Gran Jurado del Condado de Sonoma
2002-2003
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
1 hallazgos
F1:
The California Employees Retirement Law requirements for approving the county pension in 2002 do not appear to have been followed.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors examine the procedures and actions taken when the pension increase was approved in 2002 to determine if the required procedures were followed.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors obtain legal advice on how to proceed regarding current pensions if legal procedures were not followed in 2002.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
The Jury finds that the Board of Supervisors and the Department of Mental Health have taken the following three steps to address the problems reported by past Grand Juries: • An independent consultant has been hired to make an organizational assessment of the Mental Health Department that will include employee interviews, a program to strengthen leadership skills, an action plan and a six-month follow-up assessment. This sixteen-month contract will be completed by December 31, 2003. • At the Norton Psychiatric Emergency Facility, 3.2 additional full-time equivalent managerial positions and 6.2 full time equivalent staff positions have been created and are currently are being filled. • Funding has been approved for security improvements at the Norton Center. The exterior construction such as doors, ramps, and keypad locks is now completed. However, because of the stringent requirements of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, the current plan for interior security improvements is not acceptable. The Norton Psychiatric Emergency Facility, now 63 years old, must be brought up to newly mandated State codes before the proposed security construction is permitted. These requirements exceed the allocated budget.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The County Administrator should supply the Grand Jury with: 1. The monthly bulletin from the consultant 2. The action plan developed by the consultant 3. The consultant’s final report Required responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Sonoma County Administrator: R1 3
F2:
The high employee turnover rates alleged to exist at Chanate are not confirmed by data from the County Human Resources Department. Employee turnover rates for the Mental Health Department are about average as compared to other county departments.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The action plan developed by the consultant
F3:
The four interviews completed suggest that the present employee morale at Chanate is as poor as that reported in the Final Reports of three previous Grand Juries. Conclusions The Mental Health Department has taken steps to improve working conditions for the staff. However, problems in staff and management relations appear not to have changed. Because of the nature of the population that the staff deals with, it is the consensus of the Jury that management should be more sensitive to the potential for heightened stress among its employees and more supportive of their concerns. It is the hope of the Grand Jury that the consultant’s efforts will be able to address and correct existing problems. The effectiveness of the consultation can be determined only by a future Grand Jury.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The consultant’s final report Required responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Sonoma County Administrator: R1 3
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Greg Nordin Vice-Mayor "Every public agency in Sonoma County shall actively monitor and review payroll records for accurate wage payment, and fully comply Jake Mackenzie with the law by notifying the DIR whenever non-compliance is Amie Spradlin Vicki Vidak-Martinez encountered." Council Members The City of Rohnert Park actively monitors and reviews payroll records and requires contractors and subcontractors to fully comply with prevailing wage regulations and laws. Carl Eric Leivo The City's invitation for bids includes a prevailing wage rate City Manager statement. The City maintains a record of current prevailing wage rates for inspection by potential bidders. City agreements for public works projects contain verbiage requiring that contractors or sub- contractors comply with the Labor Code and pay prevailing wages. In some instances, members of City staff manage public works projects. To assure compliance with prevailing wages, City staff conduct surprise inspections to make sure that contractors and sub- contractors pay prevailing wages. The City contracts with Winzler & Kelly for engineering services including project management. Winzler & Kelly: Identifies the types of jobs to be performed for a given project; Determines which wage schedules apply to specific positions; Compares records of current hourly wages with prevailing wages; and Provides the City with certified payroll records. Fortunately, neither City staff nor Winzler & Kelly have identified any 6750 Commerce Boulevard • Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 • (707) 588-2226 • FAX: (707) 588-2263 • WEB: www.rpcity.org . : non-compliance with prevailing wage laws and regulations regarding a City of Rohnert Park project. Should a violation of prevailing wage regulations and laws be discovered, the Department of Industrial Relations would be notified as appropriate. Sincerely, aun & F. Flow Armando Flores, Mayor c. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Carl Leivo, City Manager Toni Bertolero, City Engineer Brad Rosaschi, Public Works Supervisor • . . . 6750 Commerce Boulevard • Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 • (707) 588-2226 • FAX: (707) 588-2263 • WEB: www.rpcity.org SEP22801 テストオール デート 来15分 CITY OF September 16, 2003 SANTA ROSA OFFICE OF THE CITY Santa Rosa Avenue Post Office Box 1678 P.O. Box 5109 Santa Rosa, CA 95402-1678 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 707-543-3010 Fax: 707-543-3030 Subject: Response to 2002-2003 Grand Jury Report Recommendations Regarding Prevailing Wages Dear Members of the Grand Jury: In the Final Report of the 2002-2003 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury, every Sonoma County city has been asked to respond to
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The District has a legal process that provides for exemptions and refunds, which was properly adopted by the District Board as described below. With advice of counsel, the District implemented a claims procedure to correct incidents of erroneous taxation. Taxpayers who can submit satisfactory proof that the number of parcels attributed to them is inaccurate; that the tax was levied as a result of a clerical error; or that his or her parcel is in fact exempt under state or local law may be relieved from the erroneous taxation. Also, taxpayers who can prove that they are indigent may be immediately relieved from the obligation to pay the parcel tax pursuant to the California State Controller Property Tax Postponement Program. None of these were required to be stated as exemptions in the original ballot measure. Our claims process was properly adopted and complies with California Government Code section 900 et seq. The relevant sections do not require that the local public entity adopt a claims process by resolution. In conformance with the District's bylaws, the claims process was approved by motion at a regularly held and public meeting on March 6, 2002. Approval of the process by motion is completely permissible: "[T]he minute order or motion is appropriate when the action is not of a penal nature or intended to be a local law, an ordinance or resolution is not specifically required, or a formal document reflecting the body's actions is not necessary." (League of California Cities, The California Law Municipal Handbook (2000 ed.) page II-26.) Owned and operated by the Palm Drive Health Care District The Honorable Allan Hardcastle September 5, 2003 Since receiving the Grand Jury's report we have asked our attorneys to review our claims exemption process with the Grand Jury's findings in mind. They have advised us that the process complies fully with the claims statutes found in the Government Code and was properly adopted by the District.
R2:
The District should include exemption criteria in future tax measures. The District will of course take the Grand Jury's recommendation under advisement and will consider including exemptions in future tax measures. We wish to express our thanks to the Grand Jury for its considered analysis of the situation and thoughtful recommendations on how we can better serve our community. Respectfully submitted, Nami Fuche/x Naomi Fuchs, President Board of Directors Palm Drive Health Care District
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F2:
Contract awarding bodies are left with the decision whether to monitor proper wage payment, or to allow the burden of monitoring to be on the contractors and labor organizations. Response: State law places the burden for monitoring a project subject to the State's prevailing wage laws on the awarding body.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The California Department of Industrial Relations shall work closely with public agencies to redesign it's wage enforcement protocol, which is seriously lacking. Response: The Labor Commissioner's enforcement protocol is primarily driven by the requirements of the prevailing wage Hon. Allan Hardcastle August 20, 2002 . statutes. The DLSE is responsible for statewide enforcement of labor standards on prevailing wage projects, which necessarily involves working with representatives of awarding bodies in most cities and counties in this State. Those standards have recently been redesigned within the parameters allowed due to the Department's dwindling resources. The DLSE does not agree that the Department's enforcement protocol is lacking, but is very interested in working with representatives of Sonoma County who have any suggestions.
F3:
Enforcement of the Prevailing Wage Law is carried out by the State Department of Industrial Relations. Response: Various Divisions within the State Department of Industrial Relations are responsible for carrying out the provisions of the State's prevailing wage laws. For example the Division of Labor Statistics and Research (DLSR) conducts surveys to assist in a determination of the proper prevailing wage by category of worker and geographic area. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement is responsible for investigating claims that workers on projects, subject to the Prevailing Wage laws, are paid in accordance with those provisions. The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations is responsible for setting the prevailing wage by county and category of worker; determining whether a project is covered by the prevailing wage laws; and holding hearings to determine violations of the labor standards provisions of the prevailing wage laws, brought by DLSE.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Fines and penalties for infractions of prevailing wage laws should be, at minimum, doubled from their current amounts to discourage noncompliance. Response: The level of fines prescribed in the prevailing wage laws are set by statute. Neither the DLSE nor the DIR has the authority to increase those fines and penalties. Any such changes would require legislative action.
