare exceptions, compensation to Special District Board members was modest · Excessive undesignated reserves, found to exist in a few of the special districts studied, was the major concern of the investigators.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
We urge citizens to avail themselves of the information on the Controller’s website when it becomes available, and to take an active interest in the special districts that serve them. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendation None 63
F2:
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury found no evidence of any enterprise district in Sonoma County to have excessive undesignated financial reserves.
F3:
The State Legislature passed SB282 in 2001. This bill “…requires the Controller to make available annually, in a separate report, published in an electronic format on the Controller’s Web site, specified information regarding the assets, liabilities, and equity of the selected special districts.” The intent of this bill is to make financial reports of special districts clearer, more informative, and easily accessible to the public. 62
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Board of Supervisors held no public hearings to explain the site selection criteria of the Human Services Building Project. They were discussed only in Closed Session.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should hold public meetings to explain areas such as housing needs, social objectives, economic considerations, and contingent liabilities whenever projects such as the new Human Services Building are under consideration.
F2:
The weight given to non-economic criteria (social, political, community benefit, etc.) was not made clear to prospective participants in the site selection process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should establish a written policy that makes clear to future bidders and the public alike exactly what the parameters of any Request for Proposal will be, and should make provisions for strictly adhering to that policy.
F3:
During the site selection process, the Crocker Company made clear in its report that manifest environmental problems existed in the Roseland Redevelopment Area: infrastructure issues of right of way, eminent domain, parking, and hazardous materials cleanup.
F4:
A former member of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors was on the Board when the need for a new Human Services building project was identified and endorsed.
F5:
This same former board member was instrumental in the development and presentation of the Roseland Assemblage Proposal, which was offered to the Board of Supervisors during the first year following that supervisor’s retirement.
F6:
The Roseland Assemblage site, located within the Roseland Redevelopment Area, includes land in which the former supervisor, among others, holds a financial interest.
F7:
Sonoma County has no written policy concerning former County officials seeking to do business with the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should adopt a written policy prohibiting County officers and employees from conducting business with any former officer or employee for a period of one year after leaving the County’s employ (the so-called “Revolving Door” policy).
F8:
The State of California has a law that restricts former state employees seeking to do business with the state.
F9:
Orange County has a “Revolving Door” policy that reads as follows: “A public official or employee shall not meet or confer with a former county official or employee who is acting as a lobbyist within one year following termination of the former official or employee from county employment.”
F10:
It is unclear which entity, the County or the developer, would bear the ultimate cost of cleanup and infrastructure development.
F11:
No building is leased by the County for more than 20 years. The proposed Roseland building would be leased for 30 years. Conclusions The Grand Jury finds no evidence of illegal use of insider information by any of the parties to the selection process. However, involvement of a recently retired member of the Board as a participant in the 1997 site selection process does give the appearance of impropriety in that it could have offered a decided advantage to the former member. The Board of Supervisors should avoid even the appearance of preferential treatment for former Board members or other county officials. Although a fair, impartial, and open site selection process had been agreed upon by the Board of Supervisors and the Crocker Company, the heavy emphasis placed on the Roseland/SWSR Redevelopment Area by the Board has resulted in at least the perception of reducing the other 23 sites to the status of “window dressing.” In the Request for Proposal process, all participating bidders had equal access to the same printed criteria and stipulations. What all did NOT have, however, was information relative to the high degree of emphasis which the Board of Supervisors placed upon the SWSR/Roseland Redevelopment Area. Of the five pre-qualified participants who began the proposal process, three dropped out almost immediately when they determined that the social and political aspects of the criteria were going to outweigh the purely economic aspects. In response to the complainant’s allegation that the Board of Supervisors acted contrary to the best interests of the taxpayers by heavily weighting the process in favor of the Roseland Redevelopment Project as a prospective site for the new building, the Grand Jury concludes that the Board acted within the scope of its purview. The challenge of balancing the social and economic benefits of placing the facility in the Roseland area versus a possibly more immediately buildable and less costly alternative outside the urban core of the County is an appropriate one for elected representatives. The Grand Jury observes the appearance of impropriety in at least two areas: The sequence of events and policy machinations