Sonoma County 2004-2005 - California Grand Jury Reports

June 27, 2006 — 2004-05 Response Audit Report June 27, 2006

6 pages 1 findings 1 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 1 findings

F1: The 2005-2006 grand jury discovered a number of instances where measurable commitments made had not been accomplished in the promised timeframe. A qualitative review of the responses would reveal this under-performance at an earlier stage in the incoming jury’s year. Conclusions A review of the letters and supporting documentation received from the requested respondents verified that: A total of 24 responses were audited. 17 responses had been completed as promised, 7 responses were not completed as promised The complete results of the audit are shown in Table A. Not Title of Report Response Respondent Completed Completed The Department of Emergency Services will insure that another communication will occur that outlines employee’s responsibilities in the event of a disaster, and will direct staff and supervisors to discuss reporting steps and potential roles they might play. The EMS is also providing SEMS and related training to all employees that potentially may be in the Emergency Operations Center during a prolonged disaster. Board of (12/05) Supervisors X A Disaster Waiting to Relocate the County Mobile Communications Vehicle to be at Sonoma County least 5 miles from the Dispatch Center/Sheriff’s Office. (10/05) Sheriff X Happen Complete any outstanding training for staff in SEMS and in other emergency management procedures. (12/05) City of Cotati X The City Council will review the recommendations contained in

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: (review disaster plan) and R5 (implement training) of the Grand Jury report after receiving a full analysis from staff and consider whether or not to adopt any or all of the recommendations in those sections. (12/05) City of Santa Rosa X The City Council will be considering adopting an “Incompatible Conflict of Interest Activities List”, comparable to the list recommended by the Grand Jury. (12/05) City of Cloverdale X The City Council will be considering adoption of Council Rules, Policies and Procedures which will likely include

January 28, 2006 — Two Rock Union School District

3 pages 5 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F2: There have been other discussions regarding changing the "status quo relative to consolidation or unification" and other steps to reduce overhead and administrative expenses. Without even getting into the issue of how low administrative costs actually are in small districts, you completely missed the discussions among individual small districts and the fact that Two Rock Union School District and Harmony Union School District have created a partnership to share the cost of superintendent services.

F4: Countywide discussions do occur and steps have been taken to respond to changing demographics in this county. For example, the "Aiming High" initiative is a commitment by the county office and the majority of districts in this county to share best practices and to support each other in working to meet the needs of the changing student population in this county.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: This is already done.

F5: The accounting practices changes apply to all school districts as well as other agencies, and not just those in Sonoma County. Using a column from the Sacramento Bee as a source for your "investigation" in Sonoma County simply points out that this is a statewide issue that is not solvable at the local level.

F6: Health benefits are expensive for both public and private employers and everyone is wrestling with how to respond. Just as private businesses are requiring employees to pay more of their benefit costs, a simple review of school district budgets and bargaining agreements would show you that school districts have implemented the same cost savings measures. You seem to have missed another fact in that almost every district is a member of a joint powers group that arranges the best prices possible for medical benefits.

F7: Special education costs and rules are not determined by individual districts. Federal and State laws set very firm guidelines and districts have to follow those guidelines. With any simple research you would have found that several special education consortiums already exist. Special education students do have to be served and a consortium does not by itself make it cheaper to meet the needs of special education students. Legal guidelines must be met whether a student is served by an individual district or by a group of districts and those guidelines do become costly. CONCLUSIONS All governmental agencies in the State of California, not just schools, face a financial crisis. Things will get worse for all agencies unless changes are made at the State level. Yes, enrollment numbers are dropping in the county. Housing costs are high and young families cannot afford to move into the county. The ongoing discussions that do occur regularly address this topic. A big issue is how to best serve the students in the far flung reaches of this county. Closing schools means that young children would spend over an hour a day on the bus getting to and from school. Quality of education needs to be considered along with finances. Your conclusion regarding a "parochial view of the problem" does not match reality. Districts do talk and work together. While the system is not perfect, your conclusion that districts do not cooperate with each and do not work together is far from the truth. You need to expand your horizons and do a true investigation prior to making such an overarching conclusion. Discussions do occur in this county and they do occur regularly. SCOE provides the impetus and setting for these discussions. They may not occur with your knowledge but I am not aware of any law that says all discussions have to be reported to the County Grand Jury. You and I agree that students are the clients and we all must do what is best for these students. Every study that has ever been completed shows that smaller districts do much better in serving students than do large, monolithic districts. This is not to say that things are perfect. However, any studies of unification/consolidation need to take into account the instructional benefits as well as financial benefits. That information has not yet been included in any studies. If the Grand Jury wishes to draw conclusions and make

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: This is already done through the Redwood Empire Schools Insurance Group JP A as well as by individual districts. Sincerely, Superintendent/Principal, Two Rock Union School District Superintendent Designee, Harmony Union School District

September 12, 2005 — City of Petaluma Post Office Box 61*

8 pages 6 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F2: SONOMA COUNTY INVESTS MONEY AND TIME INTO THE TRAINING OF OFFICERS. THE GOAL IS TO RETAIN THESE TRAINED OFFICERS LONG TERM AND HAVE ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT SWORN OFFICERS LIVE WITH THE COUNTY BOUNDARIES, NOT ONLY FOR SAFETY REASONS BUT TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMMUNITY. The Petaluma Police Department concurs with the Grand Jury, as it is our strong desire to retain trained police officers and have them reside within our community. Experienced officers provide a more sophisticated level of service and residing in the city completely invests them in the community. Officers who live within the city limits provide other benefits such as a faster response for officers assigned to special units such as SWAT, K9, Crisis Negotiators, Traffic Team, Street Crimes Unit, detectives and supervisors who routinely get called from home to handle individual incidents. All officers who reside within the City also ensure a prompt police response should a large scale incident occur within the City. The City is currently renegotiating the employment contract with the Police Officers Association, with the specific intent of identifying and providing additional incentives to attract experienced lateral police officers and retain existing officers from the department. The City is currently involved in the process of identifying local workforce housing opportunities and low cost home loans for emergency services personnel, with the specific intent of allowing officers to live in Petaluma. This has been a difficult objective to meet, however, given the escalating cost of homes, and will remain so until h housing costs settle. The City is currently evaluating the possibility of expanding or rebuilding the Police Department which will be a significant recruitment and retention tool.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: ADOPT A CODE OF ETHICS As indicated above, City officials are provided a significant amount of material regarding their obligations and duties as public officials and, in particular, with respect to conflicts of interest. In addition, the City Council has adopted Council Rules, Policies and Procedures which includes

F3: WRITTEN PLANS AND CHECKLISTS ARE NOT CONSISTENT AMONG COUNTY, CITIES, AGENCIES, AND DEPARTMENTS, AND IN SOME CASES ARE NON-EXISTENT. The City of Petaluma cannot explain the statement that emergency plans in some jurisdictions are "non-existent". We are prepared and that preparedness is documented. Within Sonoma County, there are a variety of jurisdictions: cities, county, private organizations/entities, police, sheriff, fire departments that include all paid, part-paid/call, and all volunteers. Some organizations are big and some are small. Some have resources and some do not. Due to this variety, there is no one-size-fits-all plan consistent throughout the county. SEMS and ICS are common, but emergency plans for a jurisdiction are also drawn up to fit their specific needs and capabilities. Due to the jurisdictional variety that is present in Sonoma County, lack of complete consistency should not be a surprise.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: EACH CITY COUNCIL SHOULD INITIATE AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF ITS DISASTER PLAN, COINCIDENT WITH THE BUDGET CYCLE, STARTING WITH THE 2006-07 CYCLE. THESE REVIEWS SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING TASKS AS A MINIMUM: EXAMINE STATUS OF THE ACTIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S REVIEW

F4: WHERE PLANS AND CHECKLISTS DO EXIST, THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS STORED IN MULTIPLE SAFE PLACES FOR GUARANTEED ACCESS IN THE EVENT OF A DISASTER. THE MOST COMMON PLACE IS THE OFFICE, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT A DISASTER DOES NOT LIMIT ITSELF TO REGULAR WORK HOURS, AND OFFICE BUILDINGS MAY NOT BE ACCESSIBLE. There are copies of our Emergency Operations Plan in several offices. There is also a copy in the Battalion Chiefs vehicle, which serves as the Incident Command Post in the event of a large scale man-made or natural disaster. A plan in a book serves as a good training tool and an after-the-fact reference guide but the Fire Department's command officers have our basic plans committed to memory. In addition, the Command Vehicle has Incident Command Sheets, which are quick check-box reminders of issues that need to be addressed for the structure fire, the flood, the hazardous material spill, the grass fire, etc. At a future date, when the City's resources can support the project, all of these paper checklists will be computerized on a lap-top located in the Command Vehicle.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: INSTITUTE REGULAR, MANDATORY TRAINING As indicated above, the decision making officials of the City are provided manuals which include papers and information on related conflict of interest issues as well as periodic memorandums with updates reflecting modifications, interpretations or changes in existing laws related to the general topics of conflict of interest. In addition, there are a number of pamphlets from time to time that are provided to the decision making officials of the City. In the past there have been presentations at Council meetings on Conflicts and the Brown Act by the City Attorney, outside attorneys and the FPPC. In addition, the City Attorney and other members of his law firm provide periodic seminars throughout California, including Northern California and Sonoma County on such topics. Public officials of the City are invited. It is anticipated and intended that future presentations will be made to the City Council at City Council meetings regarding conflicts of interest. All other public officials for the City will be invited to attend either in person or view on television, and tapes will be made available to all public officials within the City. The City Attorney's office and the City Clerk's office will continue to advise City officials of any changes, interpretations or new laws relative to the general topic of conflicts of interest. City officials will continue to be invited to the seminars offered by the City Attorney's law firm. In addition, the City Clerk serves as the local filing officer for all Conflict of Interest (Form 700) and Political Campaign Committee Statements. As part of the package of information given to candidates for Mayor and City Council seats, the City Clerk's Office provides FPPC Form 700: Statement of Economic Interests, a copy of the City's Conflict of Interest Code, and informs candidates that they are required by Government Code §87200 et seq to file a Form 700 Candidate Statement with the City Clerk's Office no later than the final filing date of a declaration of candidacy. Each February, the City Clerk's Office mails Form 700 to the City's elected officials with the City's Conflict of Interest Code and information regarding the date these completed Annual Statements are due.

F9: ALL COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE LISTED AS DISASTER RECOVERY RESOURCES, AS INDEED ARE MEMBERS OF THE GRAND JURY, BUT THERE IS NO CLEAR PLAN ON HOW THEY WILL REPORT IN FOR DUTY, OR HOW THEY WILL BE USED. The Petaluma Fire Department conducts the SEMS instruction for all city employees. Our instruction covers this very important point. Employees are instructed to assure the safety of their families and then return to their work place. If circumstances prevent them from traveling to their workplace, they should report to the closest public agency and volunteer their services, keeping their employer informed. The SEMS training for new city employees includes newly elected City Councilmembers.

F10: THE CITY PLANS ARE NOT CONSISTENT IN SCOPE AND DETAIL. THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA HAS A WELL STRUCTURED BUT DATED PLAN. COTATI'S PLAN IS LITERALLY A COPY OF THE COUNTY PLAN. CLOVERDALE IS STILL USING THE 1989 TWO VOLUME DOOR-STOPPER PLAN THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF SEMS, AND HEALDSBURG'S PLAN IS DATED 1987. Please refer to item F3 above. The City of Petaluma Emergency Operations Plan is dated May 2001. The written narrative and associated checklists are all current.

F13: THERE IS AN AGREEMENT DATED 1997, BETWEEN THE CITIES AND THE COUNTY, PROMISING HELP FROM THE COUNTY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF, TRAINING IN, AND TESTING OF CITY BASED DISASTER PLANS. THIS ASSISTANCE IS NOT PROVIDED, NOR SOUGHT ON A CONTINUALLY CONSISTENT BASIS, DESPITE THE PAYMENT OF A $2,000 ANNUAL FEE BY THE CITIES. The City of Petaluma is very satisfied with the support and assistance we receive from the County Office of Emergency Services. We have a level of in-house expertise that smaller cities may not enjoy. The $2,000 annual fee pays for services, plans, and programs by the County that impact and serve the entire operational area, including the individual cities.

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: ADOPT AN INCOMPATIBLE ACTIVITIES LIST The Grand Jury has suggested and has recommended that each commission, committee, board and public agency have their own incompatibility activities list as a supplemental resource and provide the sample list essentially setting forth in general terms various restrictions and prohibitions on activities by the public officials in the context of conflicts of interest. City Manager's Office The City of Petaluma, through the City Attorney's office, provides members of 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 the City Council and Planning Commission with a "City Council Handbook" and "Planning Commission Handbook" which includes, among other information and Phone (707) 778-4345 - Fax (707) 778-4419 materials, papers and materials on (1) Political Reform Act and Common Law E-Mail Conflicts; (2) Prohibition of Contractors with Town; (3) Gifts, Honorarium and citymgr@ci.petaluma.ca.us Travel Expenses; (4) Local Conflict of Interest Code; and (5) The Ralph M. Brown Act Animal Services 840 Hopper Street Ext. Petaluma, CA 94952 Included in those handbooks and papers is a cover memorandum, and additional Phone (707) 778-4396 Fax (707) 778-4397 memorandums which are provided from time to time, which discuss changes or modifications in existing law or provide further information, interpretation and Risk Management analysis with respect to specific aspects of the law, and which touch on and 11 English Street address every one of the seven items listed in the sample list in the Grand Jury Petaluma, CA 94952 Phone (707) 778-1118 Report. These handbooks are loose leaf in nature to allow for subsequent Fax (707) 778-8213 memorandums to be placed in the handbook in the appropriate category. Each E-Mail icabdr@aol.com or time a new Councilmember or Planning Commissioner takes office they are riskmgt@ci.petaluma.ca.us provided with these manuals which are periodically updated and which have been recently replaced in their entirety. In addition, members of other commissions and committees receive materials regarding these topics as well.