F4:
The statute allows only 180 days from the "notice" of completion" of a project to conclude any wage investigation. Response: The statute of limitations, for DLSE to a wage and penalty assessment for violation of labor standards laws on a project subject to the prevailing wage laws is 180 days from the filing of a valid notice of completion with the recorder's office in each county where work on that project was performed, or 180 days after acceptance of the projects whichever occurs last. This time deadline is extended by another 180 days if the awarding body is still holding funds payable to a contractor allegedly in violation. Then the wage and penalty assessment can still be issued up to the total of the funds withheld. (See California Labor Code §1741) Note: Even if the Grand Jury's finding was completely correct, the limitations period for enforcement is not as short as it seems. In many cases, claims for violations of labor standards laws occurring during the course of the project are filed and Hon. Allan Hardcastle August 20, 2002 . can be addressed prior to completion of the project.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
California Department of Industrial Relations shall provide the citizens of Sonoma County with ongoing up-to-date, investigation statistics via their website. Response: DLSE would like to have the capability of posting all statistics regarding the processing of prevailing wage cases, on our website, available to members of the public, including Sonoma County. However, at this time, given the constraints imposed by the recent budget reductions, implementation of any such plan would have to be some time in the future. At this time, the DLSE has a data base program, working on a partial basis, tracking some of the cases and statistics in the area of prevailing wage investigations. If you have any questions, or if the Department can be of further assistance in evaluating the Grand Jury Report, please let us know. Very Truly Yours,
F5:
Department of Industrial Relations records show that between January 1, 2000 and September 15, 2002 Eighty-nine investigations have been reported pertaining to agencies in Sonoma County as follows: _50% are "Under Investigation" _26% are "Statute Expired" _14% are "Wages or Penalties Paid" _10% are "No Violations" Response: It is difficult for DLSE to respond to these statistics, as there is no explanation contained in the report indicating their source. If more information could be provided, such as the details for the 26% where the "statute expired" a more meaningful response might be possible. For example, how much time was left on the statute when the complaint was filed? Was the complaint filed before the expiration of the statute of limitations? What, if any, investigation had DLSE undertaken during the statute period? What was the type of violation, and scope with respect to numbers of workers involved and severity? With respect to the 50% "under investigation" DLSE believes that this would represent a very high percentage of response given the Labor Commissioner's resources and the high numbers of claims received. As these cases are finalized, the numbers in the "wages and penalties paid" and "no violations found" categories will increase. Response to Recommendations
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Every public Department in Sonoma County shall actively monitor and review payroll records for accurate wage payment, and fully comply with the law by notifying the DIR whenever non-compliance is encountered. Response: The State Labor Commissioner certainly agrees with this recommendation and only adds that the sooner notification of a potential violation is received from an awarding body, the better chance DLSE has to promptly investigate and remedy any violations.
Recomendaciones adicionales
6
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
All bid invitations and public works contracts shall contain appropriate language concerning the requirements of Section 1771.5(b) of the Labor Code.
R2:
A prejob conference shall be conducted with the contractor and subcontractors to discuss federal and state labor law requirements applicable to the contract.
R3:
Project contractors and subcontractors shall maintain and furnish, at a designated time, a certified copy of each weekly payroll containing a statement of compliance signed under penalty of perjury.
R4:
The awarding body shall review, and, if appropriate, audit payroll records to verify compliance with this chapter.
R5:
The awarding body shall withhold contract payments when payroll records are delinquent or inadequate.
R6:
The awarding body shall withhold contract payments equal to the amount of underpayment and applicable penalties when, after investigation, it is established that underpayment has occurred. The net result of the adoption of such Programs will be that the County Superintendent and the Districts or their consultants will be monitoring contractors' certified payroll and will be fulfilling the requirements of their Labor Compliance Programs for projects funded by State 2002 and 2004 bond funds. Again, we must stress that the State Allocation Board has recognized that Labor Compliance programs are costly and, for that reason, additional funding from Proposition 47 Bonds has been added to project budgets to cover the costs of these programs. In addition, after spending considerable time in studying, amending and adopting Labor Compliance Programs, a majority of the Districts, including the County Superintendent, have determined that they do not have the staff with expertise to comply with the requirements of a Labor Compliance Program. The County Superintendent on behalf of the Sonoma County Office of Education and the Districts and through a request for proposal process has selected a third party provider with the expertise to assist the County Office and districts with their Labor Compliance Programs. The Honorable Mark Tansil Presiding Judge Superior Court of California August 6, 2003 Conclusion: While, the County Superintendent and the Districts are legally required and have the requisite funding to meet the Grand Jury's Recommendation R1 for construction projects funded pursuant to Proposition 47 bonds, this implementation of the Recommendation for Proposition 47 projects was not due to the Grand Jury investigation, and, in fact, was accomplished prior to the publication of Grand Jury Report, but was due to changes in the law. The County Superintendent and the Districts were not required to monitor and review payroll records during the period of the Grand Jury investigation. The County Superintendent and the Districts have never turned a "blind eye" to prevailing wage issues and have always used their best efforts to comply with the law. While it may be reasonable to expect that the proliferation of Labor Compliance Programs will make contractors more aware of prevailing wage issues, for non- Proposition 47 funded projects there continues to be no legal requirement for the County Superintendent and the Districts to monitor and review certified payroll nor, in a time of shrinking budgets, is it likely that money would be taken from education programs for this purpose. The County Superintendent and the Districts will continue to follow the law by providing notice of labor law requirements in their contracts, making records available on request, notifying DIR whenever non-compliance is encountered and to cooperating with DIR to the fullest. However, with the exception of projects subject to a Labor Compliance Program, they will not be able comply with the Grand Jury's recommendation that they actively monitor and review payroll records. Very truly yours,
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
17 hallazgos
F1:
Misdemeanor and juvenile caseloads in the Sonoma County Public Defender’s Office are more than double caseload acceptability standards recommended by national organizations such as the American Bar Association and the U.S. Bureau of Justice.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
Public Defender management should involve all employees in evaluating current workloads and determining the most effective department structure, staffing and case assignment process to avoid exceeding recommended standards. The Board of Supervisors should support their efforts.
R6:
The Public Defender’s office should use a time-record method to reevaluate individual 7 attorney workloads to meet the standards set by defender organizations and improve representation of indigent clients. The information systems department should support this effort.
F2:
Representation and trial fees Sonoma County courts use to determine repayment by defendants were last revised in 1999 and are considerably lower than those used by other counties surveyed.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The Public Defender should update the fee schedule in place at least since 1997, so that it is in line with fees of comparable counties.
F3:
The County Office of Collections checks only 20-25% of indigent clients’ financial evaluation forms for accuracy of reported assets.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Public Defender and the Director of Collections should implement a process that provides a more rigorous examination of financial data using asset and credit checks to ensure those who can pay for their defense do so.
F4:
Eighteen counties responded to our external survey, and fifteen of those have a Public Defender’s Office. Sonoma County is one of only three respondents that does not have a written performance review policy; it is the only one of those 15 that does not require an annual evaluation throughout an employee’s career.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The Public Defender should create and implement basic policies and procedures for the office including one for performance evaluations and ensure that managers personally observe those they evaluate.
F5:
The Public Defender’s Office does not have data available to measure workload for each attorney accurately.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
Public Defender management should involve all employees in evaluating current workloads and determining the most effective department structure, staffing and case assignment process to avoid exceeding recommended standards. The Board of Supervisors should support their efforts.
R6:
The Public Defender’s office should use a time-record method to reevaluate individual 7 attorney workloads to meet the standards set by defender organizations and improve representation of indigent clients. The information systems department should support this effort.
F6:
The Public Defender defines each new crime per defendant (with possible multiple charges) as one “case.” He does not know whether courts, district attorney, and contract attorneys use the same definition of a “case.” This makes it difficult to report accurately the number of criminal “cases” in Sonoma County and the ensuing costs to our citizens.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
The Public Defender should partner with the courts, the district attorney’s office and contract attorneys to develop a case definition that all use uniformly.