leading up to the selection of the Roseland Redevelopment Area as the site for the new building gives the impression of a “stacked deck.” The continued involvement of a former member of the Board of Supervisors in the ongoing discussions of site and process, after that member subsequently became a member of a competing firm, leaves much to be desired. The Grand Jury is concerned with the sequence of events that led to the site selection and contract negotiations. While the Grand Jury makes no findings regarding the social advantages or disadvantages of locating the Human Services Building in the preferred site, it is concerned with potential extraordinary costs to the taxpayers. Aside from the costs and complexities of acquiring parcels that comprise the site and a railroad right-of-way, the site is located in a toxic area known as a “brownfield.” There are still open questions on the extent and nature of the contamination and whether a portion of the cleanup costs will to be borne by the taxpayers. The Grand Jury believes that the preferred developer will have difficulty keeping the costs of the lease within the limits to qualify for maximum state and federal reimbursements. 13
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
Residents of Sonoma County need to be vigilant in their oversight of the County’s dealings in both business and public policy. For more information, residents should obtain a copy of Agenda Item #37, June 4, 2002 Board of Supervisors meeting, in which staff recommends cancellation of the project. Required Responses to Findings Board of Supervisors: F1, F2, F7, F10, and F11 Required Responses to Recommendations Board of Supervisors: R1 through R3 14
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
PES staff morale is low. Communications between PES staff and Mental Health Division management is poor, and nonexistent in some cases. There is a prevailing staff belief that management does not value staff opinions and suggestions. The management styles of supervisors are consistently described by staff as non-responsive, confrontational, distrusting, intimidating, distant, and/or devoid of contact with staff. 46
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The findings and recommendations developed by the outside consultant, hired by the Health Department to address PES communication and morale issues, should be provided to the Grand Jury and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
R2:
Make the resolution of intradepartmental communications and PES morale problems a key management goal for all PES supervisory/management personnel.
F2:
Mental Health management does not acknowledge the depth of the aforementioned communications problem or its effect upon morale.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The findings and recommendations developed by the outside consultant, hired by the Health Department to address PES communication and morale issues, should be provided to the Grand Jury and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
R2:
Make the resolution of intradepartmental communications and PES morale problems a key management goal for all PES supervisory/management personnel.
F3:
In response to last year’s Grand Jury report, the Department of Health Services offered discussions with employees of the Mental Health Division to better understand staff issues. Employees were invited to meet privately with the Director of Health Services Department, the Director of Mental Health Division and a representative of the Human Resources Department. No one in PES accepted the offer. This supports the Grand Jury’s earlier concern that the three-on-one sessions would inhibit frank discussion.
F4:
The Mental Health Department has advised the Grand Jury that a consultant has been hired to identify communication and morale issues. SAFETY, SECURITY, AND ENVIRONMENT CONTINUE TO BE ISSUES
F5:
The PES staff is totally committed to its profession and to helping the mentally disturbed residents of Sonoma County. The work is inherently dangerous and requires constant vigilance.
F6:
The Norton Center is an old building with few security features to safeguard staff and clients.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Expedite the planned security improvements for the PES Norton Center. 47
F7:
The PES staff have become frustrated and apathetic in their attempts to bring to management attention their concerns relating to safety, environment, and infrastructure.
F8:
The contract security guards at PES Norton Center provide some benefit, but they are not trained (in many cases not physically capable) to intervene in staff – client incidents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Expedite the planned security improvements for the PES Norton Center. 47
F9:
In January 2001, the Health Service Department launched a program for enhancement of Norton Center PES security. The analysis and design phases are complete and the project is now in the review, funding and approval phase. The project timetable calls for completion in late 2002. If the current schedule is met, two years will have passed since the Health Service Department acknowledged the gravity of the Norton Center PES security issues.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Expedite the planned security improvements for the PES Norton Center. 47
R4:
Develop a county-wide procedure to expedite the design funding, approval and implementation of future high priority projects, particularly those related to security and safety.
F10:
The PES facilities do not enhance the efforts of the staff. The maintenance and housekeeping are poor; its atmosphere is depressing. It compares unfavorably with the inpatient, the outpatient, and the children’s mental health facilities.
Related Recommendations (3)
R5:
Improve the daily maintenance/housekeeping of the PES Norton Center facility.
R6:
Improve the décor of the PES Norton Center, i.e. make the facilities appear less depressing for mentally disturbed clients.
