Sonoma County 2006-2007 - California Grand Jury Reports

March 24, 2008 — Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District Responses to Grand Jury*

3 pages 12 recommendations

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Further in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person or system should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U.S. Mail. The Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District had the system described in this recommendation in place since the Department of Justice introduced its website. Prior to the implementation of live scan service and electronic notification, the District had at least one employee responsible for sending employees for fingerprinting and receipt of notification via facsimile or U.S. Mail.

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. All volunteers are required to sign in at the school office before they are permitted to enter the campus. Sign in logs are records maintained by the District in the conduct of its business, and as such, meet the definition of public records under the California Public Records Act. The logs would likely be subject to release if the District received a records request under the Act.

R6: Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public positing of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so it if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. School site administrators in the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District have done this in the past when they have had concerns about an individual. District staff will continue to encourage this practice.

R7: School districts should request criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Courts Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to a district. This recommendation does not appear to be necessary given the procedures for volunteers in the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District. Volunteers who are alone with children are fingerprinted through the Department of Justice. This includes chaperones on over-night field trips, volunteers who oversee tutorial centers or extra- curricular activities, and all athletic coaches.

R8: School districts should, individually or collectively, request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received and would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail servers is actually being received. The school district receives subsequent arrest notices for any individual previously fingerprinted using live-scan. The District has no reason to believe the Department of Justice has failed to provide such notices at any time. If, however, the County Superintendent of Schools were to request the District cooperate in making such a request of the Department of Justice, we would do so.

R10: volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. The Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District requires Department of Justice clearances for all athletic coaches, paid and volunteer. All volunteers who supervise an extra-curricular activity without a District employee present are required to be fingerprinted. Both of these practices have been in place since at least 1995. Effective spring 2007, the District requires chaperones on over-night field trips to be fingerprinted. The District's field trip policy states that if a parent cannot transport more than one child in his/her vehicle for a field trip where private automobiles are used, the child who rides in that vehicle must be the driver's own child.

R11: School districts should implement provisions of Ed. Code Section 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. The Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District has implemented the provisions of these sections of the California Education Code.

R13: School districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre- employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. This has been the practice of the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District.

R15: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District provides volunteers with a written guide that outlines expectations for volunteers. School site administrators have the authority to remove a volunteer from his/her school for any reason, and volunteers are informed that it is a privilege, not a right, to volunteer in a school. For these reasons, the District does not believe a written agreement is necessary. Prepared By: 7 September 2007 Barbara Vrankovich, EdD Superintendent

March 24, 2008 — Kashia Elementary School District Background Check Policies*

2 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district ...should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule...In the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person...should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. Kashia School District agrees with this recommendation and already has this recommendation in place.

R5: Districts should amend their policies...to allow for volunteers' names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. Kashia does not have a policy prohibiting volunteers' names from being made public. The District will treat volunteer's names as public information and will notify with a notice home to parents/guardians in order to provide greater scrutiny of volunteers. A list of volunteers' names will be submitted to the District's Board of Trustees at the beginning of each semester.

R6: Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website...even if fingerprinting is schedules, and always do so if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. The Lead Teacher or Superintendent checks Megan's Law website before approving an adult volunteer.

R8: Districts...should request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. Kashia School agrees to request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm the school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest.

R9: Districts should request FBI responses on all classified employees and volunteers (for whom) they do a DOJ response regardless of the time they have lived in California. Kashia School agrees that a request to the FBI for a check on criminal activity by use of the national database can be justifiable and appropriate. The District contends that the State should provide funding for this endeavor.

R10: Districts should require fingerprinting for all adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. Kashia School will require fingerprint checks for all adult volunteers who will have ongoing contact with students, including athletic programs and overnight field trips. The District does not agree that all volunteers who participate in off-campus field trips should be fingerprinted. Volunteers for one-time events who are under line-of-sight supervision by a school employee will not require fingerprinting. Districts should implement provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and

R11: 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. Kashia School already implements provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks.