F7:
The department lacks basic management systems and written procedures which would make it more effective.
F8:
Annual department goals as stated in the budget are not specific, time-based or measurable.
F9:
Total costs for indigent representation in FY2001-2 were $6,504,660; of that, $1,018,369 was paid by the County to private attorneys representing indigent clients; the remainder was the Public Defender’s budget.
F10:
The Public Defender’s Office employees enjoy a remarkably high level of cooperation and mutual support.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
The Public Defender should use the good news in this report to formally recognize his excellent staff and celebrate their achievements. Required Responses to Findings Public Defender, F1, F4, F8, F10, F12, F15 Director of Collections, F3 Director of Human Resources, F4, F13 Board of Supervisors, F8 Required Responses to Recommendations Public Defender, R1 through R4 and R6 through R11 Director of Human Resources, R5 Director of County Collections, R3 Director of Information Services, R6 District Attorney, R7 Court Administrator, R7 Board of Supervisors, R1, R9 Director of Mental Health, R9 8 PUBLIC DEFENDER SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS
F11:
The performance review form for attorneys lists performance standards important to effective representation. However, many of those standards are most accurately evaluated by personal observation and file review by the reviewer. Such observations and reviews by managers rarely occur.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The Public Defender should create and implement basic policies and procedures for the office including one for performance evaluations and ensure that managers personally observe those they evaluate.
F12:
“Civil service” is the reason most frequently given for being unable to terminate consistently poor performers in the Public Defender’s Office, and the only consequence for poor performance is being moved to a different (sometimes easier) assignment.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The Sonoma County Human Resources Department should revise their processes and performance and understand and use progressive discipline when appropriate.
F13:
The forms distributed by the county personnel office do guide managers through a progressive discipline process. However, the process outlined on the discipline form focuses on “infringements” and “incidents” rather than poor performance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The Sonoma County Human Resources Department should revise their processes and performance and understand and use progressive discipline when appropriate.
F14:
There are no paralegal professionals employed by the Public Defender’s Office.
F15:
Attorneys are required by the State Bar to complete 24 hours of training each year. While additional training is available, travel time and seminar length preclude staff with heavy caseloads from taking full advantage of the dollars allocated and the opportunities to advance their knowledge. Investigators indicated they do not receive training after they are hired. There is no formal training system for department employees.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
The Department should create a formal training process that is managed by a senior attorney and includes all employees.
F16:
Mental health professionals are not readily available to assist attorneys with the growing number of clients with mental health issues.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
The Public Defender’s office supported by the Board of Supervisors and the Mental Health Department should retain the service of a full-time mental health professional.
F17:
The department has only a part-time interpreter; respondents indicate that this is 3 inadequate to serve client needs. Conclusions Caseloads/Workloads The Jury sought to evaluate the quality of service provided to indigent clients by the Sonoma County Public Defender’s Office. One element that impacts quality representation is the caseload (the number of cases) managed by individual attorneys. Caseload recommendations for Public Defender attorneys were developed by the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals in 1973. Those
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
The Public Defender’s office should provide full-time interpreter services.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
11 hallazgos
F1:
With a few notable exceptions, charter schools have avoided the higher costs associated with special education students, while still receiving the same funding per 2 student as the general population. This shifts an ever-increasing burden onto non- charter schools.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The Sonoma County Office of Education and/or school districts should develop a more equitable way to fund special education needs across all schools and to recognize the higher costs associated with educating special education students. Required Responses to Findings Charter Schools: F1, F5, and F8 County Superintendent of Schools: F1 and F2 Required Responses to Recommendations Charter Schools: R1, R2, R3 and R4 4
F2:
Charter schools are not accredited at the present time. In 2002 the California Network of Educational Charters (CANEC) announced that they were going to champion a system of accreditation for charter schools. A pilot program, in conjunction with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), has been put in place.
F3:
Some of the leaders of Sonoma County’s charter schools have expressed opinions against large, separate middle schools because the transition from elementary to middle school may be too difficult for some students. By 2004 seven of the county charter schools will have middle school grades added to their elementary schools.
F4:
The Charter Schools Act of 1992 calls for vigorous competition within the public school system by means of the challenge of charter schools. The reasoning is that academic competition can lead to reform. As an example, Santa Rosa city schools are beginning accelerated courses in science, English and social studies in one of their middle schools as a response to competition from charter schools planned by the Rincon Valley Union School District.
F5:
Educators in Sonoma County are trying to abandon the academic competitive model of charter versus traditional public schools and are moving toward mutual cooperation in public education. Some charter schools are now meeting with non-charter schools to share their innovative teaching methods.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The staff of each charter school should implement a process of regular meetings with the staffs of charter schools and non-charter schools to share ideas, curriculum and innovative teaching methods.
F6:
Certain Sonoma County charter schools are fulfilling specific educational niches. These special programs include teaching children from families in crisis, immersing children in foreign language instruction, running an international accelerated program (International Baccalaureate Primary Years Program), coordinating individualized instruction for home-schooled children, and using the Waldorf methods to integrate core academics with the creative and performing arts.
F7:
Committed parental involvement is part of the charter school contract. Parents must sign a commitment agreement with the school to enroll their child. This strong interaction of parents with the teachers and staff of the school has been a constant of the charter school movement.
F8:
The majority of charter schools have not provided accountability systems for measuring student progress beyond those of the standardized Academic Performance Index (API).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
All county charter schools should join the California Network of Educational Charters (CANEC) to take advantage of that resource.
R4:
Educational leaders should gather and publish data, more than just test scores, which would enable the public to understand whether charter schools are improving pupil learning.
F9:
Roseland Accelerated Middle School is an example of a school that caters to low- achieving students in an area that is economically below the city average and with a large population of students who are not native English speakers. The school serves seventh and eighth grades with a very close connection to Sheppard Elementary School.
F10:
The Sonoma County Office of Education and school districts each have responsibilities in the oversight of charter schools. Charter schools are required to provide their district board with regular reports. Sonoma County charter schools meet this requirement. 3
F11:
The Sonoma County Office of Education monitors the finances of charter schools. This is labor-intensive since some schools require more oversight than others. Conclusions Of the four initial goals of the Charter Schools Act of 1992, one, “performance-based accountability systems”, has not been achieved by Sonoma County Charter Schools. Some progress has been made on the three other goals, “special emphasis on the academically low achieving”, “the use of different and innovative teaching methods” and “vigorous competition within the public school system to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools.” Charter schools claim that they can improve the educational experience for the children they serve. Until they are able to provide data in addition to standard paper and pencil testing for evaluating educational performance, this claim is difficult to substantiate. Charter schools offer teaching modes that are tailored to children who do not thrive in standard school settings. They emphasize parental involvement as part of their “contract” while non-charter schools can only request that parents become involved. Strong parental involvement is the hallmark and strength of the charter school movement.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R3:
County charter schools should continue to promote their schools with events open to the public.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
The Department of Child Services (DCSS) determines the level of child-support payments for each client by means of a computer program called Disso Master. This allows the agency greater flexibility in determining an equitable payment in contrast to a standard payment system used by the previous Family Support Division.
F2:
The DCSS has the authority and power to secure child-support payments from non- custodial parents if there is resistance. This includes the loss of licenses such as vehicle or professional licenses, liens against IRS payments and even the threat of incarceration. These procedures are usually very effective in obtaining payments from non-custodial parents. However, because of the size of the debt incurred, including arrearages, the support order may result in angry clients that can lead to further family disruption.
F3:
The interest charge on unpaid child support was revised in 1983 and set at the current rate of 10%. This charge for all California State civil judgments is set in the California Code of Civil Procedures, section 685.010. Interest fees go to the custodial parent unless there are unpaid debts to the public sector for family assistance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
All agencies involved with child-support collections should pressure the California State Legislature to reduce the interest collected on default child-support payments to a more equitable amount. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Sonoma County Board of Supervisors: R1 Director of Child Support Services: R1 Commissioner of Child Support Services: R1 3
F4:
The agency is currently collecting 60% of delinquent child-support payments. The state has mandated a 2% increase in the collection rate even though the rise or fall of the amount collected is mostly dependent on the state of the economy. If the family has been receiving public assistance, the child-support payment goes to the family up to the amount ordered by the courts. Any money above that is used to repay any public assistance.