R5: RE-FILE FORM 700 ON A MATERIAL CHANGE It appears that the Grand Jury is suggesting that all Designated Filers should be required to file amendments to Form 700 with the City Clerk within 30 days of a "material change" as defined in Government Code §87103. Currently, there is no requirement, other than on the required reporting date, that Form 700's be amended. In addition, though somewhat unclear, it appears that the "material changes" referenced by the Grand Jury appear to be threshold amounts relative to whether or not a public official has a "economic interest" for purposes of conflict of interest analysis which may be different from threshold amounts for certain interests for purposes of Form 700. Such a recommendation will require further review and consideration, taking into account some of the practical problems that may arise which could lead to innocent and unintentional violations of such a requirement. It should be noted that if such a recommendation is not implemented, there is still the requirement for public officials, when a decision comes before them, to make a determination as to whether or not at that point in time there exists a conflict of interest irrespective of Form 700 reporting. A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN

August 26, 2005 — Protecting the County’s Assets

12 pages 2 findings 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F14: All School District Superintendents are targeted to have completed SEMS-based plans by March 31, 2006 Response: The USDOE project is targeted to every school in Sonoma County and in accordance project objectives and with state law, is requesting that every school submit an annual SEMS/NIMS-compliant plan to the project (SCOE/USDOE) before December 31, 2005. The project is developing an Emergency Operation Plan template that, when completed in each district and by each school site, will meet the compliance requirement. This requirement for district superintendents will be encouraged and assisted by the USDOE project but achievement of the objective will require priority commitment by each superintendent and direction by the County Superintendent of Schools. According to recent Grand Jury investigation reports (Napa County), it is our understanding that it is the responsibility of the County Office to assure that compliant annual plans are submitted and reviewed by the County Office and that Districts are held accountable for the quality of their emergency plans as part of their Safe School Plan. Our current strategy is to distribute the Emergency Operation Plan template to all districts and schools before September 30, 2005 with a letter of request and instructions for compliance from the County Superintendent of Schools. The plan template will include three parts: 1) Guide to EOP planning, 2) Response Plan, and 3) Classroom and Administrative Offices Response charts. On behalf of SCOE/USDOE the project will request that EOP plans be submitted for review and archiving. Submission by every school and district will meet both the grant objectives and compliance with state mandates. Planned SCOE activities will address the following: County Superintendent of Schools: Provide leadership to all district superintendents in all Emergency Management activities on a continuing basis. Meet with all district superintendents to discuss the importance of having SEMS/NIMS compliant plans. Inform all SCOE staff of SCOE’s Emergency Plan and ensure that all staff are allowed adequate time for training and exercise activities. District Superintendents: Meet with County Superintendent to discuss the importance of having SEMS/NIMS-compliant plans. Provide leadership to their schools to ensure that the model plans are customized for each district and at each school site level. Superintendents are further responsible for informing all district office staff of the plan and allowing adequate staff time for training and exercise activities. School Principals: Ensure that the Classroom Quick Reference Guides are provided to each teacher. Post an Administrative Quick Reference Guide in the main office. Inform all staff of the plan and allow adequate staff time for training and exercise activities. Grant Staff: Complete the model plan and provide to districts by September, 2005. Provide ongoing support and resources to schools in the implementation and customization of the plan. Produce Quick Reference Guides based on customized information received from districts and distribute to each district office, school office and one for each classroom. F16. In the existing pre-SEMS plans, the role of SCOE if a specific school or school district should incur a major disaster is unclear. Currently, there is no clear system in place to coordinate information throughout the school community. A school closure process was established several years ago with SCOE coordinating the information and distributing it to local media. This system was developed so parents and staff could receive school closure information that was accurate and timely. The system has most often been utilized during severe winter storms and flooding incidents. Within school districts, there are usually systems in place to ensure that schools communicate with their own district office during an emergency, but beyond that, the process is unclear. The agency to take primary responsibility for Emergency Management in our county should be determined as soon as possible. SCOE is one obvious choice because of its current relationship with the districts and the leadership role of the County Superintendent. However, RESIG has the expertise in Emergency Management and can fulfill this role as well. The County Superintendent and RESIG’s Executive Director should meet to discuss the issues involved and make a decision as to which agency is to assume this role and the level of support that can be expected from the districts. During a disaster of the magnitude that would require the activation of EOCs, there is no coordination of response or information beyond the district level. Using the SEMS/NIMS model, the appropriate flow of information should be from the school site (cid:1) to the district office (cid:1)to the appropriate city EOC (for response) AND to RESIG or SCOE (for coordination of information) (cid:1)to the Sonoma County Op Area EOC (cid:1)to the Coastal Region OES EOC (cid:1)then to the State OES EOC [See Figure 1]. Right now there is no central collection point for the coordination of information when multiple schools or districts are involved in an incident (such as a large earthquake). The USDOE Grant is presently serving as the central source for information and services related to Disaster Planning and Emergency Management, but there is no system established to gather and coordinate information during an actual event. RESIG or SCOE can serve in this role if a system is put into place that clearly delineates this responsibility and the system is clearly communicated to all members of the school community. The advantage of having a central coordination point is to facilitate the most efficient and effective flow of information and resources. If this system can be established, it will aid in response efforts as well as in the recovery process. RESIG currently has a representative who serves in the Logistics Section of the Sonoma County Op Area EOC in the event of a declared disaster. This person’s 1 R9. Ascertain whether an extension to the USDOE grant timetable is possible, and determine if an extension would be desirable. The term of the current grant expires on March 31, 2006. Additional funds are not available after that date. An additional USDOE Grant that will involve all of the five counties in Region I (Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Sonoma and Mendocino) is under development. Mendocino will be the LEA. We will not know the outcome of that grant until October of 2005. If the Region 1 grant is successful, some minimal funding will be available for Sonoma County to continue some of the projects being developed with current grant funds. However, additional funds will be necessary to provide on-going support of the current projects. R10. Review the letter from the US Department of Education regarding the Russian school hostage emergency, and expedite action and replies from all school districts. The “Beslan” letter was sent to every Superintendent across the nation by the USDOE in October of 2004. This letter was also handed out to all participants at a USDOE Grant Administrative Workshop on January 12, 2005. Many of the recommendations are already being included in the USDOE Grant activities. A RESIG representative serves on the Sonoma County Op Area Emergency Coordinator’s Forum as well as the Op Area Emergency Council. This representative facilitates the link between the schools and law enforcement as well as other emergency response agencies. Many of the recommendations contained in the letter require significant funds to accomplish. Budgetary restrictions may make these recommendations impossible to implement at the present time. However, many of the recommendations are already being addressed through grant activities or by the school districts themselves. Raising awareness in schools, among law enforcement agencies as well as in the community are primary focus areas of the USDOE Grant. R12. Ensure that the role of SCOE in actual post-disaster scenarios is identified and publicized. See responses to F16. R13. Review the check-in/check-out procedures at the main (SCOE) facility and determine if a change is desirable. In the spring of 2005, after extensive research with Sonoma County offices, other County Offices of Education, surveying staff, dialogue with bargaining group representatives, and review by the SCOE Safety Committee, the check-in/check- out system was discarded. The value of having an accurate check-in/check-out security system is being able to track who is in the SCOE building at any one time; however, there was no way to ensure reliable tracking. It was common for visitors to check-in, but fail to check-out. There is a registration system in place for workshops and meetings, so visitors can be accounted for in case of emergency. RESPONSES TO SONOMA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Related Recommendations (1)

R14: - Implement a common parent-contact system as soon as possible. It is essential to make sure that all parents and guardians are provided with accurate, up-to-date information in the event of a disaster. Many parents work outside of Sonoma County and will be making every effort to return and retrieve their children as soon as possible. The media is often the only source of information for parents and these news reports can be incomplete and sometimes inaccurate. The USDOE Grant staff has researched several notification systems to notify parents and guardians in the event of a disaster. A common drawback to many of these systems is the need to maintain a huge database of contact information for each parent or guardian. Cost is often prohibitive as well. Currently, the staff is working on setting up a system called SCAN USA (Secure Cops Alert Network). The benefit of this system is that each parent or guardian signs up for the service on their own and they are responsible for updating their information -- not the school. They can also customize their service by zip code and by topic so they only receive alerts that are pertinent to their child's school or school district. It is also a FREE service which is an added bonus. Messages are generated at the school site and are then transmitted via cell phone text message, fax or e-mail. An alert will be received that directs subscribers to the SCAN USA website to view the message. The messages received through SCAN USA are posted in "real" time, which allows the school to provide up-to-the-minute information on topics such as school closures, incidents in progress, and status reports in large-scale events. This system cannot be the only method of communication because some parents don't have internet access -- which is required. The County of Sonoma Department of Emergency Services has access to a system called CityWatch which is a phone-tree system that can be activated regionally. This would allow schools to provide information to the county who would in turn activate the system to initiate a large volume of calls simultaneously. This CityWatch system is being evaluated for potential use by schools. clerical costs of registering parents for alert listings. The biggest challenge of the SCAN system is that everyone must go online and register. School site, district, and offices of education must register as agencies and designate an authorized person to issue appropriate level alerts. The process is simple and explained online at http://agency.scanusa.com. Individuals (parents and others) also must register at www.scanusa.com and designate the types of alert messages that they want to receive. The directions on the site are clear and easy to follow. (See the attached SCAN motivational pieces and directions to be sent to all administrators and parents by the Project this fall) Because some parents lack these amenities, however, we will also recommend school telephone trees, town hall meetings and other methods to alert parents Issue an Emergency Alert and Contact Information Card (being designed by the Project) Every year each parent should be issued a wallet size emergency alert and contact card with school registration information that would be filled out by them and contain the following information : 1. Telephone Tree Contact #s (at least two names) 2. SCOE Emergency Hotline telephone number 3. Call letters and dial number of local radio and TV stations that will carry bulletins/updates 4. Designated meeting place for children(s) rendezvous 5. Schoolguard.org for emergency and school release information 6. Medical emergency contact name and number

F16: In the existing pre-SEMS plans, the role of SCOE if a specific school or school district should incur a major disaster is unclear. Currently, there is no clear system in place to coordinate information throughout the school community. A school closure process was established several years ago with SCOE coordinating the information and distributing it to local media. This system was developed so parents and staff could receive school closure information that was accurate and timely. The system has most often been utilized during severe winter storms and flooding incidents. Within school districts, there are usually systems in place to ensure that schools communicate with their own district office during an emergency, but beyond that, the process is unclear. The agency to take primary responsibility for Emergency Management in our county should be determined as soon as possible. SCOE is one obvious choice because of its current relationship with the districts and the leadership role of the County Superintendent. However, RESIG has the expertise in Emergency Management and can fulfill this role as well. The County Superintendent and RESIG’s Executive Director should meet to discuss the issues involved and make a decision as to which agency is to assume this role and the level of support that can be expected from the districts. During a disaster of the magnitude that would require the activation of EOCs, there is no coordination of response or information beyond the district level. Using the SEMS/NIMS model, the appropriate flow of information should be from the school site (cid:1) to the district office (cid:1)to the appropriate city EOC (for response) AND to RESIG or SCOE (for coordination of information) (cid:1)to the Sonoma County Op Area EOC (cid:1)to the Coastal Region OES EOC (cid:1)then to the State OES EOC [See Figure 1]. Right now there is no central collection point for the coordination of information when multiple schools or districts are involved in an incident (such as a large earthquake). The USDOE Grant is presently serving as the central source for information and services related to Disaster Planning and Emergency Management, but there is no system established to gather and coordinate information during an actual event. RESIG or SCOE can serve in this role if a system is put into place that clearly delineates this responsibility and the system is clearly communicated to all members of the school community. The advantage of having a central coordination point is to facilitate the most efficient and effective flow of information and resources. If this system can be established, it will aid in response efforts as well as in the recovery process. RESIG currently has a representative who serves in the Logistics Section of the Sonoma County Op Area EOC in the event of a declared disaster. This person’s 1

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Telephone Tree Contact #s (at least two names)

R2: SCOE Emergency Hotline telephone number

R3: Call letters and dial number of local radio and TV stations that will carry bulletins/updates

R4: Designated meeting place for children(s) rendezvous

R5: Schoolguard.org for emergency and school release information

R6: Medical emergency contact name and number R15. Complete an inventory questionnaire of school communication equipment. Response: The Sonoma County Office of Education, in collaboration with the 40 Sonoma County school districts, is responding of behalf of all 40 of those districts. (Please see attached spreadsheet of responses.) The Schools Communications Survey was distributed in the spring and summer of 2005. Surveys have been completed by 40 of the 40 school districts, 174 of 174 schools reporting. The results will be provided to the School Guard grant staff for compilation. The grant staff will develop a list of communication equipment needs and research possible funding sources for equipment needs.

R9: Ascertain whether an extension to the USDOE grant timetable is possible, and determine if an extension would be desirable. The term of the current grant expires on March 31, 2006. Additional funds are not available after that date. An additional USDOE Grant that will involve all of the five counties in Region I (Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Sonoma and Mendocino) is under development. Mendocino will be the LEA. We will not know the outcome of that grant until October of 2005. If the Region 1 grant is successful, some minimal funding will be available for Sonoma County to continue some of the projects being developed with current grant funds. However, additional funds will be necessary to provide on-going support of the current projects.

R10: Review the letter from the US Department of Education regarding the Russian school hostage emergency, and expedite action and replies from all school districts. The “Beslan” letter was sent to every Superintendent across the nation by the USDOE in October of 2004. This letter was also handed out to all participants at a USDOE Grant Administrative Workshop on January 12, 2005. Many of the recommendations are already being included in the USDOE Grant activities. A RESIG representative serves on the Sonoma County Op Area Emergency Coordinator’s Forum as well as the Op Area Emergency Council. This representative facilitates the link between the schools and law enforcement as well as other emergency response agencies. Many of the recommendations contained in the letter require significant funds to accomplish. Budgetary restrictions may make these recommendations impossible to implement at the present time. However, many of the recommendations are already being addressed through grant activities or by the school districts themselves. Raising awareness in schools, among law enforcement agencies as well as in the community are primary focus areas of the USDOE Grant.

R11: - Develop a pro-forma action checklist for use by all schools in handling post-disaster tasks. This checklist will be included as part of the USDOE Grant Model Plan Project that is currently being developed. It will be part of the RECOVERY portion of the plan. The comprehensive plan will be provided to the schools in September 2005. Training on the plan will begin during the 2005-06 school year. Ongoing training will be required beyond the term of the grant. The USDOE Grant also has a project to develop a Loss Recovery Resource Guide for Schools to help schools in their recovery efforts from a variety of losses.

R12: Ensure that the role of SCOE in actual post-disaster scenarios is identified and publicized. See responses to F16.

R13: Review the check-in/check-out procedures at the main (SCOE) facility and determine if a change is desirable. In the spring of 2005, after extensive research with Sonoma County offices, other County Offices of Education, surveying staff, dialogue with bargaining group representatives, and review by the SCOE Safety Committee, the check-in/check- out system was discarded. The value of having an accurate check-in/check-out security system is being able to track who is in the SCOE building at any one time; however, there was no way to ensure reliable tracking. It was common for visitors to check-in, but fail to check-out. There is a registration system in place for workshops and meetings, so visitors can be accounted for in case of emergency. RESPONSES TO SONOMA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT R-14 Parent Communication JUNE 2005 – PROTECTING THE COUNTY’S ASSETS August 5, 2005 To: Carl Wong From: Craig Zachlod Following is my required responses to the Grand Jury and my personal recommendations for your consideration. In addition to explaining what we are doing about specific item F-14/R-14, I am also taking this opportunity to make recommendations to you in anticipation of the proposed Region 1 project. I look forward to the opportunity to meet with you Jerry Johnson and Joe Myers to discuss recommendations on how SCOE/RESIG ought to proceed with or without the United States Department of Education grant. Sometime next week, I will be providing you with hard copies of the Region 1 project proposal as reference that will include all supporting documents. R-14: Implement a common parent communication system as soon as possible. Redundancy is the operative concept when it concerns emergency communication with parents. We are recommending that every school, district and The Sonoma County of Education have more than one alternative means of communicating with parents. We further recommend and encourage county-wide use of a common alert system. Secure Cops Alert Network (SCAN) is both economical and available to anyone who has access to a computer but it is not the solution for all parent communication challenges. Public alert systems can be prohibitively expensive. There are many types of systems including telephone, computer and satellite systems. We (USDOE Project) recommend use of all affordable and redundant emergency alert systems. We have chosen SCAN as the preferred Project alert system primarily because it is affordable (costs for our project have been waived so it is promised free forever) and accessible to almost everyone. SCAN will be available in Spanish later this year. SCAN alerts registrants via messages to their cell phones, computer e-mails, pagers, and even text messages. School, District, and County administrators can use SCAN to alert parents about everything from school closures to tsunami warnings. The service is free, available to anyone with computer, fax, pager or cell phone access and can reduce annual school site August 23, 2005 To: Carl Wong Fm: Jerry Johnson Re: Responses to Grand Jury Report (R11 and R14) The purpose of this memo is to provide the required responses to the Grand Jury Final Report - published June 28, 2005. The responses to Recommendations R11 and R14 are to be made by the Deputy Superintendent of the Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools.

R15: Complete an inventory questionnaire of school communication equipment. Response: The Sonoma County Office of Education, in collaboration with the 40 Sonoma County school districts, is responding of behalf of all 40 of those districts. (Please see attached spreadsheet of responses.) The Schools Communications Survey was distributed in the spring and summer of 2005. Surveys have been completed by 40 of the 40 school districts, 174 of 174 schools reporting. The results will be provided to the School Guard grant staff for compilation. The grant staff will develop a list of communication equipment needs and research possible funding sources for equipment needs.