R7:
Increase the refurbishment cycle (paint, repair, and replacement) for the PES Norton Facility. A facility such as the PES Norton Center requires more frequent refurbishment than conventional office spaces. Required Responses to Findings Director, Department of Health Services: F1, F2, F3, F7, F9, F10 Director, Mental Health Division: F1, F2, F7, F8, F10 Required Responses to Recommendations Director, Department of Health Services: R1, R2, R3, R6, R7 Director, Mental Health Division: R1, R2, R5, R6, R7 Board of Supervisors: R3, R4 48
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F11:
Both the 2000-2001 Grand Jury Final Report and the Juvenile Hall Security and Operations Review of January 2002, prepared by the Criminal Justice Research Foundation, commented on the need to expand the Hall’s staff training program. The Probation Department agreed with the recommendations and the following changes have been made. As part of the hiring process, all staff now undergo a 6 comprehensive background and psychological screening process. Also, all volunteers undergo a background check, fingerprinting, local court system check, and a Megan’s Law check. Further, all staff now receive mandatory 40 hours of in-service orientation training. By July 1, 2002, all part-time and full-time staff will have received, in addition to their in-service training, Board of Corrections- approved academy training within six months of hiring.
F12:
The Juvenile Hall Security and Operations Review of January 2002 made 26
F13:
Currently, the plan is to renovate the existing kitchen at Juvenile Hall and keep it operational until funding is available to construct a kitchen in the Juvenile Justice Center. Meals will be cooked in the existing kitchen and delivered in temperature-controlled food carts to each housing unit in the Center. Residents will eat meals in designated dining areas of unit day rooms. Food carts will be returned to the kitchen after each meal and cleaned by staff. Conclusions The Probation Department employees and support staff who daily manage and operate Juvenile Hall are indeed dedicated professionals. Fire and earthquake safety standards cannot be met in the 50 year old building in which they work. Yet, even though their full abilities are impeded by the antiquated and potentially unsafe physical plant in which they must operate, they have shown progressive improvement in many important areas such as security and health care. The new Juvenile Justice Center is not scheduled to be completed until mid-2005. During the three-year interim before Juvenile Hall is relocated, projections indicate its average daily population will increase. Youthful offenders committing violent crime will be the largest category. Also projected are increases in females detained, youth with alcohol or drug dependency, and those with mental health problems. New programs and policies are being pursued by the Probation Department to deal with this situation. Meanwhile, alternatives and diversionary options are being used to keep the average daily population at Juvenile Hall at its present level. These alternatives are less costly than incarceration. However, they are not appropriate for all types of youthful offenders nor available at all times. Further, during this three year interim, fiscal and practical constraints will continue to militate against making major changes and upgrades to the current Juvenile Hall facilities. The new Juvenile Justice Center, on the other hand, promises to be a state-of-the-art facility providing safety and security for detained juveniles, those who serve the institutional needs of juveniles, members of the Juvenile Justice System, and the community. The new Center will be better able to handle the complex diversity of 7 Juvenile Hall detainees who are increasingly more criminally sophisticated and will better serve detainees who have dependency problems and psychological disorders. Planning for the new Center is being carried forward by a transition team including representation from all the disciplines that will be involved in the establishment and operation of the several departments to be located in the Center. The remote kitchen arrangement is not as economical and efficient as having the kitchen in the new Center. Over time the additional staff costs of transporting food from one building to another (and food carts back and forth) could exceed the cost of the new kitchen.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and the Probation Department are urged to include a new kitchen facility in the Juvenile Justice Center. It makes good financial sense to design and plan the new kitchen now as part of the entire project and not later after construction has commenced or finished. Increased labor costs associated with having a separate kitchen and the potential of higher construction costs in the future make a delay of the kitchen project very uneconomical. Required Responses to Finding None Required Responses to Recommendation Chief, Probation Department: R1 Sonoma County Board of Supervisor’s: R1 8
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Probation Camp main building houses staff offices and a small conference room in one area. In the larger area there is a staff station which is open to a kitchen and a dormitory style sleeping area (with showers and toilets to the side). The entire facility is well lighted with windows offering pleasant rural views.
F2:
Successful completion of the three-phase step program is required for graduation from the Camp.
F3:
Academic and industry-related skills being taught are designed to enable those who complete the program to re-enter the public school system or to be readily employable in the workplace.
F4:
Vocational and shop training is realistic on a small shop industry level. Products produced and marketed generate income that funds various other activities and acquisitions at the Camp.
F5:
Assignment of qualified youth to Camp is limited due to a maximum capacity of 24.