F5:
When the Department of Child Support Services is determining child-support payments, it has no authority to change child custody unless the parents reach an agreement through an agency-sponsored mediation. If no agreement is reached on such custody issues, the parents must open a case at the Family Law Court.
F6:
DCSS has extensive documentation and explanations in both English and Spanish of the required procedures in the form of letters to parents and brochures that detail the work of the agency. DCSS follows strict time lines allowing 180 days from the opening of a case until the order for payment is released. Once the agency receives the support payment it must be forwarded to the custodial parent within 48 hours. 2
F7:
The Department of Child Support Services has continued the contract with the California Parenting Institute (CPI) to provide court-ordered classes to help build parenting skills for the non-custodial parent. This includes free legal support, classes in anger management and communication skills, and assistance in finding employment through the Parent Involvement and Employment Program (PIEP). Understanding the parenting role and becoming employed facilitates the payments of child support. Conclusions The 10% interest charged on all civil judgments, including default support payments, was logical when increased in July 1983 from 7% to 10%, but seems excessive in today’s interest rate structure. It is also unreasonable to believe that the legislature will reduce that rate in the current economic climate without continued pressure from governmental bodies including Child Support Services. The Department of Child Support Services is serving its primary clients, the children of Sonoma County, by enforcing the collection of child-support payments. These payments are now more equitably correlated with the financial status of the parent. In addition, the agency is attempting to help the parent feel more responsible about his or her obligations, both financial and social, by the parenting skills training and assistance they receive.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
11 hallazgos
F1:
The Detective Bureau manager is considered by staff to be straightforward, professional, accessible, and fair.
F2:
Approximately one-third of Detective Bureau staff have Bachelor Degrees and the average law-enforcement experience is approximately fourteen years. Continuing education is encouraged.
F3:
Written performance evaluations are given only every two years after probation and the reviews do not include documentation of poor performance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Develop a mechanism which ensures that written evaluations are accurate and reflect actual performance, poor as well as good.
F4:
Performance expectations and how well they are being met are verbally communicated at both Bureau and Unit levels.
F5:
Staff perceives that it is difficult to discipline or remove poor performers after the probation period.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Develop and implement a process for removing employees for poor performance during and after the probation period.
F6:
Individual commendations from upper management are handled impersonally (handed down through chain of command).
F7:
Morale and communication were reported as excellent within units but not the overall Bureau.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Establish quarterly Bureau-wide communication meetings conducted by Sheriff and/or Assistant Sheriff-Law Enforcement Division.
F8:
When an extreme emergency arose in one unit, detectives from other units were assigned to help. After the emergency, these detectives returned to their accumulated backlog and the inter-unit cooperation quickly faded.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
Strengthen the use of integrated teams and include members from Bureau units and key law enforcement officials from outside the Bureau such as a Deputy District Attorney. Responses Required to Findings Sheriff: F11 Responses Required to Recommendations Sonoma County Director of Human Resources: R2, R3, and R6 District Attorney: R7 Sheriff: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7
F9:
The detective selection process has allowed several detectives to be appointed who were found not capable of meeting their job requirements.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Overhaul and strengthen tests (add written component) and apply objective criteria to determine how well suited an applicant is for detective work.
F10:
There is a widely held misperception that Bureau management expects and requires all detectives to transfer out of the Bureau after three years.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
Establish and implement a written Bureau policy regarding detective tenure.
F11:
When asked, employees frequently mentioned the following as ways to improve the operation of the Bureau: 1. Change the work week to four ten-hour days 2. Provide additional specialized training 3. Improve intra unit communication both professionally and socially 4. Increase interaction with “Top Brass” 5. Encourage detectives to stay longer than three years in the Bureau (e.g. go to another unit or to a mentoring role for new detectives). 6. Base promotion on “what you know not whom you know”. Conclusions Several challenges must be addressed effectively by unit and Bureau management and supported by Division and Department management if the Sheriff’s Department is to fulfill its community obligation for public safety. Those challenges are listed below. Detective Selection A few detectives have been selected who did not perform to the high standards expected of Bureau staff. This was verified by observations from within the Bureau and alluded to in accusations in citizen complaints. It is the Jury’s opinion that more rigorous entrance tests likely would have enhanced the objectivity and success of the hiring process. Detective Performance Management The Jury found that one-on-one verbal coaching for improved performance is effective. However, the implementation of the written performance evaluation system has two serious flaws: (1) Poor performance is not reflected in the evaluations and (2) counseling and reprimand letters do not appear in personnel files. Although the current system allows management to fulfill their disciplinary responsibility, management does not use it. The Jury also found that the Bureau is not adequately aggressive in disciplining and removing detectives who do not meet performance standards, beginning with the probationary period and continuing through their tenure. Detective Tenure The first six months after becoming a detective is a probationary period. A detective who “passes” the probation period is considered by management to be capable of working effectively for the next two and one half years and will seldom be transferred out of the Bureau except for a policy violation. The detective is expected to complete the full three years as a detective. After the third year, Bureau management can choose to transfer the detective to a different organization if it seems appropriate and similarly the detective can choose to transfer elsewhere. There is no written policy as to whether a detective is to stay or leave after three years. Sheriff Interaction Bureau employees indicate that the Sheriff and the Assistant Sheriff of the Law Enforcement Division should interact more frequently with staff.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
Establish and implement objective promotion standards
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
The Board of Supervisors regularly meets at 8:30 A.M. on Tuesdays. The agenda is available in advance (typically by the Thursday preceding the meeting) on the Internet at the County’s web site, www.sonoma-county.org, and in the Board’s office.
F2:
The Board usually meets for an unspecified period of time, occasionally only for a few minutes, before going into closed session. The public meeting then resumes, usually at 2:00 P.M.
F3:
Based on the agenda, it is frequently not possible to determine when a particular item will be discussed.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should change the format and timing of its meetings to encourage public attendance and participation.
R2:
Include time for public comment in the agenda the week before an item is voted on. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Board of Supervisors: R1, R2
F4:
Many similar local government bodies, such as the Santa Rosa City Council, have their regular meetings in the late afternoon or evening making it convenient for the public to attend.
F5:
The Board was observed to be courteous and receptive to members of the public wishing to speak. Conclusions The Board meetings are well-managed by the President. The only concern of this Jury, and it is a major concern, is that the time and format of the meetings is not at all conducive to public attendance or participation. Citizens are unable to determine when during the day a particular issue will be before the Board, so interested persons must take the entire day off from work, making participation in the process extremely difficult. For example, since the Board and the Grand Jury meet at the same time during the day, it was necessary for that juror to miss at least part of the Jury meeting; therefore, it was generally not feasible for more than one juror to attend the Board meeting. The Jury recognizes that scheduling the meetings during the day and not adhering to a strictly defined schedule is convenient to the Board, but believes that this does not justify a format that discourages citizen participation. This creates the impression that the Board is not interested in citizen input. The Jury urges the Board to give serious consideration to changes which encourage public participation, such as scheduling late afternoon or evening sessions. The Board should also make it possible for citizens to know when a particular issue will be discussed. The agenda items should be reserved for the beginning or end of the meeting.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should change the format and timing of its meetings to encourage public attendance and participation.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
Initial Grand Jury inquiries into different county-wide agency’s interpretations of prevailing wage laws indicated that there is a lack of understanding of the law.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Every public agency in Sonoma County shall actively monitor and review payroll records for accurate wage payment, and fully comply with the law by notifying the DIR whenever non-compliance is encountered.
F2:
Contract awarding bodies are left with the decision whether to monitor proper wage payment, or to allow the burden of monitoring to be on contractors and labor organizations.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The California Department of Industrial Relations shall work closely with public agencies to redesign its wage enforcement protocol, which is seriously lacking.