August 26, 2005 — Protecting the County's Assets

6 pages 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: SCOE should be encouraged to initiate an impartial study for all 40 Sonoma County school district to explore the advantages and disadvantages of unification and consolidation. Response: In March 2005, in response to requests from school trustees and superintendents in the West Sonoma County region, I hosted an informational meeting to discuss the topic of school district organization in the West County region. Attached is a June 17, 2005 memo that summarizes the progress of this action that involves the eleven districts in the West County. Education Code states that voters, governing boards, or the County Committee on School District Organization must initiate the local process. The County Superintendent does not have the legal authority to independently pursue a study that involves multiple school districts without the process first being initiated by the local school governing body or community of voters. The State Board of Education is lead agency for all unification proposals. The California Department of Education is responsible for the preparation and analysis of proposals, and makes formal recommendations to State Board. The County Office of Education provides support to the local County Committee and advises locally on the findings of a feasibility study. Education Code mandates that nine conditions be examined for each petition. The required conditions to be addressed in a feasibility include: • adequate size • substantial community identity • equitable division of property • no promotion of racial or ethnic segregation • no substantial increase in state costs • no significant disruption of educational programs • no significant increase in housing costs • no primary reason to significantly increase property values • no substantial negative effect on fiscal status of affected districts.

R2: The SCOE needs to collect the “best practices” used by individual school districts to pare operational expenses and share these with all the other districts. Response: The Sonoma County Office of Education continues to be a participant and/or convener on many committees designed to collect and share “best practices” as related to school district operations. Selected examples include: SELPA (Special Education Local Planning Area) as governed by the Superintendents’ Council, Curriculum Council, District Business Managers’ Group, Technology Consortium, the Aiming High Initiative, to name a few. Additionally, the attached matrix of “shared services” was developed three years ago in response to a prior Grand Jury topic of investigation. The three operational areas that are subject to annual review districts are home-school transportation, food services/production kitchens, and building and grounds maintenance services. There continues to be models of ‘subcontracting’ for these services by smaller districts with their respective larger partner districts. It should also be noted that the District Business Managers’ group meets monthly to discuss fiscal operations, share resources and develop efficient and cost- saving techniques in school business operations. On a regular basis, all district superintendents hold regional K-12 leadership meetings to address areas of mutual need and to share knowledge of those programs and services that are effective and appropriate for countywide replication.

R3: The district superintendents of the 40 districts, along with their school boards, should begin a collective review of health plans for both active and retired employees. The purpose of this review is to recognize the substantial increase in health care costs and their effect on district budgets. Response: It is important to note that the suggestion included in R3 of the Grand Jury Report has been in place for over twenty (20) years. Without exception, the cost of health care insurance coverage is a major concern for every school district in Sonoma County, and for the Sonoma County Office of Education (SCOE). Districts have used a three-pronged approach; 1) holding down increases by pooling their purchasing power, 2) shifting more of the premium increases to employees, and 3) requiring retirees to pay more of the cost of health coverage. All Sonoma county school districts and the SCOE have negotiated a cap on the cost of benefits for all employees, in one form or another. The RESIG was founded July 1, 1979, and its sole purpose is to provide quality, cost effective risk management programs and services to the public school districts of this county utilizing the economies of scale and purchasing power inherent in representing this large risk-sharing pool. RESIG is empowered by the districts and SCOE to negotiate with providers on behalf of all but one of the K-12 public school districts of Sonoma County (Cotati Rohnert Park School District is the sole exception, and they have a private trust that negotiates directly with the insurance carriers) for group purchase of health care. This approach provides the districts of Sonoma County the competitive edge associated with insuring almost 13,000 employees, versus each district negotiating rates separately with only the purchasing power of that district alone. Member districts of RESIG have access to three carrier alternatives; Blue Cross Preferred Provider Network, PacifiCare HMO, and Kaiser Permanente HMO. Within each of these carriers there are numerous benefit plan options with varying co-pays, deductibles and benefit packages from which member districts and their collective bargaining units can choose. Health benefits are a required subject of collective bargaining law and must be negotiated wit the unions that represent employees. Using this approach, RESIG’s group purchase Health Benefits Program has provided millions of dollars in savings to the school districts of Sonoma County over the last 20+ years. Because obtaining the lowest possible rates from carriers is of the utmost importance to districts, some of RESIG’s members seek alternative quotes from time to time through outside brokers or unions. There has never been a program offered to any school district that could provide equivalent group benefits at a lower cost than RESIG. Further, when districts sought rate information from PERSCare, one of the nations largest group purchasers of health care, even this program was unable to compete with RESIG’s benefit options and rates. In addition, RESIG has been able to negotiate across the board plan changes including higher deductibles and co- payments. This shift in costs was only possible through the collective strength of RESIG acting on behalf of all the school districts (except CRPUSD). Such a design changes have also saved districts hundreds of thousands of dollars. Shifting Premium Costs to Employees: In recognition of the impact of these sharply increased health benefit costs, districts have responded by significantly altering the amount paid by the districts for their employee’s health care costs. Over 95% of districts have collective bargaining agreements that require the employees pay for a portion of their health benefits. The amount of employee contributions has steadily increased over time. Retiree Health Care Costs: California Education Code requires that school districts make group benefits available to school district retirees, and all of RESIG’s health cared programs comply with this requirement. While the Education Code requires that group benefits be available to school retirees, there is not a legal requirement that the districts contribute to the cost of these benefits, unless that has been negotiated into employee contracts. In many cases the districts add an administrative fee as allowed by Code for the administration of the benefit continuation program in order to offset costs. In the past, when health care costs were lower, it was common for districts to provide some contribution to retirees’ benefits based on length of service in that district; usually 15 or more years. While there are a few exceptions where districts have collectively bargained “lifetime” benefits, most school districts that make a contribution end the contribution when the employee is eligible for Medicare. More and more districts in Sonoma County are eliminating, or significantly reducing, their contributions to retiree health benefits and many new retirees participate at their own expense. Changing the benefits of existing vested retirees is more difficult in that, by law, retirees are entitled to certain benefits that were in place at the time they retired. However, even these costs are controlled by contract language that includes the same cap on district contributions for retirees as is in place for active employees. While there continues to be significant health care cost pressures on our national and local economies, and while the costs far exceed the increases afforded to schools for the education of our students, Sonoma County schools have received tremendous benefit in having a group purchase vehicle through the Redwood Empire Schools’ Insurance Group since 1979 and for health benefits since 1981. RESIG continues to study and explore new methods of controlling health care costs and regularly shares this information with local districts. For more information on the varied benefits oriented services (e.g., claims management of its Workers' Compensation and Property & Liability programs, loss control services to all public school districts and several charter schools, return-to-work initiatives, etc.), please feel free to review the RESIG web site at www.resig.org. In summary, 24 years ago leadership from all of Sonoma County school districts came together with the vision of holding down health care costs through group purchasing power. That was only the beginning of what has been an ongoing collective effort to control the cost of health care. Through RESIG and the collective bargaining process, the districts have saved millions of dollars. However, the upward spiral of health care costs is a national crisis that cannot be solved solely through local efforts to control costs. There are many forces at work on a national level that are far beyond the power or control of local school boards. Despite those challenges, local districts continue to meet on a regular basis through RESIG to explore all viable options for controlling health care costs.

August 24, 2005 — The Honorable Allan D. Hardcastle Presiding Judge Sonoma County Superior Court

1 pages 2 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F3: states, “In some law enforcement agencies, more than 10% of the sworn officers live outside of Sonoma County due to the high cost of housing.” I concur with this finding. While we currently do not have any officers residing outside of the county, we have in the past and would expect to experience this issue as we recruit for new officers. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury’s report. Please feel free to contact me if you should require further clarification of information. Sincerely, Robert Stewart Chief of Police Grand Jury Response 08-05

August 18, 2005 — County of Sonoma Tax Collection Division Thomas C. Ford Sandi Conley Treasurer-tax Collector Asst. Tax Collector

3 pages 2 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F8: Most of the computer applications used by the Tax Collection Department are developed by and purchased from a third party provider and are server-based. Sonoma County uses the same applications as Napa County and other counties within a reasonable distance. There is a valid assumption that in the event of a total system loss, the Tax Collection systems could be processed elsewhere, likely at the Napa County facility. The arrangement is reciprocal. It is not clear whether the Tax Collection Department would literally use the copy of the application that resides in Napa. It may be safer to make a copy of the application code in use in Sonoma County, and take it to Napa County when needed. The tax collection application was developed by and purchased from a third party vendor and is used by other California counties. California counties do assist each other in the event of a disaster. To what extent Napa County and/or another county would be in a position to help may depend on their situation status. It is very likely that the Tax Collector’s staff would travel to Rocklin, CA, the home office of the vendor, to bring the tax collection system back on-line. The vendor maintains a full version of the Sonoma County application on their server in Rocklin, and that facility with its training classes would provide the necessary space to process the volume of work. The County is continuing discussions with the vendor to determine the safest method for restoring the application. During a declared disaster, personnel in both the Information Systems and the Tax Collection departments report to the Incident Commander in the Emergency Operations Center, and carry out assigned duties. It is not likely that a needs assessment conducted during a major disaster would focus on restoring the tax collection activities. However, as personnel are not needed to restore the highest priority services and become available, the Information Systems department and staff will work to restore day-to-day business applications, such as the tax collection system.

F10: Tax Revenue is 40% of the county’s total revenue, collected at two calendar points, mid- December and mid-April. These two collection points account for 85% of the tax revenue with December being the larger of the two. If a disaster were to take out the system at a point, say December 11, substantial revenue and investment opportunities are at risk. Other than the obvious step of moving to Napa, there is not much detailed thought given to the full business resumption (getting back to normal) after a disaster. As an example, after the Loma Prieta earthquake, it took Alameda County some four months before everything in their system usage was back to normal. Response: For Fiscal Year 2004/05, Property Tax Revenue accounted for 16.8% of the County’s total revenue. The majority of this revenue is collected during the December installment period. Contrary to the findings in this report, a great deal of effort and thought has been spent on getting the property system back to normal. Backup application of the actual system is housed at a remote ISD site and the vendor also maintains a full backup application at their home office in Rocklin, CA. The actual data processed into the system is backed up every night and a complete system data backup is completed at the end of each month. Therefore, our staff, with the assistance of ISD, could recreate the application and update the stored data on any personal computer (PC) that has access to the Internet to our vender in Rocklin, CA. In 1989, Alameda County was on a mainframe computer system with dumb terminals and thus was unable to access their data. Currently, almost all of Sonoma County’s computer systems are accessible via the Internet, thus eliminating the prolonged delay that was experienced in Alameda County.

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: Participate more actively, on an annual basis, in the disaster recovery testing of the Tax Collection applications. This should include use of backup data in a real environment, not simply a test to show that the data is being backed up. We thank you for your recommendation and after discussion with the property group, it was decided that the Tax Collector, Auditor and the Assessor will participate on an active basis with ISD to develop and implement a “live” test of the application in a recovery mode utilizing real data and a remote site. This action will be accomplished by December 31, 2005.

R5: Participate, bi-annually, in an actual test, to determine that Sonoma County can successfully process its Tax Collection applications at Napa County’s computer installation. Response: In reviewing your recommendation, the property tax departments have determined that Napa County would not be the preferred site due to possible conflict in scheduling and equipment. If the event were to occur on December 10, Napa’s Tax Collector would need all equipment and space to process their bills and payment. Therefore, we have chosen the vendor’s site Rocklin, CA and will be conducting a “live” recovery at that site in the very near future. This task will be accomplished by November 1, 2005.

R6: Evaluate the opportunity investment cost of, as an example, a five-day delay in investing the peak tax income in mid-December, and determine what commensurate investment in redundant equipment would preclude the lost opportunity Response: We have calculated the investment cost of a five-day delay in investing peak tax revenue in mid December; a loss based upon an average of the past three years of deposits is approximately a $36,000 revenue loss. However, as the Investment and Banking System are Internet based, we could continue investing operations. We further believe that requesting the U.S. Postal Service to re-routing the incoming mail to a secured site would enable us to continue the daily processing of tax receipts and continue the daily deposits of those checks directly to our banking partners. This action would greatly reduce the revenue loss. Our office will run a live test of this investment and banking procedure, and should we find that additional equipment is necessary, we will review the acquisition of that equipment. We thank the Grand Jury for their interest in the protection of our work processes and welcome any further input to insure that the taxpayers of Sonoma County sheltered from lose of revenue during a disaster. Sincerely, Tom Ford Treasurer/Tax Collector

August 16, 2005 — City Council Larry Robinson, Mayor Sarah Glade - Gurney, Vice Mayor City Hall Linda Kelley

5 pages 5 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F3: Written plans and checklists are not consistent among county, cities, agencies, and departments, and in some cases are non-existent. Response: I am unable to agree or disagree with this finding as I have not reviewed all the plans and checklists of other jurisdictions to determine whether the finding of the Grand Jury is accurate. However, I do know that the City of Sebastopol has checklists for all pertinent positions in the emergency operations plan. The checklists and plan are consistent with the operational area and were distributed by the operational area to all agencies as the accepted checklists.

F4: Where plans and checklists do exist, they are not always stored in multiple safe places for guaranteed access in the event of a disaster. The most common place is “the office” notwithstanding that a disaster does not limit itself to regular work hours, and office buildings may not be accessible! Response: In regard to the City of Sebastopol, I disagree with this finding. Plans and checklists are stored at the Sebastopol Fire Station, Police Station, City Hall, Public Works Building and in the Emergency Operations Center itself. The plan is stored in sufficiently redundant locations so as to be available in an emergency.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: – Institute regular, mandatory training a) Provide Designated Filers with basic informational training. b) Increase utilization of FPPC for training of Form 700 Filing Officers and Clerks c) Require Code of Ethics training at the city and county level as similar to that as mandated by state agencies (available online). d) Require basic conflict-of-interest training for: o Incumbent elected and appointed officials o New appointees and elected officials Response: Again, this recommendation will require further discussion with the City Council prior to consideration of implementing these recommendations. In response to recommendation 4(a), The recommendation by the grand jury to provide filers with training already occurs in Sebastopol. All candidates for elected office are provided information by the City Clerk for the “State of Economic Interest Form 700". When public officials are elected or appointed by the City Council, the City Clerk provides and explains to them the Form 700 for their “Assuming Office Statement” which is due to the FPPC within 30 days. Annual filers under Gov. Code Section 87200 are notified in January/February of the requirement to file by April 1st and advised of the FPPC information telephone line available to assist them in completing the form. As a courtesy, the City Clerk provides two reminders to this group of filers to complete their forms. The FPPC is the ‘Filing Officer’ and therefore the most appropriate source of information for those required to file under GCS 87200. The second category of filers are ‘code filers” designated in the city’s Conflict of Interest Code (eg. department heads, Design Review Board members, consultants). For these classifications, the City Clerk is the ‘filing officer’. These Form 700 submittals are retained by the City Clerk and only forwarded to the FPPC if no report is filed after 90 days after two additional notifications are made from the City Clerk to gain compliance. In response to recommendation 4 (b), I will not recommend that the City Council take action on increasing utilization of the FPPC for training as I believe it not necessary in our city. Based upon our current procedures described above, the City Clerk is highly qualified and knowledgeable about the reporting requirements and effectively administers our Conflict of Interest reporting program while clearly advising filers of the FPPC resource for information. In response to grand jury recommendations 4 (c) and (d), I would not recommend that the City do anything differently than our current procedures except as described in my response to grand jury

F9: All county employees are listed as disaster recovery resources, as indeed are members of the grand jury, but there is no clear plan on how they will report in for duty, or how they will be used Response: I can neither agree or disagree with this finding as I have no knowledge of the county policy on response to a disaster.

F10: The city plans are not consistent in scope and detail. The City of Santa Rosa has a well structured but dated plan, Cotati’s plan is literally a copy of the county plan, Cloverdale is still using the 1989 two volume door-stopper plan that existed before the adoption of SEMS, and Healdsburg’s plan is dated 1987. See Exhibit D for a table comparing the format and date of the county and city plans. Response: I disagree with this finding. The City of Sebastopol Emergency Operations Plan was created in 1996, with the assistance of Sonoma County Operational Area Staff. The plan was originally written for San Mateo County (by Sonoma County Emergency Services Coordinator Sandy Covall- Alves) and modified and adapted to meet the needs of Sebastopol. The plan is SEMS based and meets State requirements with a statement to that effect found on -1 of the plan, and provides appropriate direction to city staff. The plan is consistent with other plans in the Operational Area and has been exercised jointly with the county plan.