F6:
Expansion of camp operations is limited due to its 5.23 acre parcel.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Probation Department and the County Board of Supervisors should develop a proposal for purchasing or leasing 8.5 acres adjoining the Probation Camp from Santa Rosa Junior College and assemble a negotiating team for carrying such proposal forward.
R2:
The Probation Department and the County Board of Supervisors should develop an alternative plan for expansion of the Probation Camp in the event acquisition of property from Santa Rosa Junior College is unsuccessful.
F7:
For a period of time until mid-year 2001, Camp Youth Supervisors were allowed to determine some practices at the Camp with little or no management oversight. In March 2002, the Division Director issued new policy guidelines for Youth Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Any question, whether oral or written, and whether raised at a Probation Camp meeting or otherwise (including but not limited to parental comments during home visitations), regarding the propriety of behavior involving any Probation Camp staff person or any adult person who is in any way involved with the performance of duties or delivery of services at the Probation Camp, should be immediately forwarded to the Camp Manager and the Chief Probation Officer.
R4:
A seminar program should be developed, requiring annual attendance by all Camp staff so that professional standards, Camp policies, and performance evaluations can be reviewed. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Sonoma County Board of Supervisors: R1 and R2 Chief, Probation Department: R1 through R4 Division Director, Probation Camp: R3 and R4 30
F8:
During October 2001, the camp Chef was transferred to Sierra Youth Center. The transfer resulted in the interruption of a successful culinary program at the Camp and public concern over such a loss. A new chef was assigned and the program resumed in April 2002. Conclusions Probation Camp has a long history of innovative programs designed to teach youth necessary skills so they may be returned to the community as productive citizens. With its rural setting and its many successful programs, Probation Camp has been the jewel in the crown of the Probation 29 Department’s juvenile detention facilities. It is managed and operated by professionals who strive to provide an environment and opportunity for its youth population to learn to abide by the laws of the community, be self-sufficient, be gainfully employed or attend school, and participate in healthy relationships with family and others. Since the resumption of its culinary program and the issuance of new policy guidelines that provide more management oversight and involvement, Probation Camp is well positioned to carry on its rich tradition. It is unfortunate that the Probation Department has been unable to expand the operations of the Camp beyond its limited 5.23-acre parcel. It is surrounded by a 350-acre parcel owned by Santa Rosa Junior College. Although tentative expansion plans have been developed, negotiations for acquiring a mere 8.5 acres from Santa Rosa Junior College have been unsuccessful. The Probation Department, the County Board of Supervisors, and the community need to get behind this project and make it happen. The Camp and its youth population deserve such expansion because until the situation changes or other arrangements can be made, the Probation Camp will continue as an elite facility for the chosen few.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The facilities occupied by SYC were built in the early 1950s and do not meet current codes and standards (e.g., they are not handicapped accessible).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A study should be initiated to find a better facility for SYC. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Chief, Probation Department: R1 and R2 26
F2:
There is no air conditioning. Temperatures have exceeded 100 degrees in the summer.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A study should be initiated to find a better facility for SYC. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Chief, Probation Department: R1 and R2 26
F3:
Staff office space is extremely small and cramped.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A study should be initiated to find a better facility for SYC. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Chief, Probation Department: R1 and R2 26
F4:
The on-site school adjacent to the housing unit is a small one-room structure where all pertinent grade levels are taught.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A study should be initiated to find a better facility for SYC. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Chief, Probation Department: R1 and R2 26
F5:
The primary outside recreational area is a small grassy space next to the housing unit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A study should be initiated to find a better facility for SYC. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Chief, Probation Department: R1 and R2 26
F6:
The on-site garden area needs additional work.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A study should be initiated to find a better facility for SYC. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Chief, Probation Department: R1 and R2 26
F7:
Nineteen SYC youth have been matched to mentors through the Mentor Program and presentations made to Sonoma State University.
F8:
The Rotary Club of Oakmont is building a storage/greenhouse for SYC to use in its Garden Project. Conclusions 25 The Probation Department employees and support staff who daily manage and run SYC are dedicated professionals. Although their full abilities are impeded by the antiquated physical plant in which they must operate, the programs provided to the youth in residence are doing well. The Dog Assistance Program, which teaches respect and patience, is especially liked by the youth because their self-esteem is increased as progress is made. SYC is receiving some help in its Mentor Program and in its Garden Project from the community, and this is appreciated. However, even after the new Juvenile Justice Center is completed in mid 2005, SYC residents will stay in their same old dreary worn-out building. What is sorely needed is a new facility for SYC.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A “Needs Assessment” should be developed for SYC, similar to the one for Juvenile Hall.