F3:
Enforcement of Prevailing Wage Law is carried out by the State Department of Industrial Relations.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Fines and penalties for infractions of prevailing wage laws should be, at minimum, doubled from their current amounts to discourage non-compliance.
F4:
The statute allows only 180 days from “notice of completion” of a project to conclude any wage investigation.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
California Department of Industrial Relations shall provide citizens of Sonoma County with ongoing, up-to-date, investigation statistics via their website. Required Responses to Findings Director, California Department of Industrial Relations: F5 Requested Responses to Recommendations Director, California Department of Industrial Relations: R2, R3, and R4 Required Responses to Recommendations Sonoma County Board of Supervisors: R1 Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools: R1 All District (County-wide) School Boards: R1 Cloverdale City Council: R1 Cotati City Council: R1 Healdsburg City Council: R1 Petaluma City Council: R1 Rohnert Park City Council: R1 Santa Rosa City Council: R1 Sebastopol City Council: R1 Sonoma City Council: R1 Windsor Town Council: R1
F5:
Department of Industrial Relations records show that between January 1, 2000 and September 15, 2002, Eighty-nine investigations have been reported pertaining to agencies in Sonoma County as follows; ~50% are “Under Investigation” ~26% are “Statute Expired” ~14% are “Wages or Penalties Paid” ~10% are “No Violations” Conclusions The ultimate burden of enforcement of prevailing wage law falls on the State Department of Industrial Relations. The DIR seems unable to adequately enforce the law, having nearly one quarter of all its cases expire because no resolution was reached in the statutory timeframe of 180 days. Individual agency interpretation of prevailing wage laws vary widely in Sonoma County. Some agencies would rather turn a “blind eye” to wage payment in project management than monitor their contractors because it fosters (in their minds) a “better working relationship” with their contractors and because monitoring pay records is additional work and cost to the agency. Other agencies consider careful monitoring of contractor wage payment an integral part of “prudent project management”. This spectrum of understanding of the prevailing wage law by awarding bodies unfortunately seems commonplace. The overall integrity of the public project bidding process relies largely on consistent wage payment protocol. A failure to monitor and enforce this law compromises the fairness and equity in spending of the public tax dollar. The goal of this report is to incite widespread discussion and development of an overall protocol change, so that the system can begin working consistently for the people of Sonoma County.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
“Revolving door” policies are in place in the following jurisdictions: • United States Federal Government • The State of California • Numerous counties in California including Alameda, Inyo, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, Solano, and Riverside • Various cities and Special Districts in California.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should adopt a written policy restricting the ability of county officers and employees to conduct business with any former officer or employee for a period of one year after leaving county employ. Such a policy should be drafted to prohibit dealings that represent a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest without restricting the individual’s ability to pursue legitimate business interests. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendation Board of Supervisors: R1
F2:
While varying in time limitations (one year, two years, etc.) these policies, having the force of law, all restrict dealings with former officers and employees.
F3:
Carefully constructed policies can prohibit activities that represent conflict of interest without broadly restricting the ex-officer’s or ex-employee’s ability to engage in his/her trade or profession.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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). The Supervisor’s response to this recommendation was: “The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. A ‘revolving door policy’ is an unduly burdensome restraint on an individual’s ability to engage in his/her trade or business upon leaving county employment.” Investigative Procedures The 2002-2003 Grand Jury: 1. Conducted a survey of the 58 counties of California to determine how many counties have some type of “revolving door” policy. 2. Reviewed the State of California policy defined in Government Code 87406. 3. Interviewed County Counsel.
F4:
The Board’s contention that such policies are “not reasonable” or are “unduly burdensome” is not supported by the fact that such policies are the law and custom in numerous and widespread jurisdictions. Conclusions The Grand Jury believes that a “revolving door” policy can significantly reduce actual or perceived conflict of interest, and enhance citizens’ confidence in the actions of government. The Grand Jury has no intention of suggesting a policy that would “unduly interfere with one’s trade or business”, but believes that the Board of Supervisors, working with County Counsel and using other jurisdiction’s policies as models, can draft a policy that prohibits dealings that represent a conflict of interest without interfering with an individual’s right to pursue legitimate business interests.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
Although legislation does not require it, selection of Deputy Marriage Commissioners has been restricted to current and former county employees only. General citizens are restricted from taking the training and thus cannot take advantage of this income- producing position. The reason stated by County Clerk for this restriction is ease of supervision and an ability to control accuracy of the documents.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
All interested and qualified citizens should be allowed to receive the training, acquire the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Marriages title, and be added to the list of available Deputy Marriage Commissioners to perform marriages in this county. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations County Clerk: R1 Board of Supervisors: R1 1
F2:
The stated reason for allowing county employees to keep all of the money is that it enables the county to avoid paying any overtime or arranging adjusted work schedules if the employee performs these marriages outside regular work hours.
F3:
The Deputy Marriage Commissioners voluntarily cover after hours and weekend duty on a rotational basis and a list is maintained and available at the County Clerks office.
F4:
In the past, the County Clerks office has provided training for citizens who want to become a “Deputy Commissioner for a Day”, in order to perform marriage ceremonies for their friends. The County Clerks office plans to provide this training again this year, by midsummer, but only for a one-day certificate. These one-day Deputy Marriage Commissioner candidates will have to pay the county for this training. This money will go into the County General Fund. County employees who receive this training, do so on county time, and pay no fee.
F5:
County facilities cannot be used by Deputy Marriage Commissioners for ceremonies after regular business hours. Conclusions Due to the considerable income generated, restricting the performance of marriage ceremonies to county employees and prior employees creates the appearance of preferential treatment. Opportunities to perform ceremonies are not available to all citizens of Sonoma County. County employees are trained on County time and allowed to acquire additional income while off duty, but the average citizen has to pay for the one-day certificate.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
All interested and qualified citizens should be allowed to receive the training, acquire the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Marriages title, and be added to the list of available Deputy Marriage Commissioners to perform marriages in this county. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations County Clerk: R1 Board of Supervisors: R1 1
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
The Department of Mental Health provides services for the following populations of young people up to the age of 22: • Children in public schools who are in special education programs and need mental health assistance to be able to continue their education. • Children in the Medi-Cal or Healthy Families insurance programs who are dependents of the county. • Children in the juvenile justice system. • Children from the school special education programs who are classified as severely emotionally disturbed (SED) with a mental impairment and who need very concentrated services. • Any child in an acute emotional crisis who requires immediate emergency assessment and possible hospitalization.
F2:
The Department of Mental Health provides the following services for minors; • In the more restrictive special education programs of the public schools, staff from the Department of Mental Health help evaluate the child’s needs and are part of the team planning the child’s Individual Education Program (IEP). The goal of the IEP is to allow the child to continue his/her education. 2 • Under the mandates of AB 3632 referral, a severely disturbed child is eligible for therapy, counseling, and medication if needed. He/she attends school in a separate dedicated classroom with a staff of trained educators, psychologists, and therapists in attendance. This is an expensive program whose cost is shared by the Department of Mental Health and the Sonoma County Office of Education. • The Department of Mental Health has a grant to treat 30 severely emotionally disturbed children in a very intensive behavior modification program. These children have been assessed as being able to benefit from the program. The staff works with the children in a school setting and with the children’s families. The results from this program are dramatic; these children seldom mature into adults with mental illness, and the improvement in their mental health generally happens very quickly. The State of California is cutting funding for this program. • The Department of Mental Health provides counseling and medication, if needed, for the young people in the juvenile justice system. This program is not funded by the Department of Mental Health but is paid for by the Sonoma County Juvenile Probation Department. • Children who are residents of the Valley of the Moon Children’s home, in foster care or living in group homes, are dependents of the county and are entitled to the services of the Mental Health Department. • All children in acute crisis can be seen at Norton Psychiatric Emergency Services. If they are assessed as needing hospitalization, the department will try to find a bed in a designated hospital outside of the county. Even though the patient may have private insurance, the Department of Mental Health must guarantee payment to the hospital if the patient’s insurance fails to honor the claim.