F13: There is an agreement dated 1997, between the cities and the county, promising help from the county for the construction of, training in and testing of city-based disaster plans. This assistance is not provided, nor sought on a continually consistent basis, despite the payment of a $2000 annual fee by the cities. Response: Based upon our experience in the City of Sebastopol, I disagree with this finding. The City of Sebastopol has found this agreement between the city and the county to be very successful and has helped immensely in providing the city with a quality plan. The county was instrumental in working with the city to create the current plan and the needed checklists. The county provides semi- annual Disaster Council meetings, which Sebastopol is a member, as well as quarterly Emergency Coordinators Forums. The county is the lead agency that coordinates the Auxiliary Communications Section with all of the cities and provided a conduit for information shared from the state to the operational area. The county has provided numerous materials and written documents that have enhanced the preparedness for the city. Earlier this year, the county provided written documents enabling the city to provide a quality update to our emergency operational plan, as well as many new annexes to that plan including bioterrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The county also provides frequent exercises and includes the city in planning and implementation. The city is already working with the county to implement the federal requirements of the National Incident Management System. Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: – Adopt a Code of Ethics Sonoma County and each city should establish and implement a Code of Ethics. All commissions, committees and boards, as well as elected and appointed officials, should review the Code of Ethics and attest to understanding the policy as it pertains to their position. Thereafter, the county and city officials should mandate periodic ethics training and testing, just as is required of federal and state employees. For establishing a Code of Ethics, the Attorney General’s Office and FPPC, have developed a web-based ethics training course. The California League of Cities also has information and guidelines. Response: This recommendation will require further discussion with the City Council before implementation of this recommendation can be considered. Elected and appointed officials receive opportunities for training in ethics law and behaviour at professional conferences and receive articles in professional publications such as the League of California City’s “Western City” magazine that has periodically published articles on the subject (Dec. ‘03 & Feb. ‘05; another article is scheduled for Dec. ‘05). We distribute the Institute for Local Self Government’s publication “A Local Official’s Reference on Ethics Laws” to all elected and appointed officials in Sebastopol. The ILSG is developing a webpage on this topic that will be a valuable resource to public officials. Both the City Attorney and I periodically provide educational information to individuals and group basis. However, I will be recommending that the City Council consider the adoption of a resolution that consolidates a viable Code of Ethics to be included with our existing training that is periodically conducted for all public officials by the City Attorney. I will recommend that public officials attest to the receipt and understanding of the city ethics code, but would not support the grand jury’s recommendation for a testing procedure. 3

R5: – Re-file Form 700 on a material change Sonoma County administration and respective cities in Sonoma County should require Designated Filers to file amendments to Form 700 with clerks of the county or city within 30 days of a material change. “Material Change” is defined in Government Code Section 87103. Response: This recommendation will require discussion with the City Council prior to any consideration of implementing any change in our requirements. Currently, there is no requirement by the PPPC that 4 Form 700s be amended between reporting periods and there does not appear to be a definition of “material change” in Government Code Section 87103 as referenced by the grand jury. However, GCS 87103 does define the concept of a conflict of interest when a public official has a financial interest in a decision where that decision will have a “material financial effect” distinquishable from the effect on the public generally, to the benefit of themselves, members of their immediate family or assets, income, business associates or donors above certain monetary thresholds. Public Officials who have a financial interest in a decision are already obligated to identify the conflict of interest or potential conflict immediately prior to even the consideration of the matter and must disclose the nature of the conflict “in detail sufficient to be understood by the public” and are required to recuse themselves from further participation on the matter before the decision making body. This requirement and subsequent procedure is outlined in Gov. Code Sec. 87105. This would seem to provide the public with a more immediate disclosure than requiring additional paperwork that occurs well after the event in question. I will not be recommending any change to be made from our current practices in Sebastopol due to my belief that appropriate and reasonable procedures are in place. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the findings and recommendations of the grand jury on these topics. Yours Truly, David Brennan City Manager C City Council Hollie Fiori, City Clerk Larry McLaughlin, City Attorney John Zanzi, Fire Chief 5

August 16, 2005 — City Council Larry Robinson, Mayor Sarah Glade - Gurney, Vice Mayor City Hall Linda Kelley

6 pages 1 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 1 findings

F10: – The city plans are not consistent in scope and detail. The City of Santa Rosa has a well- structured but dated plan. Cotati’s plan is literally a copy of the county plan, Cloverdale is still using the 1989 two volume door-stopper plan that existed before the adoption of SEMS, and Healdsburg’s plan is dated 1987. See Exhibit D for a table comparing the format and date of the county and city plans. Response: It would not be unexpected to have differences in scope and details between Sonoma county and the various cities in Sonoma county. Each jurisdiction has different capabilities, resources, and risk factors associated with any emergency response. We cannot comment on the adequacy of the emergency response plans of other jurisdictions, but we believe the Sebastopol plan sufficiently outlines the assignment and allocation of our resources during an emergency and identifies those resources we would be dependent upon county and state agencies to assist us. The City of Sebastopol Emergency Operations Plan was created in 1996, with the assistance of Sonoma County Operational Area Staff. The plan was originally written for San Mateo County (by Sonoma County Emergency Services Coordinator Sandy Covall-Alves) and modified and adapted to meet the needs of Sebastopol. The plan is SEMS based and meets State requirements with a statement to that effect found on -1 of the plan, and provides appropriate direction to city staff. The plan is consistent with other plans in the Operational Area and has been exercised jointly with the county plan. In regard to Finding #10 as it relates to the City of Sebastopol, we disagree with this finding.

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: - By December 2005 the governing bodies of the county and each city should have: • Evaluated the housing needs for sworn officers, targeting the entry-level officer • Appointed a liaison to local banks and lending institutions to begin dialogues outlining possible solutions.

R3: – Each city council should: - Initiate an annual review of its disaster plan, coincident with the budget cycle, starting with the 2006-2007 cycle. These reviews should include the following tasks as a minimum: o Examine status of the actions from the previous year’s review. o Review any tests during the year and any plan changes required as a result of the tests (“no change” is an unlikely outcome). o Request detail of any changes to the plan occasioned by known state, national or world emergencies that occurred in the review year. o Request detail of any changes to the plan required by directives from the Department of Homeland Security (with due regard to any security and secrecy requirements). o Concur by vote, that the review has been completed successfully. Response: The City’s management staff has reviewed the disaster plan on a periodic basis and made changes as needed to improve efficiency or in response to field testing, current events and new regulations. The considerations outlined in Recommendation #3 have been a part of that review. We will implement recommendation #3 before or as part of the FY 2006-07 cycle in order to create a regular discussion of our emergency response plan and ensure that it is current with state and federal regulations, relevant in regard to potential disasters and ready to be effectively implemented by the EOC management staff.

R4: – Institute regular, mandatory training (a) Provide Designated Filers with basic informational training. (b) Increase utilization of FPPC for training of Form 700 Filing Officers and Clerks (c) Require Code of Ethics training at the city and county level as similar to that as mandated by state agencies (available online). (d) Require basic conflict-of-interest training for: o Incumbent elected and appointed officials o New appointees and elected officials Response: Adequate training as recommended by the grand jury under 4(a) already exists in Sebastopol. All candidates for elected office are provided information by the City Clerk for them to complete the “State of Economic Interest Form 700". When public officials are elected or appointed by the City Council, the City Clerk provides and explains to them the Form 700 for their “Assuming Office Statement” which is due to the FPPC within 30 days. Annual filers under Gov. Code Section 87200 are notified in January/February of the requirement to file by April 1st and advised of the FPPC information telephone help line available to assist them in completing the form. As a courtesy, the City Clerk provides two reminders to this group of filers to complete their forms. The FPPC is the ‘Filing Officer’ and therefore the most appropriate source of information for those required to file under GCS 87200. The second category of filers are ‘code filers” designated in the city’s Conflict of Interest Code (eg. department heads, Design Review Board members, consultants). For these classifications, the City Clerk is the ‘filing officer’. These Form 700 submittals are retained by the City Clerk and only forwarded to the FPPC if no report is filed after 90 days after two additional notifications are made from the City Clerk to gain compliance. In response to recommendation 4 (b), we do not believe it necessary to increase FPPC training for public officials in our city. Based upon our current procedures described above, the City Clerk is highly qualified and knowledgeable about the reporting requirements and effectively administers our Conflict of Interest reporting program while clearly advising filers of the FPPC resource for information. In response to grand jury recommendations 4 (c) and (d), we do not believe mandated training for code of ethic or conflict of interest is warranted. Besides the opportunities made available from the FPPC, League of California Cities and the Institute for Local Self Government, we already provide adequate training on the subjects of a code of ethics and conflict of interest through the City Attorney’s individual meetings with newly elected and appointed officials, the periodic local training provided by the City Attorney, the distribution of informational and educational materials and the support for attendance of elected and appointed officials at League of Cities sponsored conferences that address this topic. We will not be implementing these recommendations.

R5: – The Board of Supervisors and each city council, should: - Demand that plans be put in place to ensure that all existing employees have been or will be trained in SEMS and the Emergency Recovery Plan for the county, and/or their city. The training should be completed by year-end 2005. - Document the reporting steps employees must take as support individuals in the event of a disaster. - Endorse that the most effective use of most employees is to focus on business resumption. Response: It has been state law for many years now that all employees and volunteers be trained in SEMS. The city has performed this training many years ago, with refreshers as needed. New employees (1 or 2 per year) are trained on an as needed basis. The city is very aware of SEMS and it is the base of all of our emergency planning. There is no “Emergency Recovery Plan” on it’s own. Recovery is part of our emergency operations plan and one of the objectives that is detailed during the creation of action plans by EOC staff during the emergency. Recovery is such a wide and varied subject, depending on the exact circumstances of the disaster, that it would be next to impossible to create such a document that would adequately address all situations. This being the case, staff has not been trained on this non-existent plan. City staff has been instructed to report to their normal work location in the event of a disaster. EOC staff and department supervisors will direct staff to those tasks deemed most necessary. With the small number of city staff in Sebastopol, except for the EOC personnel, it would not be appropriate to identify tasks for each individual. The city EOC management staff, through the creation of action plans, should determine how best to utilize staff. The final recommendation, that employees should focus on business resumption, is unclear. If the intent is that the resumption of city services is the highest priority then we disagree with this recommendation. Action plans, created by EOC staff should direct the most efficient use of all resources. There are many situations where basic city services will be curtailed until other more urgent requirements to protect the health and safety of the public are addressed. If the question is intended to focus city staff on the resumption of private sector business resumption, again, EOC Management will make that decision based on prudent action plans, depending on the situation. We believe this recommendation has already been implemented in Sebastopol in an appropriate and effective manner. Conflict of Interest Codes in Sonoma County Recommendation R1 – Adopt an Incompatible Activities List Each commission, board and public agency should have their own Incompatibility Activities list as a supplemental resource. This list would assist the officials in understanding how to avoid conflict-of-interest issues, enhance the assurance of public trust—the integrity of officials—and political processes as well. The following is a sample of the type of list the grand jury recommends: Incompatible Activities – Sample List 1. Cannot have an interest in a contract made by the board, commission or committee that one is involved with. 2. Cannot request, receive or agree to receive anything of value or other advantages in exchange for a decision. 3. Cannot influence decisions relating to potential business or prospective employers. 4. May not acquire property interests within redevelopment areas over which one has decision- making influence. 5. Cannot receive compensation from third parties for speaking, writing an article or attending a conference. 6. Cannot use public agency resources (money, travel expenses, staff time and agency equipment) for personal or political purposes. 7. Cannot participate in decisions that may affect (positively or negatively) their personal interests, interests of their immediate family or their business partners. Response: Having a list of incompatible activities as a supplemental resource is desirable and the Grand Jury’s list is identical to that list provided by the Institute for Local Self Government (“Key Ethics Law Principles for Public Servants”) which further advises that one should consult with their agency’s legal counsel to discuss the specifics of their situation. It is doubtful whether any document could reasonably address all the potential conflicts of interest or substitute for effective legal advice on these complex matters. We typically consult with our City Attorney when potential conflicts of interest arise and have received excellent guidance from the City Attorney. We will ensure that all public officials receive a copy of the ILSG guide on incompatible activities. The City Council will ensure that this recommendation will continue to be implemented through the distribution of the ILSG publication.

August 16, 2005 — City Council Larry Robinson, Mayor Sarah Glade - Gurney, Vice Mayor City Hall Linda Kelley

6 pages 1 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 1 findings

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

August 16, 2005 — City Council Larry Robinson, Mayor Sarah Glade - Gurney, Vice Mayor City Hall Linda Kelley

6 pages 1 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 1 findings

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

August 15, 2005 — Housing Assistance for Sworn Officers

2 pages 2 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F2: states, “Sonoma County invests money and time into the training of officers. The goal is to retain these trained officers long term and have not only all sworn law enforcement officers live within the county boundaries, not only for safety reasons but to be an integral part of the community.” I firmly agree with this finding and taking it a step further, I feel that it is a high priority to have all city employees live within the community they serve. The City of Cloverdale has for some time now been in the unique position within the County of having a residency requirement for their police officers. In the past four months the Cloverdale Police Department has hired three new officers; one officer lives in Santa Rosa, one in Lakeport, Mendocino County and the third officer just bought a home in Cloverdale. The two new officers living outside of Cloverdale have indicated a desire to move to Cloverdale upon completion of their probation period. Prior to these new hires, all but one of our officers lived within the city limits. The City of Cloverdale is experiencing difficulty in finding qualified police recruits and other city employees who currently live within our city limits. With our residency requirement and providing a take home car to officers, the police department has been able to achieve a certain degree of stability in where our officers reside. Cloverdale also is in the unique position of being only two miles from the county line, making it often times more convenient and affordable to live in Mendocino County.

F3: states, “In some law enforcement agencies, more than 10% of the sworn officers live outside of Sonoma County due to the high cost of housing.” As noted in my response to Finding #2, we encourage our officers to live within the city limits and prior to our most recent hires, all but one of our thirteen officers lived within the city. We would encourage the county and cities to make the same effort to keep all employees living within the community as they do for police officers. If I can be of any additional assistance, please contact me at 707 894 1736 Sincerely, Stephen M. Willis Chief of Police

June 30, 2005 — City of Healdsburg Police Department City of Healdsbur*

1 pages 2 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F2: states, "Sonoma County invests money and time into the training of officers. The goal is to retain these trained officers long term and have all law enforcement sworn officers live within the county boundaries, not only for safety reasons but to be an integral part of the community." I concur with this finding. Thankfully, all of the Healdsburg Police Department's eighteen sworn officers live within Sonoma County. Nine of our sworn officers live within the City limits, three live in Santa Rosa, four live in Windsor, one lives in Cloverdale and one lives in Petaluma. It is interesting to note that two of the officers who reside in Healdsburg are our recent hires and they were able to take advantage of our affordable housing program and silent loan program.

F3: states, "In some law enforcement agencies, more than 10% of the sworn officers live outside of Sonoma County due to the high cost of housing." As noted in my response to Finding #2, none of the eighteen sworn officers at the Healdsburg Police Department live outside Sonoma County. Please let me know if additional information is desired. Susan E. Jones Chief of Police

June 28, 2005 — Housing Assistance for Sworn Officers

1 pages 2 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F2: states, “Sonoma County invests money and time into the training of officers. The goal is to retain these trained officers long term and have all law enforcement sworn officers live within the county boundaries, not only for safety reasons but to be an integral part of the community.” I concur with this finding. Thankfully, all of the Sebastopol Police Department’s fifteen sworn officers live within Sonoma County. Five of our sworn officers live within the City limits; three others live in unincorporated western Sonoma County. Of the remaining seven officers, six live in Santa Rosa and one lives in Windsor. It is interesting to note that seven of the eight most senior sworn officers live in the City limits or unincorporated western Sonoma County. However, of the seven most junior officers, only one lives in the City limits. The remaining six live in Santa Rosa or Windsor.