R13: Districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre- employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means that all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. All fingerprint and required criminal history checks are completed and evaluated before new employees begin work.

R14: The S.O. should make available to all school districts information on how to access services available to them through the S.O. that would aid districts in determining if individuals should be approved to serve as volunteers in our schools and at school sponsored activities. The District agrees with this recommendation.

R15: District should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior dos and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The District is in agreement with this recommendation and will implement it as soon as possible. The above response to the Grand Jury recommendations was adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on August 24, 1007. Nancy Watton, Superintendent

March 24, 2008 — Monte Rio Union School District Response to Grand Jury*

3 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district... should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule... In the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person... should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. The District is in total agreement with this recommendation and already has this recommendation in place.

R4: Districts should consider changing their policies to require successful employee applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. .... As costs are shifted to paid employees, districts could use savings to fund costs of volunteers. The District agrees in part with this recommendation. The mandate for fingerprinting comes from the State. The State should provide the necessary funding for the fingerprinting mandate, allowing districts to use the savings to fund the cost of fingerprinting volunteers. The District agrees that the cost for fingerprint clearances is an enormous burden, but obtaining fingerprint clearances also gives the district a degree of security for our students' safety.

R5: Districts should amend their policies... to allow for volunteers' names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. The District does not have a policy prohibiting volunteers' names from being made public. Perhaps each district should submit a list of volunteers' names to the board at the beginning of each year, thus making the list "public."

R6: Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website ....even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. The District agrees that adult volunteers should be routinely checked on the Megan's Law website; however, the reality is that we have such a large number of parent volunteers that this would require additional employee time and district expense. The bottom line is that we would "take away" funds that should be spent on our children, in the classroom.

R7: Districts should request criminal activity records from the Sonoma County Superior Court Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. The District agrees with this recommendation, especially since this information is available at no cost to the District. However, the District would like to also make note that we are looking only for individuals that may have "criminal activity" that would prevent them from working with children. An individual that has a "victimless" crime on his/her record may not be a reason to keep an individual from volunteering to read to students, decorate a classroom bulletin board, make instructional materials for a teacher, etc. MONTE RIO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 20700 Foothill Drive, Monte Rio, CA 95462 · 707/865-2266 · 707/865-9356 FAX

R8: Districts ... should request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of subsequent Arrest. The District agrees with this recommendation. It is the District's recommendation that ONLY electronic information be disseminated by DOJ, and that no district should rely upon mail. It is easy to implement a "receipt notice" when email has been opened and read by the District, thus verifying receipt by a district.

R9: Districts should request FBI responses on all classified employees and volunteers (for whom) they do a DOJ response regardless of the time they have lived in California. The relatively small fee of $24 to get prior criminal activity from a national database seems justifiable, reasonable and the right action to take. The District agrees that obtaining an FBI response for an individual with whom you are already doing a DOJ request, is appropriate. The District also contends that the State should provide funding for this endeavor.

R10: Districts should require fingerprinting for all adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. The District agrees that fingerprinting should be done for all adults involved in athletic programs and for overnight field trips. The district does not agree that all volunteers who participate in off-campus field trips should be fingerprinted. If this were the case, we would be fingerprinting almost every parent of a kindergarten and 1st-grade student!

R11: Districts should implement provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. The District is in agreement with this recommendation and is presently implementing the requirement.

R13: Districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre-employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means that all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. The District is in total agreement with this recommendation and has already implemented this employment practice.

R15: Districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The District is in agreement with the recommendation. . MONTE RIO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 20700 Foothill Drive, Monte Rio, CA 95462 · 707/865-2266 · 707/865-9356 FAX The above response to Grand Jury recommendations was adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on August 16, 2007. Diane Ögden, Ed. D. Superintendent

September 27, 2007 — West Sonoma County Union High School District Response*

5 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access the DOJ website within an official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Further, in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person or system should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U.S. Mail. WSCUHSD Response: The WSCUHSD has two employees, the District Human Resources Director and the Human Resources Secretary, trained and authorized to access the DOJ website in an official capacity. These individuals understand the information from the DOJ website and DOJ notices sent by U.S. Mail; and are able to communicate the appropriate information in a timely and accurate manner to school and district administrators, while maintaining appropriate levels of confidentiality as required by law.

