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 Conflict of Interest Report*

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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] or time a new Councilmember or Planning Commissioner takes office they are [email protected] 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 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

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. The issue of housing affordability continues to be one of the leading reasons as well as the pay scale that we have been unable to attract candidates from out of this area.

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 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 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.

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.

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)

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.

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 the application 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. Sonoma County Water Agency

Related Recommendations (1)

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. Sonoma County Water Agency

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

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)

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.6 5 Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations (Required responses per CA penal code 933c no later than August 29, 2005) Superintendent, Sonoma County Office of Education R1, R2, R3 1 100 Percent in Favor of the 65 Percent Solution: George F. Will, Washington Post: Press Democrat, April 10, 2005. Emerging Area of Significant Concern; FCMAT Predictors of School Agencies Needing Intervention: CA Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team 3 Reading, Writing, ROI, Forbes March 4, 2005: Chairman of the Swarthmore Group and Chairman of the Philadelphia School Reform Commission 4 School Health Benefits: A Disaster in the Making: Peter Schrag, Sacramento Bee: Press Democrat, March 31, 2005. Sonoma County 2003-2004 Statistical Report: Sonoma County Office of Education. School Health Benefits: A Disaster in the Making: Peter Schrag, Sacramento Bee: Press Democrat, March 31, 2005. 6

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.