F3: states, “In some law enforcement agencies, more than 10% of the sworn officers live outside of Sonoma County due to the high cost of housing.” As noted in my response to Finding #2, none of the fifteen sworn officers at the Sebastopol Police Department live outside Sonoma County. I hope my response is acceptable and meets the Grand Jury’s needs. Please let me know if additional information is desired. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Weaver Chief of Police

June 18, 2005 — Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County Facilitating Prevention, Detection, and Early Intervention

15 pages 12 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: Failure to Submit Statement of Economic . Conflict of Interest Interests The grand jury observed five individual cases identifying officials who did not file Failure to Submit Statements of Economic Interests (Form Economic Interests 700) until repeatedly notified of non- Failure to Failure to Self- compliance. Disclose Disqualify .m M Economic From Debates Interests and Decisions

F2: Failure to Disclose Economic Interests Result: Three cases indicated failure to disclose Administrative, Civil economic interests; a fourth individual failed and Criminal Penalties to report expenditures and sub-vendor payments. .m

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Re-file Form 700 on a material change Sonoma County administration and respective cities in Sonoma County should require all Designated Filers to file amendments to Form 700 with clerks of the county or city within 30 days of a material change. “Material Change” is defined in Government Code § 87103.

F3: Failure to Self-Disqualify from Debates and Decisions Three cases listed individuals who did not self-disqualify from decisions in which they had a financial interest.

F4: Ten violations in Sonoma County In the past seven years, the FPPC has taken action in ten instances in Sonoma County for violations of the Political Reform Act, imposing fines totaling $64,200 against officials. Nine of the cases were violations of the conflict-of-interest provisions, one case involved campaign finance filing requirements (Refer to following chart, Ten Violations of the Political Reform Act – Sonoma County). 5

F5: Lack of communication, notification, collaboration There appeared to be little communication, collaboration and/or notification between the FPPC and city/county agencies in investigation of conflict-of-interest cases. The FPPC doesn’t formally notify city or county officials when investigating a complaint until administrative resolution. It is not unusual for officials to learn through the media and newspaper articles of administrative actions. The above chart, “Reason Violation not Investigated” shows that of the 22 alleged conflict-of-interest violations, nine complaints were not investigated due to insufficient agency resources. Those nine cases could have been referred to the District Attorney’s office for review and possible investigation. This would assure that all future cases are examined.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Improve collaboration/cross reporting There should be closer collaboration between the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office and the FPPC. The grand jury recommends a Memorandum of Understanding be proposed by the District Attorney to specify the respective responsibilities, including a provision for cross-reporting. Additionally, a formal chain of communication and referral protocol relative to assigning administrative/civil and criminal complaints should be developed. Since investigation is the first step to an action, one of the offices has to provide the investigation resource, and each entity should know at what stage a case is being reviewed. The rationale is to have the quickest action by the appropriate enforcement agency of the suspected violations, and, as mentioned in “Findings,” nine cases were not investigated by the FPPC due to insufficient agency resources. In the future, such cases ought not to be omitted from investigation just because of insufficient resources at the state level. Best Practices A number of “Best Practices” were noted and are included here for recognition: • The Santa Rosa Press Democrat newspaper, for conflict-of-interest news reporting. • The County Counsel’s effort to close loopholes in the conflict-of-interest filing process. • Cities that have their city attorney present at meetings where guidance can be given prior to there being a conflict-of-interest issue. • The FPPC for responding to every call with a live person to answer Political Reform Act questions. • The FPPC for providing an array of publications and training to inform and educate the public and elected/appointed officials. • Citizen advocates who attend public meetings and become involved. • The City of Santa Rosa for maintaining additional disclosure forms and other information the City of Santa Rosa requires. This was above and beyond state requirements. • Cities of Windsor, Santa Rosa; the Cloverdale and Healdsburg Planning Commissions for identifying in their agendas and minutes, a “Conflict-of-Interest Declaration” or “Statement of Abstention.” • The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors for adopting a resolution in February, 2005 to expand Designated Filers and disclosure categories. • The City of Sonoma for enacting a Code of Ethics for its officials and employees. • The League of California Cities for providing continuing education, training and web- based resource information. Required responses to Recommendations: Sonoma County Board of Supervisors – R3a, R3b Sonoma County Board of Supervisors – R1, R2, R4, R5 Nine City Managers and City Councils: Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Cotati, Healdsburg, Windsor, Cloverdale, Sebastopol, Sonoma – R1, R4, R5 City Managers and City Councils: Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Cotati, Healdsburg, Windsor, Cloverdale, Sebastopol – R2 Sonoma County District Attorney - R7 13 Sources of Information 1. The grand jury reviewed the following documents: • A Guide to the Political Reform Act of 1974, California’s Conflict-of-interest Law for Public Officials, University of California • Political Reform Act 2004, Fair Political Practices Commission • FPPC Stipulations, Decisions and Orders and Admonishment letter • California Government Codes §§ 87100-87313 and §§ 56010-56081 • The Maddy Act, California Government Code, §§ 54970-54975 • The Brown Act, California Government Code, § 54950 • The Hatch Act, under Title 5, United States Code, § 7321 et seq. • The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, Government Code § 51200-51297 • The State of California, Little Hoover Commission Report, dated July 12, 2004, entitled “Governing the Golden State, A Critical Path to Improve Performance and Restore Trust” • The State of California, Little Hoover Commission Report, dated May 3, 2000, entitled “Special Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources for the Future?” • San Diego County Grand Jury Report 2002-2003 (March 6, 2003), San Diego City Ethics Commission: “Can It Attain Its Purpose?” • Orange County Grand Jury Report 1998-1999 • Orange County Sheriff-Coroner, Conflict-of-Interest Study • Humboldt County Grand Jury Report of 2003/4 (#2004-AF-01) The Absence of Ethics Codes in Humboldt County • Fair Political Practices Commission, publications: - “Adopting a Conflict-of-interest Code” - “Can I Vote?” - An Overview of the Conflicts Laws - “Where to Find Copies of Form 700 Filed by Public Officials” - “Your Resource for Advice, Education, Enforcement.” • Municipal Codes: - City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code - City of Sebastopol Municipal Code - Town of Windsor Municipal Code - City of Petaluma Municipal Code - Santa Rosa City Code - Sonoma County Code • Over thirty articles from The Press Democrat newspaper (1998-2005) • More than one-hundred state and national articles 2. The grand jury interviewed the following persons: • State: o Fair Political Practices Commission: Chief, Technical Assistance Division; Senior Counsel, Enforcement Division; Enforcement Officer • County: o District Attorney, Deputy District Attorney, Staff attorney o Member, Board of Supervisors o Deputy County Counsel o Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO): Executive and Assistant Executive officers o Public Defender • Cities: o Cotati: Former Mayor o Petaluma: City Attorney o Rohnert Park: City Clerk, Assistant City Manager, Assistant City Attorney o Santa Rosa: City Manager, City Attorney, Deputy City Attorney, Director of Community Development, Former Mayor, two former Planning commissioners. • Other Respondents: o Three Citizen Advocates 14 • MESSAGE TO SONOMA COUNTY RESIDENTS FROM THE GRAND JURY We commend those individuals, past and present, who sought elective and appointive office on boards, committees, and commissions in city and county governments. They act as fiduciaries for our interests, putting in many hours of personal time at little or no remuneration. While we must commend those who offer their time and expertise in public service, we have a right to expect these individuals to fulfill their responsibilities with integrity and ethical conduct; that is, they cannot use their position of public trust to benefit themselves, their business interests, families, or colleagues. We expect elected/appointed officials to recognize actual and apparent conflicts of interest. But, this does not always occur. Thus, it may fall on other parties, including informed citizens, to raise the issue. The key is an informed citizenry. Issues that create conflict of interest can be complex. We elect officials to work on our behalf; however, our duty as citizens does not end at the voting booth. We must be ready to assist and monitor them by being sensitive to the issues they face, particularly if they are contributing their expertise and time to assist in decisions that improve our communities. Being informed requires that you, as a citizen, pay attention to current issues. It requires study and analysis of positions of our elected and appointed officials, and may even require attendance at government meetings. Ultimately, it may require you to speak up if there is an actual or an appearance of a conflict of interest. The goal is to preserve the integrity of our governmental functions. The reward is a more responsive government and a more satisfying environment for all of us to live in. We have set out information below that can help you, the citizens of Sonoma County, fulfill this goal should a situation arise. Complaints concerning violations of the conflict-of-interest provisions of the Political Reform Act should be made to the local District Attorney, or the Enforcement Division of the FPPC. Fair Political Practices Commission Phone: 1-866-ASK-FPPC (1-866-275-3772) 428 J Street, Suite 620, Sacramento, CA 95814. Website: www.fppc.ca.gov FPPC Publications, Training and Education: (cid:131) “Your Duty to File” – A basic overview of State Economic Disclosure Law (cid:131) “Can I Vote.”? An overview of public officials’ obligations (cid:131) “How Do I Get Advice from the FPPC?” (cid:131) Statement of Economic Interests – Form 700. (cid:131) Publication, “Your Resource for: Advice, Education, and Enforcement” (cid:131) “How to File a Violation of the Political Reform Act. (cid:131) “Violation Report Form.” (cid:131) “What happens after I file a complaint?” (cid:131) FPPC seminars for cities, counties, multi-county and state agencies League of California Cities – Institute for Local Self-Government - Website: www.ilsg.org Local City and County Attorneys’ offices: Sonoma County District Attorney........ 707-565-2311 Cotati ...........................707-665-3623 Sonoma County Counsel.................... 707-565-2421 Healdsburg...................707-431-3317 Rohnert Park....................................... 707-588-2227 Windsor........................510-351-4362 Petaluma............................................. 707-778-4362 Cloverdale....................707-894-2521 Santa Rosa......................................... 707-543-3040 Sebastopol....................707-823-7865 Sonoma........................707-938-3743 15

F6: Enforcement jurisdiction unclear It was unclear to the grand jury how cases were prosecuted as criminal, civil, or administrative, or by whom this distinction was determined. The average citizen does not know who to contact if a conflict-of-interest violation becomes apparent. The Act designates the Sonoma County District Attorney (criminal cases) and the FPPC (administrative/civil cases) as first points of contact for conflict-of-interest complaints, depending upon whether the violation appears to be administrative or criminal in nature. Beyond this distinction, there is no further direction on filing a complaint. Because the FPPC assumes primary responsibility for complaint analysis and enforcement, there are no procedures/protocols between the FPPC and the County District Attorney. Complaints are not analyzed for criminal prosecution, only administrative/civil. The Code specifies which sections can be prosecuted as administrative, civil or criminal. The grand jury’s interpretation of the three provisions of the code is shown below; however, precise interpretation requires clarification by legal authority, e.g. FPPC, County District Attorney, or City Attorney. Administrative/Civil Jurisdiction Criminal Jurisdiction Fair Political Practices Commission County District Attorney, or Attorney General Prosecutes violations of the Prosecutes violations of the Political Reform Act Political Reform Act designated as Administrative/Civil designated as criminal Administrative – Hearing before an Trial before a Judge of the Superior Court Administrative Law Judge Civil – Trial before a Judge in the Superior Court Regulatory enforcement requires: Criminal prosecution requires: A preponderance of evidence Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt

F7: Cases may take years to resolve Of the ten conflict-of-interest cases investigated by the FPPC, one was settled in six months. The remaining nine cases took from 18 months to five years to settle.

F8: Lack of increased awareness and local action The county and city filing officers were effective in notifying the FPPC of individuals failing to file Form 700; however, they were not a source of complaints for failure of officials to disclose or disqualify themselves from decision-making. Such complaints appeared to be from other sources, not by colleagues, staff, or supervisors of those officials. The grand jury found hesitancy on the part of city and county officials to initiate a referral either to the FPPC, or the County District Attorney when suspected misconduct was identified. Additionally, such cases are not considered to be a priority. It appeared only publicized cases of violations have influenced city and county entities to recognize, respond, and deter future incidents. Following a series of reports appearing in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat newspaper, the City of Santa Rosa put policies and procedures in place that were above and beyond state requirements. However, in other Sonoma County jurisdictions, awareness and systemic improvements were not apparent.

F9: Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing The grand jury noted elected officials cited with conflict-of-interest violations resulting in settlement fines, were reported in the Press Democrat newspaper as intending to use campaign funds to pay off the FPPC fines. Government Code § 89513 (c) states that campaign funds cannot be used to pay or reimburse fines, penalties, judgments, or settlements, with the exception that if the FPPC action results in the respondent hiring an attorney, then payment of the attorney’s fees, as well as the fine itself, can be paid with campaign funds. As a result, the fine creates no incentive to desist from further violations, since there is no financial hardship on the fined official, as long as the official has campaign funds (or contributors) available to pay the fine. (§§ 89513(c) - 89514).

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Increase fines and penalties; prohibit use of campaign funds to pay penalties The grand jury recommends that local officials from the county and the nine cities contact their senate and assembly members to consider amending the Political Reform Act to address the following two issues:

F10: Code of Ethics Ethics – A philosophy or system of morals A written system of standards of ethical conduct; principles intended to aid members of the field individually and collectively in maintaining a high level of professional conduct. The fundamental concept of a Code of Ethics, as related to conflict of interest, is that a public official’s decision is based solely on what is best for the public--not the official, his/her friends, or owned businesses. A Code of Ethics aims at perception, as well as actuality. A public official should consider abstaining from participating on a matter if there appears to be a conflict. A recent Humboldt County Grand Jury statewide survey found only 10 out of 41 respondent counties had established codes of ethics for officials and employees, but state agencies mandate the requirement. Although a number of California cities have adopted codes of ethics, only a few cities in Sonoma County have an established Code of Ethics. Also noted was one Santa Rosa official who voluntarily added ethics training as his personal effort to be above reproach, and set a standard for his employees.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Adopt a Code of Ethics Sonoma County and each city should establish and implement a Code of Ethics. All commissions, committees and boards, as well as elected and appointed officials, should review the Code of Ethics and attest to understanding the policy as it pertains to their position. Thereafter, the county and city officials should mandate periodic ethics training and testing, just as is required of federal and state employees. For establishing a Code of Ethics, the Attorney General’s Office and the FPPC, have developed a web-based ethics training course. The California League of Cities also has information and guidelines. 11

F11: Incompatible activities dilemma Professional expertise of elected and appointed members of committees, commissions or boards is valued because it is a public service offered by civic-minded individuals at little or no remuneration; however, these same individuals often have businesses or full- time occupations related to their public positions. Because an official should be wary of an actual conflict of interest, as well as the appearance of conflict of interest, the system itself is vulnerable.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: Adopt an Incompatible Activities List Each commission, committee, board and public agency should have their own Incompatibility Activities list as a supplemental resource. This list would assist the officials in understanding how to avoid conflict-of-interest issues, enhance the assurance of public trust--the integrity of officials--and political processes as well. The following is a sample of the type of list the grand jury recommends: Incompatible Activities – Sample List Each commission, committee, board and public agency should tailor this list to their own duties and responsibilities 1. Cannot have an interest in a contract made by the board, commission, or committee that one is involved with. 2. Cannot request, receive or agree to receive anything of value or other advantages in exchange for a decision. 3. Cannot influence decisions relating to potential business or prospective employers. 4. May not acquire property interests within redevelopment areas over which one has decision-making influence. 5. Cannot receive compensation from third parties for speaking, writing an article or attending a conference. 6. Cannot use public agency resources (money, travel expenses, staff time and agency equipment) for personal or political purposes. 7. Cannot participate in decisions that may affect (positively or negatively) their personal interests, interests of their immediate family or their business partners. Excerpt from: League of California Cities – Institute for Self-government