F3:
The Department of Mental Health is financially dependent on the State of California. It receives 90% of its funds from the state and only 1% from the county. The annual budget for Youth Services is about $12.5 million. By the end of this fiscal year (July 2003) about $3.6 million of that budget is projected to be in arrears. The major loss from the State is the funding suspension for the mandated services (AB3632) for children in special education programs and the lack of reimbursement of 70% for Medi-Cal billing. Since July 1, 2002, health plans and insurers have been required to provide parity in benefits for mental health disorders on the same basis as physical health disorders. However, since this parity was legislated, the percentage of claims paid by private insurers has decreased by 43%. Last year only 4.4% of the $ 2.3 million billed to commercial insurance by the Department of Mental Health was recovered.
F4:
If the funding were adequate, the Department of Mental Health would provide services for every child in the county who needs help. Their wish list includes a hospital for those acutely ill with emotional problems, a program of early intervention and a mobile service unit which could respond very quickly to children in crisis.
F5:
The losses in both current and future funding mean that every child who is mandated to be served will continue to be seen, but the services will be diminished. 3
F6:
The Juvenile Justice Commission reports that the mental health treatment of young people transferring from county detention to a group home is often inadequate at a time of great instability for the child.
F7:
The Department of Mental Health treats about 2400 children a year, of which 470 are labeled as severely emotionally disturbed and receive the most concentrated services In 2002 they saw 300 acutely ill children at the emergency clinic of whom 160 required hospitalization.
F8:
There are many children who do not receive mental health treatment. These include children who do not qualify for any of the services offered by the Department of Mental Health. There are older adolescents who are at risk for suicide or depression whose symptoms may be difficult to recognize. Many families simply do not know where to turn when their children need help. Conclusions Certain defined populations of children receive the benefits of the therapeutic programs of the Department of Mental Health. Special education students with moderate problems get help that allows them to continue their education. Some of the more severely affected students are treated in concentrated programs that can thwart the onset of mental illness. Outside the school system, county dependents or juveniles in detention receive some therapy. All young people can be seen as emergency patients. The early intervention in treatment of severely disturbed children often reduces the development of mental illness. Early treatment is economically sound as well as socially responsible. Children who are not treated sufficiently are more apt to become adults with a long term mental illness than children who do get adequate treatment. Adults with mental illness often add to the problems of homelessness and poverty at a great social and financial cost to the public. There is a large population of young people not covered by these programs. They must find diagnosis and treatment from private therapists or psychiatrists. Yet many of these families have no information about what programs might be available for their child or where to find treatment in the private sector. Often when they need this information, there is a crisis with the child and intervention is needed immediately. The lack of funding for youth services in the Department of Mental Health will damage the programs now in effect and may render the department ineffectual in the near future. Without a more solid fiscal base, plans such as an in-patient hospitalization facility, mobile teams to treat youth in crisis, or early intervention programs will never become a reality. Commendation The Grand Jury commends the Department of Mental Health and the public school system of Sonoma County for their working partnership treating children identified as severely disturbed. Such a partnership is not common throughout the state. 4
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R1:
The Department of Mental Health should oversee the production and distribution of a comprehensive informational brochure for those families in the private sector who do not know where to get help for their disturbed or mentally ill teens or children. A list of resources should include these items; • Professional therapists • Family support groups such as the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill • Patient support groups through Interlink • Peer counseling groups such as the one for pre-suicidal teens called “Reach Out to Someone” • Non-profit agencies such as Social Advocates for Youth, which offer information and telephone numbers for the many teen “Help Hot-Lines”
R2:
Sonoma County should subsidize the printing and distribution costs of this informational brochure.
R3:
Since the Department of Mental Health is already short-staffed, it is recommended that the department explore the possibility of having a student at the college or graduate level undertake the project as an intern or as a thesis subject or seek community volunteers. Required Responses to Findings Department of Mental Health: F5 and F6 Required Responses to Recommendations Department of Mental Health: R1 and R3 Board of Supervisors: R2 5
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
Contract company dispatchers are required by EMS to use the flip-card system to give medical advice. It is used nationally and has been reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Medical Officer who can modify it as desired.
F2:
As stated in PRINCIPLES OF EMD, the U. S. National Institute of Health has found the use of the flip- card system to be superior to dispatchers using ad lib advice. Dispatchers are required to follow the card-file system exactly as written.
F3:
Dispatchers are required to get two cross streets from a caller and must dispatch emergency vehicles within 60 seconds of receiving that call. They then return to the caller to obtain more information and give medical advice.
F4:
Dispatchers work 12 hour shifts, experiencing periods of intense activity and periods of no activity.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The efficacy of twelve-hour shifts should be examined.
R2:
A formal evaluation process including testing should be developed to determine if dispatchers can handle the extremes of boredom and high stress that they encounter on this job as well as the long work span.
F5:
When a dispatcher receives a call from a conventional land- line home phone, a name and address relating to that phone is presented on the computer screen. This information does not appear when a cell phone is used. Cell phone 9-1-1 calls are directed to the nearest CHP dispatch center in Benicia.
F6:
Ambulances are used for both emergency and non-emergency transfers. Under certain conditions this may cause a shortage of ambulances available for an emergency. Since non emergency transfers are a good source of income, and since the contract company dispatches all ambulances, including those of other companies, a possibility for conflict of interest exists.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
Methods to avoid conflict of interest issues, as stated in F6, with the contract company and other ambulance companies must be implemented. Required Responses to Findings County Compliance Subcommittee: F6. Required Responses to Recommendations County Compliance Subcommittee: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 County Director of Emergency Services: R5
F7:
Helicopters are often used for emergencies in inaccessible areas or when roads are blocked. Three primary agencies, Redwood Empire Air Care Helicopter (REACH), Cal Star from Mendocino County, Sonoma County Sheriffs Office Henry 1, and two secondary agencies, Life Lite from Sacramento and Life Lite from Walnut Creek provide this service. Inadequate communication between rescue helicopter dispatch and the contract company sometimes causes paramedics and ambulance drivers to wait longer for a helicopter than an overland trip would take.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
An effective communication system between helicopter dispatch and ground responders needs to be implemented.
F8:
Ambulance and fire equipment are required by EMS and the county Contract Compliance Subcommittee to arrive on scene within seven minutes of the call in urban areas, within eleven minutes in semi-rural areas, within 14 minutes in rural areas, and within 29 minutes in remote areas such as mountain tops. These times can be extended if EMD determines the conditions are not critical.
F9:
Dispatch personnel providing Emergency Medical Dispatch are certified by Dispatch Operation Advisory Group (DOAG), EMS officials, and the EMS AGENCY monthly, and ambulance drivers are certified bimonthly by the County Contract Compliance Subcommittee. The County Contract Compliance Subcommittee meets bimonthly to review the performance of the contract company, which includes looking at response time and citizen complaints.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Experience is very valuable for a dispatcher, and experienced dispatchers should be rewarded accordingly. The County Compliance Subcommittee should support the contract company’s pay and benefit package so it remains adequate to keep good employees from leaving.
F10:
The Computer Assisted Dispatch system (CAD) is critically dependent on accurate and current information. The dispatch system is updated daily. Conclusions The Grand Jury determined that the new dispatch center is a great improvement over the old. The use of the flip-cards is a nationally accepted system. REDCOM continues to improve, but will be tested during the up-coming fire season. The dispatch center is adequately staffed. If emergencies create a staff shortage, dispatchers are held over until relieved. Supervisory personnel can fill in when necessary.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
Since the GPS/CAD system is critically dependent on accurate and current information, the County Director of Emergency Services must assure the data is accurate and continually updated.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
The Officer Involved Critical Incident Protocol requires that investigations be conducted "free of conflicts of interest." For that reason the investigations were conducted by a law enforcement agency whose employees were not involved in the incidents. The District Attorney's Office also participated in the investigations and had the authority to investigate separately.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Sheriff’s Office should integrate the Records Management System and the Jail Management System to allow inmates’ records of mental health issues to be readily available to jail staff.
F2:
Upon completion of each incident investigation, the District Attorney's Office reviewed the physical evidence, the transcribed witnesses interviews, appropriate photographs and all other evidentiary material.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Office should provide for a female officer to be present during hospital medical exams of female inmates.