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors ordered the posting of the notice on his sole initiative, without polling the other supervisors, based on the fact that the respective terms of the two incumbents had expired.
F2:
There was no public announcement or notification of the vacancies other than the posting on the Administration Building bulletin board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should review its policies and procedures for the appointment and replacement of members of commissions as follows: · Announce all vacancies in Board public sessions and routinely publish vacancies in county newspapers in a timely manner · Require, without exception, that applicants for appointment to commissions complete the Board’s existing “Commission Application” form · Require all commission members to apply for reappointment at the end of their designated terms and adopt resolutions for reappointments in public sessions in the same manner as new appointments.
F3:
The replacement of the two appointees by the Board was legally permissible under the provisions of the California Public Utility Code. The Board’s appointment resolution was used as the action to remove the incumbents.
F4:
County Counsel did not maintain a wall of separation between his own duty to represent the Board of Supervisors, on the one hand, and the Deputy County Counsel assigned to represent the Commission, resulting in a conflict of interests.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
County Counsel should review and reinforce its internal policies for separating representation of the Board and county departments, on the one hand, and commissions and other entities for which it has representation responsibilities. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Board of Supervisors: R1, R2 County Counsel: R3 6
F5:
Following the declaration of a conflict of interests by the Office of County Counsel, the Board of Supervisors took no action to provide the Commission with alternative legal representation.
F6:
The litigation settlement agreement, modifying the Plan to eliminate the restrictions affecting the Windsor development project, contained nothing related to the original demand for an EIR.
F7:
According to sworn testimony, the allegation of a Brown Act violation was designed to force the Commission to negotiate modifications to the Plan. 4
F8:
Sonoma County has more than 60 commissions (or boards) to which the Supervisors appoint some or all of the members. The Board does not have a policy, nor is there a county ordinance, providing for legal defense or indemnification of commission members for personal liability arising out of acts or omissions within the scope of their designated responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should establish a written policy for the legal defense and indemnification of members of commissions when acting within the scope of their authority, to the same extent as the government code provides for employees.
F9:
The California Public Utility Code includes explicit provisions for a public agency, such as a city, to override airport plan restrictions that are inconsistent with its general development plan.
F10:
Following the settlement of the litigation, eliminating the relevant Plan restrictions, the Windsor City Council approved the Airport Business Center project by a majority vote greater than two-thirds.
F11:
The Grand Jury does not make any findings with respect to (a) the merits of the original Plan restrictions, (b) their removal in the revised Plan, or (c) whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration was the appropriate course of action for the Commission in developing the Plan. Conclusions The posting of the notice of vacancy by the Board Chairman without consultation among Supervisors defies credibility. So does the stated rationale for removal of the two incumbents at that particular time because their terms had expired. One term expired five years earlier and the other two years earlier. The Grand Jury concludes that no public announcement of the vacancies was made because the Board wished to avoid media publicity that could have generated additional applications for the positions. This facilitated appointment of replacements more sympathetic to developers who are major political contributors to several Supervisors. The Board’s conduct in selecting the replacements, while legal, was not a model for either transparent governance or high ethical standards. Once the Board rejected the Commission’s request for EIR funding, County Counsel’s declared conflict of interests deprived the Commission of legal representation. When the Board of Supervisors failed to provide alternative counsel, the Commission members were forced to seek representation at their own expense. The Grand Jury concludes that the Board’s lack of support was unconscionable. The Grand Jury believes the lawsuit, and especially the alleged Brown Act violation, was borderline abuse of the legal system. Although special interest groups use the CEQA and litigation demanding EIRs to accomplish other objectives, in this instance it does not reflect a high standard of legal ethics or morality. The withdrawal of the lawsuit, without further consideration of an EIR once the specific restrictions in the Plan were removed, demonstrates a lack of good faith. More reprehensible was the allegation of a Brown Act violation, without merit on its face, intended to intimidate Commission members.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Protocol is a comprehensive and detailed directive of how to conduct a Critical Incident investigation.
F2:
For each incident, an administrative and criminal investigation were conducted.
F3:
The Grand Jury did not review the findings of the administrative investigations, which are internal to the agencies and are not part of the Critical Incident Report. 7
F4:
The Protocol requires investigations be conducted “free of conflicts of interest.” In addition, the District Attorney’s Office participates in the investigations and has the authority to investigate separately.