R6: Prevent actual and appearance of conflict of interest The individual committee, commission, board, or public official should review whether an actual or appearance of conflict of interest exists. If an actual or appearance of conflict of interest exists, there should be a personal discussion with the official, suggesting abstention. If the individual cannot recognize an inherent or potential conflict situation and abstain, he/she should confer with their designated attorney, or the FPPC. 12

F12: Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests is complex, due to the Act The FPPC manages 18,000 Designated Filers and receives over 50,000 inquiries a year from state and local officials seeking assistance on how to understand and respond to the Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) and other questions related to the Act. It was determined that the Form 700 is not user friendly because the Act itself is complex and not user friendly. Conclusions The grand jury found conflict-of-interest violations occurred at all levels of government, whether deliberate and intentional, or inadvertent and unintentional. Because the FPPC has authority and responsibility under the Political Reform Act, too often the cities and counties defer to the FPPC, rather than taking responsibility, or collaborating in a mutually reinforcing effort to take action when identified (this specifically pertains to disclosure omission and self-disqualification failures). The cities or counties need to be proactive and collaborative in resolving conflict-of- interest situations. This method would result in timelier case resolutions and fewer violations. Ultimately, it is a matter of personal responsibility--the ethics and integrity of the elected or appointed official, and is a view confirmed by a number of respondents interviewed by the grand jury. The Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) is a tool driven by the law and starts the process for the Designated Filer. The form isn’t a major point of vulnerability, except that it is difficult to understand due to the complexities of the Act itself. The public has been active in detecting and alerting authorities of officials in conflicted situations. The grand jury highly encourages more public monitoring of our elected and appointed officials through regular attendance of public meetings, viewing televised meetings, and availing themselves of the opportunity of reviewing an official’s Form 700, or county charters, all of which are public documents. The grand jury concluded major weaknesses in the application of the system are: (cid:131) Failure to understand Form 700 and its requirements; (cid:131) Individuals not declaring all economic interests; (cid:131) Individuals failing to disqualify themselves from making or influencing decisions in which they have a financial interest; (cid:131) Lack of communication between the FPPC and the office of the County District Attorney; (cid:131) The loophole in the government code that allows fines to be paid with campaign finances. Opportunities for Improvement: Filing/Monitoring: The most effectively managed provision of the Act is the Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) reporting requirements to prevent influencing government decisions in which the person has an economic interest. All state, county, and cities maintain a Form 700 filing system. The management of reporting is shared by individual agencies/organizations within the FPPC with forms monitored individually for completeness on the local level. They are not monitored for information relative to their particular committee, board, or commission association, i.e., the documents are supposed to serve as an identifying means so the public, and when necessary, the judicial system, has a reference point to determine whether violations occurred. Disclosing financial interests is a vulnerability in the system as it relies on Designated Filers’ understanding of the disclosure requirements covered by §§ 87200-87210 of the Act. Early Intervention: Cases are not detected or acted upon early. The individual committee, commission and board, along with the office of the district attorney, county counsel, and city attorneys, should take more proactive, organized roles to assure the preservation of the integrity of our government is of the highest priority--be it actual conflict of interest--or appearance thereof. A more effective coordinating procedure at the city and county levels to reinforce and support state effort is needed. 10

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Institute regular, mandatory training (cid:131) Provide Designated Filers with basic informational training. (cid:131) Increase utilization of FPPC for training of Form 700 Filing Officers and Clerks (cid:131) Require Code of Ethics training at the city and county level as similar to that as mandated by state agencies (available online). (cid:131) Require basic conflict-of-interest training for: - Incumbent elected and appointed officials - New appointees and elected officials

June 18, 2005 — Fatal Incident

3 pages 4 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: The “Law Enforcement Employee-Involved Fatal Incident Protocol” requires that investigations be conducted "free of conflicts of interest."

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The grand jury recommends that they be notified as soon as an incident protocol is initiated.

F2: The primary agency that employed the officer involved, conducted their own administrative investigation to determine: • If the agency’s policies and procedures were followed • If there could be improvement in those policies and procedures • If any disciplinary action should be imposed against a particular individual or individuals. 2

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The District Attorney must provide the grand jury with a copy of the Fatal Incident Report Status Log on a monthly basis. This log will provide improved continuity on the incident(s) status. Required responses to Findings None Requested responses to Recommendations None Required responses to Recommendations: District Attorney - R1, R2 1 Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs’ Association’s Protocol: 93-1 Revised 11/1998 06/2004 Law Enforcement Employee-Involved Fatal Incident Protocol Investigation 3

F3: The District Attorney’s Office, based on the evidence, reached its conclusions and issued a report for one fatal incident.

F4: The Fatal Incident Report Status Log was sent quarterly from the District Attorney’s Office to the grand jury. Conclusion The District Attorney’s Office concluded there was insufficient evidence of criminal liability on the fatal incident reviewed. The grand jury found that the fatal incident reports reflected a thorough, detailed, and unbiased investigation by those assigned to the case. The conclusion of the District Attorney’s Office is clearly based on all aspects of submitted evidence, photographs, witness statements and reports by involved personnel. The grand jury found that established protocol was followed in the incident reviewed.

June 18, 2005 — Housing Assistance for Sworn Officers

6 pages 5 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Sworn officers of Sonoma County law enforcement agencies are a critical part of the workforce.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: By December 2005 the governing bodies of the county and each city should have: • Evaluated the housing needs for sworn officers, targeting the entry-level officer • Appointed a liaison to local banks and lending institutions to begin dialogues outlining possible solutions. 5

F2: Sonoma County invests money and time into the training of officers. The goal is to retain these trained officers long term and have all law enforcement sworn officers live within the county boundaries, not only for safety reasons but to be an integral part of the community.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: By February 2006 the governing bodies of the county and each city will have established qualification criteria for each program, and the nature of the investment protection.

F3: In some law enforcement agencies, more than 10% of the sworn officers live outside of Sonoma County due to the high cost of housing.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: By December 2006 an evaluation instrument will have been designed and used to determine the effectiveness of the new program(s). Requested responses to Findings None Required responses to Findings County Sheriff - F2, F3 Chief of Police, Cloverdale - F2, F3 Chief of Police, Cotati - F2, F3, Chief of Police, Healdsburg - F2, F3 Chief of Police, Petaluma - F2, F3, Director of Safety Department, Rohnert Park - F2, F3 Chief of Police, Santa Rosa - F2, F3 Chief of Police, Sebastopol - F2, F3 Requested responses to Recommendations None Required responses to Recommendations Cloverdale City Council - R1, R2, R3 Cotati City Council - R1, R2, R3 Healdsburg City Council - R1, R2, R3 Petaluma City Council - R1, R2, R3 Rohnert Park City Council - R1, R2, R3 Santa Rosa City Council - R1, R2, R3 Sebastopol City Council - R1, R2, R3, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors - R1, R2, R3, Board of Supervisors - R1, R2, R3 6

F4: The round trip commute of the sworn officers living out of Sonoma County can be as long as 3 .5 hours.

F5: Of the programs shown, only the City of Healdsburg program is being used by the sworn officer workforce. Conclusions Affordable housing programs for the sworn officer community are highly desirable. How to attain this is a challenge. Programs that would seem to offer a solution are not popular for some of the reasons shown. The grand jury looks to the county and city governing bodies to investigate financial aid housing programs to help these officers live within the community. Such programs will help recruit and retain the best candidates, and at the same time protect the training investment. It is of paramount importance that the sworn officers are able to live among the communities they serve. Commendations While touring the Sheriff’s Department and the Police Departments the grand jury was impressed with the efficiency, dedication and pride of these agencies. We would like to thank them for the time they took preparing information for our visit and for the prompt and complete replies to any follow-up requests.

June 18, 2005 — Mental Health Services Division: on the Mend?

8 pages 15 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 15 findings

F1: Mental Health Services has had four division directors in the last fifteen years. While this may not appear to be significant turnover at the director position, when added to the complex task of leading a team in a changing environment, it could be an unanticipated catalyst in department turmoil.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Insufficient consideration has been given to the Director’s tenure affecting MHS Division turmoil. Mental Health Services should be examined by an oversight committee consisting of one or more representatives from the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator, and the Director, Health Services to uncover the underlying reasons why MHS has lost four directors in the last fifteen years. Required Responses to Findings None . Required Responses to Recommendations Required responses per CA penal code 933c: • Board of Supervisors no later than September 28, 2005 • All others no later than August 29, 2005 Director of Mental Health Services – R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 Director of Health Services – R1, R5 Director of Human Resources – R2, R3 Board of Supervisors – R5 County Administrator – R5 1 Based on 2002-2004 Sonoma County Human Resources data. Average total county employment for this period was 4024 employees of which Health Services comprised 606 employees (15%) . Based on 2004 Sonoma County Human Resources data. Twenty-two union grievances filed for all county departments. The Health Services Department (563) employees filed seven of them (32%). For the extended period of 2001-04 the total number of county grievances filed was 53 and the Health Services Department filed 18 (34%). 3 2003-2004 Grand Jury Final Report: “Mental Health Management Ills”: Findings: F4d, F4e, Recommendations: R2 4 Based on 2002-2004 Sonoma County Human Resources data. Average turnover for all reasons in this period: Sheriff’s Department: 36 of 676 (5.3%); Human Services: 35 of 633 (5.5%); Health Services 48 0f 606 (7.9%) 8

F2: County departmental grievance data (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004) indicates the Health Services Department submitted 32% of all grievances filed while representing only 15% of all county employees.

F3: The Director of Health Services hired an independent consultant to perform an organizational assessment of the Mental Health Division. This assessment, performed over a two-year period, resulted in the formation of teams to establish priorities and recommend solutions identified during the assessment process. The MHS division formed a Staff Advisory Team to help facilitate the implementation of the recommendations. Follow-up survey results indicate approximately half of the MHS respondents felt senior management/staff relations had either “remained the same” or “deteriorated.”

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: a. The MHS Director should actively support and promote the formation of an Implementation Team consisting of cross-functional staff and management as soon as possible. b. Participation on the Implementation Team should be open to anyone in the division. Recognizing workload pressures of the division staff, schedules should be adjusted, where practical, to allow participation. c. The Implementation Team should be empowered to formulate the plans and timeline for implementing the changes documented by the consultant’s Recommendation Teams. d. The Implementation Team should report progress back to the Mental Health Services Director and the Director should communicate this progress to the rest of the division staff. e. The MHS director should commission an independent survey six months after the formation of the Implementation Team to assess both tangible and perceived progress with the results of the survey communicated to the entire staff. It is the belief of the 2004-2005 grand jury that changes need to be made within the division by those closest to the issues. We recommend that MHS management give priority and support to activities undertaken by the Implementation Teams. The basic groundwork has been established to identify and prioritize the issues facing Mental Health Services that generated staff complaints relating to staff safety, morale, and workload. Imbedded in the recommendations from the consultant’s study are comments relating to management style and workplace environment. The latest MHS follow-up survey indicates much work still remains to be done to establish an environment for sustainable improvement. 6

F4: A majority of the staff psychiatrists submitted a press release declaring a “no confidence” vote for the MHS Director. The doctors expressed little confidence in any departmental- initiated attempt to resolve the perceived problems in MHS through the application of a consultant study or the recommendations submitted by the newly formed employee

F5: Recent grand jury final reports from seven of thirty California counties had some mention of complaints related to Health Services, but none remotely close to the severity of the problems described within Sonoma County MHS.

F6: The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, Sonoma County Administrator, Mental Health Board, and the Human Resources Division have provided little or no oversight or direct involvement to address these on-going issues within the Mental Health Department.

F7: County employee turnover data 4 shows only a small difference among the three county agencies that have more than 500 employees (Sheriff’s Dept., Human Services, Health Services). The Health Services Department’s average yearly turnover for this period was 7.9%. This is about one-third the rate reported for the private sector.

F8: The employee exit interview process has not been designed in a way that allows potentially valuable information to be collected and made available to the MHS Division for constructive feedback.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: a. The Human Resources Department, with assistance and support from Mental Health Services Division, needs to revise its process for collecting and analyzing employee exit interview comments. b. All employees who terminate should be encouraged to write a summary of their work experience. c. The exit interview process should be conducted in a consistent manner with a neutral person who can ask questions and record answers in an unbiased fashion. d. Exit interview comments should be considered valuable information and reviewed by each successive member of the management team including the MHS Division Director. The Human Resources Department should take a pro-active role by developing a revision to the exit interview process that allows potentially valuable information to be available not only to the MHS Division management but to all County departments. Currently, there is no consistent method for collecting and analyzing the comments made by employees during the separation process, resulting in the loss of valuable feedback to supervisory personnel. A process to compile, analyze and report the data on exit interview documents back to the departments will provide an additional source of information to help management improve the work environment and potentially reduce recruitment and training costs.

F9: The employee turnover data is currently lumped together and compiled by total number of separations only. By not sub-dividing this statistical information into major categories of employee attrition (i.e. retirement, both early and normal, termination for cause, death, voluntary resignations, etc), an additional source of information to help management understand and improve the work environment is lacking.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: a. The Human Resources Department, with assistance and support from Health Services Department, needs to revise its process for collecting and analyzing employee turnover data. b. The process for documenting turnover data should delineate the various reasons for separation. c. This turnover data should be examined on a periodic basis and compared to other county departments. Analysis of this data, not available today, could provide another useful tool for insight into departmental behavior. The Human Resources Department needs to assume a more pro-active role in connection with reporting and analyzing employee separation statistics. Only the total number of all types of separations (i.e. voluntary and involuntary terminations) are currently compiled and reviewed. This statistical information would be far more valuable if it was sub-divided into major categories of employee attrition such as retirement, both early and normal, termination for cause, death, voluntary resignations etc.. Reasons for voluntary terminations should be compiled and reviewed. This type of statistical data can frequently go a long way in assisting managers to discover areas of weakness and concern that requires immediate attention.

F10: The number of employee grievances and complaints within MHS correlates with the remote location of employees, and the number of shift schedules. 4

F11: Some employees within MHS bypass traditional communication channels with management personnel and take their complaints directly to the press or the grand jury.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The management of MHS should make a concerted effort to encourage employees to discuss work place problems and concerns with management personnel first. Submitting complaints directly to the press, or utilizing the grand jury as a sounding board, is not the most effective way to resolve these issues.

F12: Recently implemented state and federal regulation and compliance rules have resulted in a major increase in documentation requirements. This increased paperwork demands time the staff could be spending with the patients and this is hard for the staff to accept.

F13: Current funding for mental health services in Sonoma County has not kept pace with the 10% per year increase in baseline service costs. Employee compensation and benefits comprise most of these costs.

F14: While there have been serious allegations of medical decisions made by MHS psychiatrists being overridden by managers, it is important to point out this investigation revealed no evidence of purely medical decisions being reversed.

F15: The Health Services Director has retired (12/04) and the Director of Mental Health Services has resigned (2/05) creating an opportunity to refresh the top-level management team. Conclusions There is no question that the Mental Health Services Division has seen turmoil in staff- management relationships for the last several years. Attempts within the division to identify and address these issues have, for one reason or another, been marginally successful as measured in the recent employee-survey results. The mentally ill are a vulnerable segment of the county’s population. They are highly dependent on the county for programs that not only minimize physical risk to themselves and others but also provide them with the tools and assistance needed to become productive and self- supporting members of the community. This valuable but difficult work can lead to personal stress in the workplace and can impact the efficiency of serving the clients. Emerging regulatory and compliance requirements along with a decrease in funding levels are also factors. Increasing abuse of both drugs and alcohol by clients compounds the complexity and stress of providing care and assistance. The talented and dedicated staff and management of the MHS Division have, with the assistance of an independent consultant, identified and prioritized the most needed areas for improvement. The active support and leadership from the department and division directors to address these issues should be considered one of their primary objectives. Significant progress can be made if the work already started is expanded into permanent success. Commendations The grand jury would like to thank all those who assisted in providing valuable information toward this report. During the course of this investigation the grand jury observed firsthand many talented, motivated, compassionate, and dedicated staff and MHS managers working diligently to make these programs effective.