F3:
Based on the evidence, the District Attorney reached his conclusions and issued a Critical Incident Report for two cases. In each, the District Attorney concluded that there was insufficient evidence for criminal liability.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Newly incarcerated inmates should be assigned to cells with doors that are visible from the control desk.
F4:
The agencies that employ the involved officers conducted their own administrative investigations of each incident. Administrative investigations have a purpose different from the criminal investigation. They seek to determine if the agency's policies and procedures were followed in the incident and whether there could be improvement in those policies and procedures. They also make a determination as to whether any disciplinary action can be imposed against a particular individual or individuals.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The District Attorney’s Office should shorten the time the agency being investigated must wait for written notice of any criminal wrongdoing.
F5:
In addition to the two complete Critical Incident reports, the Jury examined an administrative review by the Sheriff’s Office of an inmate death and found it to be a thorough, objective determination about what happened, how it happened and what lessons there were to be learned. The focus of The Sheriff Department’s review focused on preventing such incidents from occurring.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The District Attorney should routinely provide the Grand Jury with a copy of each Critical Incident Report in a timely manner, including the “Critical Incident Participation Report” for that incident. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations The Sheriff: R I, R2, and R3 The Board of Supervisors: R1 The District Attorney: R4 and R5
F6:
The District Attorney responded to last year’s Grand Jury recommendation that “Each Critical Incident Report should describe the nature of participation by the District Attorney’s Office in the investigation of the incident.” The prior District Attorney stated that the office would maintain a log or “Critical Incident Participation Report” detailing their involvement in each critical incident case and that they would include the log in each Critical Incident Report. In the two reports written by that office, no log was included.
F7:
For the two incidents reported on by the District Attorney, the time to issued a report varied from three days less than one year to one and one-half years. The incomplete report has taken four and one-half months to date and a statement from the District Attorney’s spokesperson indicated that he was not sure when it would be completed. Conclusions Each of the Critical Incident Reports reflects a thorough, detailed, and unbiased investigation by those assigned to the case to determine whether any criminal liability existed. The conclusion of the District Attorney's Office in each incident is clearly based on the evidence. In addition, for one incident, a Deputy District Attorney went to the scene of the incident, attended the autopsy and was also present during the questioning of a key witness. The District Attorney’s Office takes an inordinately long period of time to complete their reports. The process should be expedited so that no agency being investigated would have to wait such a lengthy time (one and a half years in one case) before learning whether an employee or employees were determined to have violated any criminal law. The Jury concurs with the findings of the District Attorney’s Office that there was no wrong-doing on the part of any officer involved in the incidents reviewed. There are, however, some jail computer software upgrades that would provide information to help jail personnel more accurately assess inmates during booking, and there are some procedures that could be improved. Because the computerized record management system at the main jail does not include past records of inmates in custody, the intake staff was not aware of past suicide attempts or mental health issues for two of the inmates involved in the incidents. The staff relied on the only information they had, the written answers by the inmates regarding suicide attempts and mental health issues on the mandatory “Pre-Booking Medical/Mental Health Screen.” In both inmate deaths the information provided by the inmates was inaccurate or incomplete. Had past records been accessible, at least one death might have been prevented. Also, an inmate who had been booked two days earlier was assigned to a cell whose door was not visible from the control desk. Although he indicated no thoughts of suicide during the booking process, he committed suicide. While suicidal behavior is very difficult to predict when not acknowledged by the inmate, the Jury believes that if the newest prisoners could be housed in cells with doors visible to staff, the potential for problems could be reduced. Finally, a male officer transported a female prisoner to the hospital for a medical exam. He could not be present for nor observe the actions of the prisoner who was disrobing for the exam. During that time, the prisoner hid drugs in a body cavity and was able to smuggle them into the jail. Later she gave them to another prisoner who overdosed. The Jury stresses that all personnel involved in the incidents reviewed were highly competent professionals. Therefore, our recommendations for the agencies focus on process issues, not people issues.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
9 hallazgos
F1:
Board meetings are held monthly in each Fire Protection District.
F2:
Conflicts were noticed between board members and firefighters in two districts. One Board has hired a consultant to set new goals and provide clear guidance.
F3:
The majority of fire districts are staffed by salaried firefighters. All Districts are supported by volunteers, and supervised and managed by non-salaried Boards of Directors elected by the citizens of their districts. The number of volunteer firefighters is in decline.
F4:
On July 5, 2002 the Sonoma County Auditor/Controller recommended to the Bennett Valley Board that they conduct a physical inventory of equipment and remove any obsolete equipment from the fixed asset detail ledger. The auditor received a response from the Board that they would comply with the recommendation.
F5:
On July 9, 2002, the Bodega Bay Board of Directors improperly conducted a special meeting resulting in a violation of the Brown Act. The Brown Act is a California Law that requires access to meetings and requires the elected officials to let the public speak. It did not appear to be a malicious violation, the agenda was defective since appropriate listings for closed session items were not on the agenda as required by the Act and legal counsel was not present as required. Any closed session that discusses litigation may only be held in conjunction with the Board’s legal counsel.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Bodega Bay Board of Directors is urged to meet with its legal counsel to discuss the Brown Act, especially as it applies to meetings, closed sessions and agendas for all meetings.
F6:
On August 22, 2002 the Sonoma County Auditor/Controller sent a letter to the Schell-Vista Fire Protection District’s Board of Directors with the following
F7:
The merger of fire districts and the use of joint-power agreements has resulted in more efficient districts by decreasing administrative costs, standardizing training and purchasing. Within the last ten years The Bellview District merged with Rincon Valley, the Hessel and Twin Hills districts merged to become Gold Ridge, Jenner merged with Monte Rio, and Penngrove and Cotati districts merged to become Rancho Adobe Fire District. The Valley of the Moon Fire District has a joint-power agreement with the City of Sonoma. By contract, the County of Sonoma provides fire administration and management services to the Rancho Adobe Fire District. The Roseland Fire District contracts with the City of Santa Rosa for its fire services.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The Jury recommends that other districts consider merging or using joint power agreements and inter-governmental contracts. Required Responses to Findings None. Required Responses to Recommendations The Bodega Bay Board of Directors: R1 The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors: R3 The Rancho Adobe Board of Directors: R3 The Sonoma County Director of Emergency Services: R2 Board of Directors of all Fire Protection Districts: R2
F8:
The new county-wide computer aided dispatch system depends on correct maps. Not all districts have been pro-active in up-dating and correcting their maps.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Fire district boards should enforce continual up-dating and correction of their maps.
F9:
The Rancho Adobe District provides emergency services for Sonoma State University. The University does not compensate the District for those services. Conclusions Mergers, joint-power agreements and inter-governmental contracts make the districts more efficient, reduce costs and benefit the citizens. Some fire districts need to improve compliance procedures as directed by the Auditor/Controller. The Auditor/Controller and other auditors provide insight for the districts to protect taxpayers from district inefficiency. Districts that do not up-date and correct their maps increase risks to citizens within their districts.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and the Rancho Adobe Board should meet with Sonoma State University representatives to negotiate an agreement to compensate the District for its services.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
There was no provision for exemptions or an appeal process in the original measure, only the direction in the resolution to "annually review the equity of the incidence of the parcel tax to fairly spread its burdens among and between similarly- situation persons."
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The District should create and implement a legal exemption and refund process.
F2:
The District Board set up but did not pass a resolution adopting a refund process.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The District should create and implement a legal exemption and refund process.
F3:
The District was inconsistent in administering its refund process. Sometimes appeals were denied or granted using what the district claimed was a “spirit of fairness” and a “subjective rather than objective” process.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The District should create and implement a legal exemption and refund process.
F4:
The District gave refunds not allowed under its own process.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The District should create and implement a legal exemption and refund process.