F5:
Upon completion of the criminal investigations, the District Attorney reviewed the evidence, including photographs and transcribed interviews of witnesses.
F6:
Based on the evidence, the District Attorney reached his conclusion and issued a Critical Incident Report. In each incident, the District Attorney concluded that no criminal laws were broken by the officers involved.
F7:
Last year’s Grand Jury recommended that “Each Critical Incident Report should describe the nature of participation by the District Attorney’s Office in the investigation of the incident.” The District Attorney’s response indicated that “…the District Attorney’s Office will include in each Critical Incident Report done by the District Attorney’s Office a description of the District Attorney’s participation in the investigation of the incident.” These reports still do not indicate the level of participation by the District Attorney’s Office. Conclusions Each of the three Critical Incident Reports reflects compliance with the protocol. The Grand Jury agrees with findings of the District Attorney. The three reports did not describe the District Attorney’s participation in the investigation of the incidents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each Critical Incident Report should describe the nature of participation by the District Attorney’s Office in the investigation of the incident. Required Responses To Findings None Required Responses To Recommendation The District Attorney: R1 8
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Since July 1, 2000, California Insurance Code mandates parity between mental health and medical condition insurance coverage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Anyone who finds disparities between medical and mental health insurance coverage should report them to the California Insurance Commissioner, Department of Managed Health Care, and the Department of Corporations. California Department of Insurance Department of Managed Health Care Consumer Communication Bureau 980 North Street, Suite 500 300 Spring Street, South Tower Sacramento, CA 95814-2725 Los Angeles, CA 90013 California Department of Corporations 1515 K Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95814-2677
F2:
Mental health services available for adolescents in Sonoma County are not as comprehensive as those for adults.
F3:
Hospitals in Marin, Mendocino, Napa, and Sonoma counties do not provide inpatient treatment for adolescents in crisis. Sonoma County adolescents who require crisis care (inpatient observation and stabilization) must be transported to a hospital outside of the county. The closest facilities are in San Francisco, Vallejo, and Sacramento.
F4:
Two nearby hospitals that provided crisis care (North Coast/CPC in Sonoma County, Ross in Marin County) have discontinued adolescent care within the last 10 years.
F5:
When beds are not immediately available in San Francisco, Vallejo, or Sacramento, adolescents are temporarily housed in the Psychiatric Emergency Services (Norton Center) facility. 33
F6:
The Psychiatric Emergency Services facility is not appropriate for housing and/or treatment of adolescents in crisis because they cannot be separated from adult clients. The available isolation rooms are dark and dingy, and there are no beds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Psychiatric Emergency Services facility should be modified to provide a clean, pleasant area where minors can be housed while awaiting transportation to a psychiatric hospital. 34
F7:
There are approximately 1300 licensed Mental Health therapists in Sonoma County, the second highest per capita concentration in the state after Marin County. Many are reluctant to accept adolescent patients.
F8:
The number of Sonoma County adolescents who require hospitalization for mental health reasons is not sufficient to support a facility for this county alone. Significantly fewer adolescents require crisis care than adults. Also, over the past 20 years advances in therapy and medication have reduced the number and length of mental health-related hospitalizations.
F9:
The Sonoma County Mental Health Services inpatient facility is not currently licensed or staffed to treat adolescents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Sonoma County Department of Health Services should explore with public and private counterparts in neighboring counties the operation of a shared facility that would provide inpatient care for adolescents.
F10:
In times of crisis, it is frequently difficult, frustrating, expensive, and very time consuming for families to find competent and comprehensive mental health care for their children. Conclusions In Sonoma County, mental health care for adults is more comprehensive and accessible than it is for minors. This disparity in mental health care for minors is caused, in part, by the large difference between the number of adult and minor patients. Due to the small number of Sonoma County adolescents who require mental health hospitalization, it is not financially feasible for a hospital to provide such service. Families with children in need of mental health therapy frequently require help in finding and coordinating care. County Mental Health Services provides this assistance for Medi-Cal recipients, but private insurers may not.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Sonoma County Mental Health Services should provide an ombudsman to guide residents in the acquisition and coordination of mental health services.
R5:
The 2002-2003 Grand Jury should continue the analysis of mental health care for minors. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations County Board of Supervisors: R1 through R3 Director, Department of Health Services: R1 Division Director, Mental Health Services: R1 through R3 35