June 18, 2005 — Protecting the County’s Assets

13 pages 27 findings 19 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 27 findings

F1: ISD has an arrangement with a supplier with offices in San Mateo, whereby tape copies of major files are taken each day and stored at the supplier’s location. This arrangement does not include files from the school data processing system, for which ISD only provides facilities management.

F2: Files for the schools’ data processing system are backed up daily and stored at Sonoma County Office of Education.

F3: The ISD network is well designed with very little “hardwiring.” Thus, it is close to providing facilities whereby “anyone, with the right authority, and the right equipment, can get to any application or service.” This flexibility should bode well in the disaster planning.

F4: ISD is presently developing a plan to identify the critical points of failure in the data center and the county network, especially those points of failure that have no redundancy. Since this plan is in its early stages, the grand jury expects that any

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Ensure that the new disaster plan under development includes specific recommendations on: • The need for user consensus on the system and application priorities, both for protection against failure and sequence of recovery in the event that not all facilities can be restored immediately after a catastrophic outage • The value of distributing some of the servers (presently clustered) and the use of storage area networks – basically a “let’s not put all of our eggs in one basket” strategy • A “non-stop” solution for the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Consortium (SCLEC) system such that an outage of the main system is instantly switched to a standby, such standby preferably located at a site some distance from the primary location. There are numerous hardware, network and software solutions available to achieve this • Identify every single point of failure in the data center, including network terminators and cabling ducts, and determine the investment value of providing redundancy. Tax Collector

F5: The recovery test that the jury participated in (as observers) was straightforward and the minimal numbers of users involved were able to log on to the “recovered” system. However, the validity of the test was somewhat undermined by using the incorrect tapes! The test facilitator was able to declare the test successful by taking account of the modified steps needed to utilize the recovered data.

F6: ISD tried the conventional approach of attempting to get its major users to reach consensus on which applications would take priority in the event of a major and prolonged outage of the computer systems. Like many other IS departments, they found the responses lackluster at best. 3

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Involve the major users more closely in the design of the new disaster recovery plan. This may need senior management directives to the major users.

F7: ISD is run on a full cost recovery basis, i.e., its expenditures are funded by charging user departments for their share of the computer usage, basically an equitable scheme. However there is no place in the cost recovery system to separately fund any unique expenditures for disaster recovery plans. Tax Collector

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Complete its initial disaster recovery plan by December 2005, and request the funding it calls for in time for the 2006-2007 budget cycle. This request should include a change in the manner by which such expenditures are funded, separately from recovery of ongoing ISD running costs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Participate, bi-annually, in an actual test, to determine that Sonoma County can successfully process its Tax Collection applications at Napa County’s computer installation.

F9: The Tax Collection Department is not actively involved in periodic testing of the backup and recovery processes for the main systems used. Rather, the department relies on information provided by the supplier of the software or minutes from a user-group meeting.

Related Recommendations (1)

F11: The Water Agency has a well-written disaster and recovery plan, dated September 1998, with a revision in process. The jury was impressed to see that many employees, including the General Manager, had designated equipment/water line checking responsibilities should a disaster occur, and typically carried plans and checklists with them at all times.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Complete the current update of the disaster plan by December 2005.

F12: The Water Agency has an impressive set of business resumption steps in its plan, including a realistic attempt to show how some employees will be working modified hours to help resolve and contain the disaster and some employees will be taking care of normal business.

F13: While this finding is shown under the Water Agency, it applies to almost all of the checklists shown to the grand jury. Many of them read like a cross between Assigned Duties and a Position Description. Usually the key actions to be performed in the immediate wake of the emergency could be identified, but non-urgent tasks were interwoven (e.g. read document abc, complete form xyz). Checklists were rarely broken down by time periods, e.g. first hour, hours 2-4, hours 5-8, first 24 hours. In most cases the checklist was on full 8 ½ by 11 paper with no attempt to make it a portable field usage item. Schools

Related Recommendations (2)

R8: Modify the existing checklists to be more hands-on, action-oriented, and easier for a disaster worker to carry on his/her person or in his/her automobile. Sonoma County School Districts

R11: Develop a pro-forma action checklist for use by all schools in handling post-disaster tasks.

F14: There is a grant from the US Department of Education, known internally as “the USDOE grant,” which provides for the county schools, including private schools if they wish to participate, moving to a SEMS-based layered set of plans, school > school district > Sonoma County Office of Education (SCOE). The grant does not provide for any equipment, such as generators for remote schools. The layered plans will also highlight the points in the disaster management where the schools would invoke assistance from their adjacent cities (SEMS-based of course) and the cities in turn would know when to invoke county level assistance. The jury believes this to be a challenging but extremely valuable project. All school district superintendents are targeted to have completed SEMS-based plans by March 31, 2006, the grant completion date. Since the grant itself was late in actual availability, that date is already under pressure. The roll-out plan is impressive, providing workshops, training, and disaster plan templates and a survey of equipment inventory and needs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: Ascertain whether an extension to the USDOE grant timetable is possible, and determine if an extension would be desirable.

F15: The pre-USDOE plans that the jury examined, in contrast to the core approach SEMS uses for any disaster, usually treat each individual type of disaster as a separate entity. This has the effect of providing much repetition, which makes each plan indigestible. This is not a good feature for a plan intended to provide real assistance in the event of an emergency. These plans were an outgrowth from “Safe School” initiatives, somewhat dominated by the Columbine School disaster, April 1999, where two students shot and killed 12 fellow students and a teacher.

F16: In the existing pre-SEMS plans, the role of SCOE if a specific school or school district should incur a major disaster is unclear.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: Ensure that the role of SCOE in actual post-disaster scenarios is identified and publicized.

F17: Since disaster and security often go hand in hand, the jury is concerned at the truly open nature of the SCOE main office. The SCOE organization prides itself on its service to the community, both the school community and the county at-large, and encourages many visitors. The visitors may be attending a SCOE-hosted event, using the technology center, or attending a non-SCOE meeting. Since there is no security badge system, or formal check-in/check-out process, it would be very difficult to establish the transient headcount in the event of a disaster or evacuation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: Review the check-in/check-out procedures at the main facility and determine if a change is desirable.

F18: In September 2004, following the hostage situation in the Beslan school in Russia, the US Department of Education issued a letter to all school districts and schools, specifically asking them to check certain aspects of security, and clearly expecting them to respond with corrective remedies where necessary. No interviewee that the jury met showed initial knowledge of the letter, although some found it later. In no case was the jury provided with any evidence of a response.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: Review the letter from the US Department of Education regarding the Russian school hostage emergency, and expedite action and replies from all school districts.

F19: While not yet realized, the USDOE project team is exploring new methods of universal parent contact.

Related Recommendations (1)

R14: Implement a common parent-contact system as soon as possible.

F20: As part of the USDOE roll-out, the project is issuing questionnaires to all school districts and schools to update the communications equipment directory.

Related Recommendations (1)

R15: Complete an inventory questionnaire of school communication equipment. Sheriff’s Department

F21: During the summer of 2005, the USDOE project hopes to use the American Corps volunteers at the schools to identify all hazardous equipment, furniture, artifacts and shelving. Sheriff’s Department

F22: As this investigation began, a written plan for operating a severely damaged Dispatch Center was not in existence; nor was there an exhaustive written plan for continued operation if the Dispatch Center should be totally lost in a disaster. The grand jury was pleased to see a well-written plan emerge during the study.

Related Recommendations (1)

R19: Require that all county departments file a formal statement of their disaster recovery requirements, for computer-based and manual systems, with detailed descriptions of the necessary steps to return the business to normal. Required responses to Findings Sonoma County Tax Collector - F8, F10 Sonoma County Information Systems Director - F4, F8 Sonoma County Administrator - F6, F7, F26, F27 Sonoma County Water Agency - General Manager F13 Project Director USDOE Project - F14 Superintendent of Schools – SCOE F16 Sonoma County Sheriff – F23, F24 Board of Supervisors – F26, F27 Requested responses to Recommendations None Required responses to Recommendations County Director of Information Systems - R1, R2, R3 County Tax Collector - R4, R5, R6 Sonoma County Water Agency – General Manager - R7, R8 Superintendent of Schools – SCOE - R9, R10, R12, R13 Deputy Superintendent of Schools – R11, R14 County Sheriff - R16, R17 County Dispatch Manager - R16 County Administrator - R1, R2, R18, R19 Board of Supervisors - R18, R19 All School Superintendents - R15 9 Exhibit A. Interviewees in the Investigation Sonoma County Water Agency • General Manager • Disaster Planning Analyst Sonoma County Office of Education • Superintendent • Deputy Superintendent • Director, Environmental Health and Safety • Director of Operations • USDOE Project Director • Loss Prevention Director – Redwood Empire Schools’ Insurance Group • Technology Director • Technology/Network Managers (2) • Information Systems Manager Large-sized School District • Superintendent • Deputy Superintendent • Disaster Planning Analyst Medium-sized School District • Superintendent • Supervisor of Maintenance and Operations Small-sized School District • Superintendent Information Systems Department • Director • Division Director • Assistant Manager – Radio and Communications • Assistant Manager – Telephone Systems Sheriff’s Department • Sheriff and Coroner • Assistant Sheriff • Captain - Detention Division • Captain – Patrol Bureau • Captain – Administration Bureau • Lieutenant (2) – Patrol Bureau • Dispatch Manager 10 Exhibit B. List of documents made available to the grand jury • Sheriff’s Organization − Jail Evacuation Plans − Dispatch Center Evacuation Plan − Order for TD 280 Switch – to switch County 911 lines to Santa Rosa Police Department − Procedure managing outside access to Sheriff’s Radio Frequency − Sheriff Procedure – Rules and Regulation on Conduct − County Dispatch Center – Disaster Response and Recovery Plan (written during this investigation) • Sonoma County Information Services Department (ISD) − Sonoma County Telecommunications Network − County of Sonoma Radio Relay Network − Disaster Recovery Exercise Recap − Extract from Strategic plan, titled Expanding Disaster Recovery • Sonoma County Office of Education − Trainings on Safe School Plans and School Crisis Response − Emergency Preparedness Plan for the main facility − Academic Aftershocks – a video featuring the impact of the Northridge Earthquake on California State University - Northridge − Practical Information for Crisis Planning – A Guide for Schools and Communities − Activity Summaries SCOE/USDOE Project, October 1, 2004 – March 31, 2006 − Changes to School Safe Plan September 29, 2004 − Community Health Profile for the Bi-County Redwood Coast Region − Emergency Response and Crisis Management Leadership Workshop description − General Safe Work Practices for all Employees − Earthquake Hazards Checklist − List of Emergency Management Activities prior to USDOE grant − Loss Recovery Resource Guide – Redwood Empire Schools’ Insurance Group − EOC/Incident Command System SEMS Organization Chart for Schools • Sonoma County School Districts − Fort Ross School District Administrative Flow Chart for 2004-2005 − Fort Ross School Safety Plan − Fort Ross Disaster Preparedness Plan − Cloverdale Unified School District Emergency Action Plan − Monte Rio School Emergency Action Plan − Petaluma City Schools Emergency Plan − Piner-Olivet Union and School District Emergency Closure Procedures − Doyle Park Comprehensive School Safety Plan 04-05 − Post Earthquake Damage Evaluation and Reporting Procedures for California Schools • Sonoma Tax Collector Office − Disaster Recovery Plan – A list of systems 11 Exhibit C – Basic Principles of Disaster Recovery and Business Resumption All organizations eventually consider how best to protect their well-defined infrastructures which consist of processes, procedures, and communication mechanisms, collectively referred to as system(s)or application(s). The system may be manual, computer-based, or both. Normally this protection will be against disasters such as fire, earthquake or explosion. For example, manual systems have historically made use of fireproof cabinets, safes, vaults, or duplicate copies of the paperwork kept in two places. The expectation was that vital records, or data, could withstand the disaster, or safe copies in a safe location could be used to replenish the original data. The organization would then quickly be able to resume “business as usual,” once the disaster was over. With the advent of computer-based applications the analog of fireproof cabinets etc., became necessary. Disaster Planning Since more elaborate schemes require more investment, it is vital that an organization carefully prioritizes the criticality of its systems and develops a disaster plan. The plan will usually try to identify so called single points of failure, identifying those pieces of equipment that should be duplicated, if possible, to reduce the probability of a disaster taking out a single critical piece of equipment. An organization needs to determine which of its applications are critical to its ability to continue business, then decide how best to protect the critical data so that it is not lost in a disaster, or can be replaced in total or at least to an agreed to point in time. The most basic form of protection is to take periodic electronic copies of the data, typically on magnetic tape, typically nightly, and store them at a separate location. Ideally the second location is not adjacent to the primary location, or on the same earthquake fault-line! It is a form of insurance, and just as with insurance one can pay higher premiums for better coverage. An organization may decide to have multiple centers, with equipment mostly duplicated, or a second center with only enough equipment for the priority work. Until the late 90’s most organizational computing was done on a single, large computer, a mainframe. As the personal computer (PC) grew in power and functionality, applications began to move to servers, larger PC’s that could handle multiple users concurrently. Sonoma County has both a mainframe and servers, and the disaster plan for each will probably be different. For example, it is relatively easy to distribute multiple servers to multiple locations, and connect them over the network such that they can be a backup for each other. One other option for Sonoma County is to find another organization with exactly the same systems and agree to be mutual backup for each other. Regardless of the depth of coverage in the plan, it is good practice to have “fire-drills,” at least annually, to test that the organization can recover from the backup data. Business Resumption This refers to the process of identifying all of the steps that will be required to get back to normal after a disaster. Again, it requires senior management to identify the critical applications so that they can be restored first if there is a resource issue. Sometimes it can take many weeks to get everything back to normal. This may involve temporary labor, overtime, weekends, and cooperation from trade unions, suppliers or customers. Frequently, the business resumption plan will point to improvements that are needed for the disaster plan. By default or by design, an organization may decide to do nothing on these two fronts. With the integration of computers into our daily work and personal lives this is most unlikely to be a prudent strategy. EXHIBIT D

F23: As well as the Dispatch Center, the Sheriff’s Department has other technology bases that are critical to its operation (or will increasingly be so). The “A Disaster Waiting to 5 Happen” report noted that the current radio network design had a good level of redundancy and more was in the planning stage. The report also noted that the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Consortium (SCLEC) was housed on a single computer system that was a single point of failure, and a plan is needed to reduce that exposure.

Related Recommendations (1)

R16: Work with ISD to identify a cost-effective “non-stop” solution to protect the SCLEC system.

F24: The Sheriff’s Department has the capability to develop internal systems for use by the deputy sheriffs. ISD is not involved in the development of such systems, but it may well house the equipment on which they are based. The backup and recovery of such systems is not visible to ISD, unless the Sheriff’s Department specifically requests it.

Related Recommendations (1)

R17: Work with ISD to determine cost-effective backup solutions for internally developed systems. General (senior management of all the entities)

F25: The grand jury was shown the evacuation procedures for the main detention facility and the North County Facility. The grand jury found these procedures to be well constructed with a real attempt to separate the different scale of damage a disaster might inflict. General

F26: As the grand jury uncovered in the “A Disaster Waiting to Happen” investigation, much of the detailed work in the disaster planning is done by a few dedicated mid-level staff people. This quickly leads to introspective approaches by the planner. Senior management is not providing the continuous effort to ensure that communication with the major stakeholders and junior staff is intensive and frequent.

Related Recommendations (1)

R18: Ensure that all disaster recovery and business-resumption planning efforts are continuously supported and reviewed by appropriate stakeholder groups.