F5:
The District Board did not take appropriate legal steps to implement a proper exemption process. Conclusions The residents of the Palm Drive Health Care District voted in good faith to tax themselves $60 per year in order to maintain their community hospital. However, many residents did not understand that the District Board intentionally drafted the measure so the tax would be levied on each parcel, not on each taxpayer, creating the lowest possible tax amount in order for the measure to pass. After receiving the complaints, in an attempt to rectify the inequities, the District instituted a refund process which was not part of the original measure and the legality of which is questionable. In addition, the District was inconsistent in the way it handled appeals; it granted exemptions that were not allowed under its own written rules.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The District should create and implement a legal exemption and refund process.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R2:
The District should include exemption criteria in future tax measures. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Palm Drive Health Care District: R1 and R2
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
19 hallazgos
F1:
In December of 2000, a criminal Grand Jury indicted a Sonoma County citizen for the murder of his wife.
F2:
In preparation for the trial, the Sheriff’s Office retained a speech coach to improve the effectiveness of the pathologist as a witness.
F3:
There was an inadequate pre-employment background check of the Sonoma County pathologist conducted by the Sheriff’s Department and the coroner services contractor.
F4:
Recently, the Sheriff’s Department advertised widely to fill the forensic pathologist position. However, only one company, the original coroner services contractor, applied. It provides the current pathologist.
F5:
Conflicts within the Sheriff’s Violent Crimes Investigation (VCI) unit, in addition to only one VCI Detective responding to the scene, who decided not to handle the death as suspicious, all had a domino effect on the criminal investigation. Additional personnel and resources normally utilized in homicide cases were not called in, a follow-up investigation remained inactive for over a month, physical evidence at the scene was not collected, and statements and interviews normally taken within days or hours were not completed in some cases, for several months.
F6:
The Sheriff’s Department conducted an “Administrative Review” or internal investigation into their handling of this case by their department.
F7:
Following the identification of problems revealed by the suspicious death investigation, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s office took the following actions: • All existing Sheriff’s office contracts were examined to determine whether contractual obligations were being followed. • A procedure was established regarding deaths in Sonoma County that under the following circumstances, the Coroner’s Detectives are to notify the sergeant in charge of the Coroner’s Unit: 1) All homicides. 2) All multiple casualty deaths. 3) Any death that involves suspicious circumstances. 4) All ‘in-custody’ deaths. 5) Any death in which the ‘Critical Incident Protocol’ is invoked. 6) Any death, which in your opinion may generate significant media interest. 7) Airplane accidents. 8) Any other death that has unusual circumstance.
F8:
All Coroner’s Detectives have undergone additional training including “Officer Involved Shooting” and “Homicide Investigations Training”.
F9:
Two VCI Detectives are now required to respond to all suspicious death investigations. An on- call Deputy District Attorney will also respond. 3
F10:
An arbitrary “No Overtime” practice in the VCI Unit had been used as a reason for not thoroughly investigating homicide cases. That practice has been removed, allowing VCI Detectives to properly conduct complete investigations.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
The Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office should continue to build a strong, mutually supportive team to provide high quality investigations and the successful prosecutions of criminal cases.
F11:
In the Sheriff’s Department Administrative Review of the death investigation, some detectives were criticized. But no evidence of that criticism is included in their personnel files.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office should review their policies and practices regarding managing the performance of their respective staffs. Changes should be made to ensure that managers are trained in providing accurate feedback to their employees and in documenting poor performance. Reviews should accurately reflect performance and include annual employee goals to improve. Documentation of poor performance should be permanently retained in personnel files.
R2:
Employees who have been identified as chronic poor performers should be terminated, not merely transferred at the same pay rate.
F12:
The Sonoma County Sheriff has a dual role as Sheriff-Coroner which, by law, can not be changed until 2006. District Attorney’s Office
F13:
The California Attorney General’s office reviewed the murder prosecution of People v Pelfini (2001) in view of allegations that the pathologist had committed perjury and that the Deputy District Attorney was somehow involved. In a narrowly-focused opinion, the Attorney General’s office concluded that no basis existed for charges of perjury against the pathologist and that “the [Deputy District Attorney’s] participation in preparing the [pathologist] to answer questions regarding his past employment, did not support allegations of criminal misconduct.” This means that there is insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges.
F14:
Immediately after dismissing People v Pelfini, the District Attorney’s office scheduled a mandatory training session with all Deputy District Attorneys which included review of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brady v Maryland . That decision requires that the prosecution divulge to the Court, any exculpatory information, including “material that would impeach an important witness.” Additional steps taken by the District Attorney’s office included: • An agreement with the Sheriff that all future pathologists would be subjected to thorough background investigations • An agreement with the Sheriff that no witness will be prepared by any person or expert without the presence of a Deputy District Attorney • All attorneys assigned to homicide will attend regularly scheduled meetings with local law enforcement homicide detectives.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
The District Attorney and Sheriff should ensure that the policies and procedures drafted as a result of People v. Pelfini are followed by all personnel in their departments.
F15:
The handling and dismissal of the murder trial resulted in deep divisions and conflict within the District Attorney’s Office. Those divisions have not completely healed.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R3:
The District Attorney’s Office should conduct an anonymous internal survey to identify current teamwork/morale issues, and solicit and implement suggestions for improving the department.
R6:
The Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office should continue to build a strong, mutually supportive team to provide high quality investigations and the successful prosecutions of criminal cases.
F16:
Because a jury was impaneled, a trial begun and the case dismissed by the former District Attorney, the rules of double jeopardy preclude a retrial.
F17:
In a separate incident, a Deputy District Attorney involved himself in a case against an acquaintance which had been assigned to another Deputy District Attorney. He dismissed the charges in the case without consulting the charging Deputy District Attorney.
F18:
There is a perception among some employees (and this Jury) that the new District Attorney could be more accessible.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The current District Attorney should make himself more accessible to all staff members and to other law enforcement agencies. 5
F19:
The lack of adequate space within the District Attorney’s offices has a negative effect on deputy district attorneys’ ability to meet with their clients in a private, professional setting. Their offices are cramped and shared by at least two deputies. Conclusions 4 The Jury concludes that the suspicious death case was mishandled by both law enforcement agencies involved. The publicity surrounding the investigation and the trial tarnished the reputations of the District Attorney and the Sheriff. There are many outstanding employees of both offices and their reputations were tarnished as well. In the case of the Sheriff’s Department, it appears that lack of real accountability and lax supervision permitted unit leaders and other department members to function at unacceptable professional levels. Even when less-than-professional behavior was confirmed by internal investigations, those employees with unacceptable levels of performance were merely transferred, and no permanent record was placed in their personnel files. Thus, patterns of behavior unacceptable to law enforcement officers are not tracked and the new supervisors who receive the transferred officers do not have the documentation they need as managers to counsel the officers or replace them if that is appropriate. Without a documented record of poor performance, it is difficult to remove incompetent personnel. The Jury determined that not holding people responsible for questionable performance is also an issue in the District Attorney’s Office. For example, there was no written evidence in personnel files about a deputy district attorney’s inappropriate behavior in a case against a personal acquaintance. In addition to these cases, the Jury reviewed other, more recent complaints and cases that lead us to the discomforting conclusion that neither office has fully resolved the people, process and procedural issues raised. The new policies and procedures drafted by both the District Attorney’s and Sheriff’s Offices are admirable steps to strengthen their departments. The Jury believes that if the leaders of those two offices hold all personnel accountable for strictly following those policies, many issues raised in this report will have been addressed. It is imperative that the citizens of Sonoma County have confidence in the professionalism and competence of law enforcement agencies in their county. The cases reviewed by this Jury call into question some significant issues with the two law enforcement agencies involved. We have a new Sheriff and a new District Attorney. Both want to put the high-profile case behind them and build strong, professional agencies that will be respected by our citizens. Both leaders have implemented significant changes within their departments and have created a stronger working partnership between the two agencies. However, we believe there are still issues that need resolution by the respective offices before the Jury can be confident that justice will be served in our county.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The District Attorney and Board of Supervisors should explore all avenues to provide adequate space for the District Attorney staff.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R8:
The 2003-2004 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury should review evidence collected by this year’s Jury and take appropriate action. Required Responses to Findings Sheriff: F11 District Attorney: F15 Required Responses to Recommendations Sheriff: R1, R2, R6, and R7 District Attorney: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7 Board of Supervisors: R 6
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.