F27: With regard to county departments, neither the Board of Supervisors nor the County Administrator calls for a periodic review of the disaster recovery nor business resumption plans. Conclusions With the exception of the Water Agency, there is a lack of “push” from top management, either elected or appointed, demanding that effective disaster recovery and business resumption plans be in place for the major departments and agencies. ISD is on the right path and has already done a significant amount of planning for a new disaster recovery plan. This will need funding, and the major users need to take a much more proactive role in the realization of the plan. Effective disaster plans in information technology involve additional expenditures and the user departments need to “club together” and pay for these separately from day-to-day running costs. That the Tax Collection Department uses standard applications to manage its business is very good news in a disaster planning context; however it can be deceptive. There is a dangerous reliance on the third party supplier’s report that the disaster recovery has been fully tested. There is also a dangerous assumption that the application code at the alternate facility is exactly the same as the code normally used in the county ISD. Finding out that it isn’t exactly the same at the time it is most needed, is far too late. The existence of the USDOE grant has most certainly provided some stimulus for the school system disaster planning, ostensibly guided by SCOE-provided staffing efforts. However, the jury wishes to emphasize again that SCOE needs to clarify its role in the invocation of any plans finally put in place. At the Water Agency, the General Manager and his staff are putting a considerable amount of effort into the agency plan and are taking personal responsibility for parts of the plan. Once the current update is complete and the checklists are fine tuned, this plan will be in good shape. When the grand jury began investigative work with the Sheriff’s Department, there was some surprise expressed that internal disaster management and business resumption processes needed to be well documented. The jury was pleased to see the emergence of the Dispatch Center Emergency Plan during the course of the study. In all cases the planning work done so far is basically driven by caring mid-level staff people. It is extremely difficult to do good disaster planning and business recovery planning from the “bottom up.” Senior management needs to be continuously involved in the setting of priorities and provision of funding when it is not available from grants. Successful county disaster plans need more continuous communication between the disaster planning functions, their management, and the stakeholders of the plans. Their buy-in to the plan and its level of effort needs refreshing at every opportunity. The bonds that are formed, and the continuous resolution of mutual misunderstandings, pay dividends when a disaster does eventually occur. Commendations The grand jury would like to thank all of the people interviewed for the time and information they generously provided. The grand jury would also like to give recognition to the consistent support provided to the schools’ USDOE project by the representative from the Redwood Empire Schools’ Insurance Group.

Related Recommendations (1)

R18: Ensure that all disaster recovery and business-resumption planning efforts are continuously supported and reviewed by appropriate stakeholder groups.

June 18, 2005 — Retrospective:

3 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

April 25, 2005 — A Disaster Waiting to Happen! April 25, 2005

17 pages 17 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 17 findings

F1: Sonoma County has embraced SEMS as the standard and consistent methodology to manage major emergencies and disasters effectively (as has the State of California).

F2: SEMS is designed to standardize emergency responses, and immediate recovery processes, not mid or long-term recovery processes.

F3: Written plans and checklists are not consistent among county, cities, agencies, and departments, and in some cases are non-existent.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: The County Department of Emergency Services, working with each city in the county, should: • Assist in producing updated disaster plans, based on SEMS, consistent in content, in use and style of checklists. The plans should be completed by December 2005, in support of the 2006-2007 budget cycle • Make clear how the revised city plans relate to the county plan • Propose, by October 2005, new communication methods and media outreach strategies aimed at providing the public with information on what plans and procedures are designed and in place to manage major disasters. • Provide employee guidelines on storing disaster recovery documentation away from the work place, for example, at home, in an employee’s car. The guidelines should be complete by October 2005. 8

R2: The Board of Supervisors should: • Initiate an annual review of the County Emergency Plan. Since this may lead to budgetary outcomes, the event should be included as a part of the budget cycle, starting with 2006-2007. The review should include the following tasks as a minimum: − Examine status of the actions from the previous year’s review. − Review any tests completed during the year and any plan changes required as a result of the tests (“no change” is an unlikely outcome). − Require evidence of detailed changes to the plan occasioned by known state, national or world emergencies that occurred during the year. − Require evidence of detail changes to the plan required by directives from the Department of Homeland Security (with due regard to any security and secrecy requirements). − Concur, by a vote, that the review has been completed successfully.

R3: Each city council should: • Initiate an annual review of its disaster plan, coincident with the budget cycle, starting with the 2006-2007 cycle. These reviews should include the following tasks as a minimum: − Examine status of the actions from the previous year’s review. − Review any tests during the year and any plan changes required as a result of the tests (“no change” is an unlikely outcome). − Request detail of any changes to the plan occasioned by known state, national or world emergencies that occurred in the review year. − Request detail of any changes to the plan required by directives from the Department of Homeland Security (with due regard to any security and secrecy requirements). − Concur, by vote, that the review has been completed successfully.

F4: Where plans and checklists do exist, they are not always stored in multiple safe places for guaranteed access in the event of a disaster. The most common place is ”the office,” notwithstanding that a disaster does not limit itself to regular work hours, and office buildings may not be accessible!

F5: Recovery processes, especially long power and water outages, are not consistently broken down by time periods, e.g. first 2 hours, first 24 hours, first 3 days, first 3 months.

F6: The county radio system schematic shows sufficient built-in redundancy to withstand an interruption, unless specific “switch-able” radio towers are out of action (there is a study to extend the redundancy). 5

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The County Dispatch Center manager, working with radio, telephone and data processing management in the Information Systems Department, and with the major vendors, should, by October 2005: • Provide a detailed design showing how all forms of critical communications are duplicated, backed up and/or capable of re-routing, in the event of a disaster. • Explore the use of simple mathematical queuing models to show how quickly the County Dispatch Center telephone set-up becomes overloaded in the event of a major disaster. • Identify the remedial equipment and procedural changes that alleviate overload problems determined by the overload analysis.

F7: The county telephone system and 911 phone line system schematic shows sufficient redundancy built in to withstand any interruption, short of a complete loss of the main SBC building in Santa Rosa.

Related Recommendations (1)

F8: There is an agreement with the county fuel supplier that provides for priority fuel supplies for generators in the event of prolonged losses of power. While it is not guaranteed, there is an assumption that ”government” will get the highest priority. Even so, among most departments and agencies, there is complacency about the total availability of generators and fuel supplies. This leads to assumptions that the generators themselves would survive the disaster, or that there would be a sufficient amount and duration of power for all purposes and all county buildings.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The County Director of General Services should: • Produce, by year-end 2005, a detailed document showing the location, earthquake preparedness and fuel capacity of all the generators the county and cities expect to commission in the event of a major disaster. The document should include communication with the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrative Officer, and all departments and agencies, as to the amount of power they can reasonably expect to have following a disaster.

F9: All county employees are listed as disaster recovery resources, as indeed are members of the grand jury, but there is no clear plan on how they will report in for duty, or how they will be used.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board of Supervisors, and each city council, should: • Demand that plans be put in place to ensure that all existing employees have been or will be trained in SEMS and the Emergency Recovery Plan for the county, and/or their city. The training should be completed by year-end 2005. • Document the reporting steps employees must take as support individuals in the event of a disaster. • Endorse that the most effective use of most employees is to focus on business resumption.

F10: The city plans are not consistent in scope and detail. The City of Santa Rosa has a well- structured but dated plan, Cotati’s plan is literally a copy of the county plan, Cloverdale is still using the 1989 two volume door-stopper plan that existed before the adoption of SEMS, and Healdsburg’s plan is dated 1987. See Exhibit D for a table comparing the format and date of the county and city plans.

Related Recommendations (3)

F11: Of the plans that exist, almost all of them have dates prior to the events of September 11, 2001.

Related Recommendations (3)

F12: There are no consistent plans to inform the public ahead of time of what information will be available at the time of a disaster, nor is there a consistent plan to make use of media, or the City Watch system in the event of a disaster. (The City Watch system is a software program that allows for sending informational or alert messages to a given geography of telephone subscribers).

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: The Sonoma County Sheriff should: • Clarify and document, by year-end 2005, the common procedure for invoking the City Watch alert system. • Institute, by year-end 2005, a periodic public test of the system, similar to the periodic testing of the TV and radio emergency alert system. • Relocate the County Mobile Communications Vehicle to be at least five miles from the Dispatch Center/Sheriff’s Office. This should be done by October 2005. • Provide, by October 2005, a written procedure detailing how county law enforcement expects to meet its commitment as a primary resource agency to EOC in the event of a major disaster. 9

F13: There is an agreement dated 1997, between the cities and the county, promising help from the county for the construction of, training in, and testing of city-based disaster plans. This assistance is not provided, nor sought on a continually consistent basis, despite the payment of a $2000 annual fee by the cities.

F14: There are no consistent disaster response checklists for law enforcement and public safety personnel, the two major agencies involved in every disaster. While law enforcement acknowledges SEMS, it relies on its normal critical incident skills to sustain its disaster response efficacy. There is too much reliance on a disaster being just another critical incident, basically “all in a day’s work.” As a result, there are no written policies and/or procedures that describe the responsibilities of the Sheriff’s Department as part of the County Emergency Operations Plan.

F15: The County Mobile Communications Vehicle, funded by Homeland Security, is parked within 200 feet of the County Dispatch Center for which it is the backup.

Related Recommendations (1)

F16: The Sonoma County Law Enforcement Consortium (SCLEC) system comprises Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Records Management System (RMS) and Mobile Data Computer (MDC). All of the Sonoma County law enforcement agencies, except Healdsburg and Sebastopol, use SCLEC for dispatching, tracking, and communicating with mobile units. The SCLEC computer system is housed in one county building with no backup if the building were destroyed.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Director of County Information Services, working with the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Consortium (SCLEC), should: • Propose, by October 2005, a plan to provide immediate backup to the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Computer System, presently a single point of failure.

F17: There is little in the county and city plans to indicate how long term losses of infrastructure will be managed, e.g. roads, freeways, and bridges. Conclusions The County has adopted the SEMS approach to developing disaster recovery plans. The County signed an agreement in 1997 to assist all of the principal cities with their SEMS-based plans. The plans as assembled are inconsistent in content and with each other. Some of the plans are seriously out of date, and in none of the plans is there evidence of post “9/11” updating. It is difficult to believe that the events of September 11, 2001 did not cause significant reviews of disaster plans. It is even more difficult to believe plan revisions would not have been indicated as a result of such reviews. The smaller cities have the least complete and (typically) the oldest plans, and are relying far too much on the County EOC to “rescue” them in the event of a disaster within their own boundaries. Consider the heavy dependency in the county on a minimal number of North/South, East/West access roads, and it is not difficult to imagine the central EOC having major problems in assisting a disaster in for example, Cloverdale or Sonoma. The small cadre of mid-level staffers involved in the design and drafting of the plans demonstrated a good deal of understanding and enthusiasm; the same could not be said for their managers and supervisors. Some of that may just be the way such plans are developed. The grand jury’s fear is that in the event of a major disaster too much recovery dependency will be placed on these staffers. Most of the senior management and elected officials interviewed were well distanced from, and in some cases ignorant of, salient pieces of the plans. In almost every case, procedures from law enforcement, as they related to their role in an emergency, or a disaster within their own infrastructure, were provided to the grand jury as a secondary offering, in some cases not a direct match to the question the grand jury had asked. The jury is left with a very real impression that law enforcement is relying too much on a disaster simply being just another (maybe larger) critical incident, for which their personnel are trained. Too often law enforcement quoted street disturbances, or Russian River floods, as examples of their emergency-handling prowess. The jury does not believe that either of these examples is a good basis for a major (unexpected) disaster plan. The grand jury has no expectation that all of the personnel involved in a disaster recovery will actually work from the plan manual. However, the spasmodic, in some cases zero, use of checklists misses a great opportunity to put effective planning into action at times of great personal stress and confusion. SEMS certainly encourages use of checklists. After-action reports from major disasters elsewhere also stress the value of checklists. The senior management commitment to the various disaster plans, at the Board of Supervisors level, County Administrator, the city council level, the city manager level, and the public safety level, is demonstrably inconsistent and does not bode well should the county experience a major disaster. Commendations The jury commends the Department of Emergency Services for a well-written, digestible County Emergency Operations Plan, so much better than its predecessor. Its focus on people safety is especially commendable, as is the dedication of the staff group that produced it. Both the Sonoma County Water Agency and the City of Santa Rosa developed well-constructed plans and in particular, made good use of checklists. Both plans had dates that are not recent; in both cases the jury understands updates are in progress. The grand jury would like to thank all of the people who gave valuable time for interviews and willingly provided many examples of written material.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The County Director of Public Works should: • Produce, by year-end 2005, a document outlining the realistic alternatives in the event that major sections of North/South and East/West roadways are disrupted. Required responses to Findings Director – County Department of Emergency Services –F2, F3, F4, F5, F9, F10, F11,

March 14, 2005 — School Districts: Time for a Change?

6 pages 7 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Best practices devised by individual school districts that reduce redundancies and save money e.g., inter-district consortiums such as school lunch programs, special education transportation, etc. have not been well documented or widely communicated to other districts by SCOE.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The SCOE needs to collect the “best practices” used by individual school districts to pare operational expenses and share these with all the other districts.

F2: With the sole exception of the discussion workshop for the west county districts, there are no active initiatives for the forty school districts to change the status quo relative to consolidation or unification in order to reduce overhead and administrative expenses.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: SCOE should be encouraged to initiate an impartial study for all 40 Sonoma County school districts to explore the advantages and disadvantages of unification and consolidation.

F3: While SCOE has hosted a special discussion workshop for ten west county districts to discuss studying the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation, the offer was not met with overwhelming enthusiasm by all the districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: SCOE should be encouraged to initiate an impartial study for all 40 Sonoma County school districts to explore the advantages and disadvantages of unification and consolidation.

F4: Student demographics are constantly evolving affecting funding levels and school capacity. Districts take a narrowly focused short-term view based on their individual district needs rather than considering the larger countywide requirements.

F5: New accounting rules imposed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board4 require districts to begin funding the full cost of post-retirement health benefits as part of current expenditures beginning in 2006-2007. This change will result in substantially higher expense for districts that grant health benefits to school retirees.

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: Health benefits for school district employees are negotiated within each district and over the years have become an expensive feature of the compensation program.

Related Recommendations (1)

F7: Special Education costs for the physically and mentally challenged students have increased to the point where one or two additional cases in small districts could potentially lead to bankruptcy. The pooling of resources through unification or consolidation would be a major benefit in such situations. Conclusions Funding for the 40 school districts in Sonoma County is in financial crisis and with the required funding of post-retirement health benefits just over the horizon, financial matters will likely become much worse. The latest available SCOE data indicates that Sonoma County student enrollment has shown an overall decline for the last seven years.5 The effect of the changing county demographics and the emergence of charter schools are contributing factors. With each of the 40 school districts trying to solve funding shortfalls independently, there has been little opportunity devoted to looking at the larger picture at the county level and to seeking out what’s best for the county. The districts that are in relatively good financial shape today take a parochial view of the problem and while sympathetic to their neighboring districts’ financial plight appear to have an “if it ain’t broke…don’t fix it” attitude. This shortsighted perspective assumes that their situation will not change or they will be able to deal with changes when they arrive. There is no single force in the county driving countywide discussion. At present, aside from some discussion in the west county districts, there is no coordinated effort to study the issue and look at all alternatives from a county perspective. This grand jury acknowledges that unification or consolidation is no easy task and may not be a positive move for all districts. While some people will lose their jobs and others will experience a loss of power and authority, it must be remembered that it is the students who are the clients and any savings can be used to improve the quality of the educational experience. The primary objective of this report is to question if large scale economies can be achieved to free-up more money for classrooms. The first step to determine the viability of unification or consolidation is to initiate a countywide study by outside independent experts. At the very least, this study will help clarify if unification or consolidation should move forward for the benefit of the students and the taxpayers. Commendations Individual school district superintendents interviewed by this grand jury have been very creative in seeking opportunities to prioritize expenditures and minimize unnecessary expenses whenever possible so that savings could be directed to student programs. The Superintendent of Sonoma County Office of Education (SCOE) is to be commended for proposing an initiative to fund a study to ascertain the value of consolidation and unification in the ten west county school districts.

* 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.