R4: School districts should consider changing their policies to require successful employee applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. There is at least $65,000 in 06-07 school district budgets for fingerprinting. As costs are shifted to paid employees, districts could use savings to fund costs for volunteers. WSCUHSD Response: The West Sonoma County Union High School District currently requires successful employee candidates to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. The WSCUHSD reimburses the cost of fingerprinting and background responses for volunteer athletic coaches who serve in a volunteer capacity for an entire athletic season.

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers' names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. WSCUHSD Response: The names of all school volunteers who serve as volunteer athletic coaches and volunteer chaperones for school trips, and volunteer drivers for school trips and other situations in which the volunteer may be working with students without the direct supervision of a school employee are made public and become a matter of public record when these volunteers are approved to serve in a volunteer capacity at a public meeting of the District Board of Trustees. The district believes that it would be unreasonably burdensome to publicly display the names of all volunteers who are limited to serving under the direct supervision of a credentialed school employee, such as classroom volunteers or dance chaperones.

R6: Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public posting of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. WSCUHSD Response: The WSCUHSD respectfully disagrees with this recommendation. Megan's Law websites are less comprehensive than DOJ and FBI fingerprinting and background checks. Megan's Law websites rely on the compliance of individuals required to register as sex offenders with law enforcement agencies. Individuals who are required to register, but do not comply, are still identified as registered sex offenders in a DOJ and FBI background check. The WSCUHSD does not allow volunteers to work with students unless they are under the direct supervision of a school employee, even if their fingerprints have been taken and their DOJ clearance is scheduled or being processed. As in Recommendation R5, WSCUHSD believes that it would be unreasonably burdensome to routinely search Megan's Law websites for the names of all volunteers for whom fingerprinting and a DOJ background check is not required, because these volunteers are limited to serving under the direct supervision of a credentialed school employee at all times.

R7: Schools should request criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Court Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to a district. WSCUHSD Response: The WSCUHSD respectfully disagrees with this recommendation. While this recommendation is clearly made with the intent to protect children, the recommendation is intrusive and does not protect the "innocent until proven guilty" assumption that is well established in our society. A criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Court would not be required of employees of the school district who works directly with students. The interest of WSCUHSD students is better served by current policy and practice that does not allow volunteers to work unsupervised with students unless fingerprinting and a DOJ background check has been successfully passed.

R8: School districts should, individually or collectively, request the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Main or electronic mail servers is actually being received. WSCUHSD Response: While it is unlikely that the Federal DOJ will change its practice at the request of a single school district or group of Sonoma County school districts, the WSCUHSD is considering whether to submit a request to the DOJ in keeping with this recommendation.

R9: School districts should request FBI responses on all classified employees and volunteers that they do a DOJ response regardless of the time they have lived in California. The relatively small fee of $24 to get prior criminal activity from a national database seems justifiable, reasonable and the right action to take. WSCUHSD Response: The WSCUHSD respectfully disagrees with this recommendation. The DOJ recommends that it is only necessary and appropriate to have FBI checks on individuals who have lived in California for less than one year, and that DOJ checks without FBI checks are adequate and appropriate for those who have lived in California for more than one year. WSCUHSD intends to follow the recommendation of the DOJ regarding FBI checks.

R10: Schools should require fingerprinting for all adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. WSCUHSD Response: The WSCUHSD requires fingerprinting for all paid and volunteer athletic coaches. The district requires fingerprinting of designated chaperones for overnight field trips; but does not require fingerprinting for volunteers who are with students only under the direct supervision of a school employee. The district will consider changing district policy and regulations to require all individuals accompanying students on an overnight trip to be fingerprinted.

R11: School district should implement provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. WSCUHSD Response: The WSCUHSD requires independent contractors and employees of contractors to undergo fingerprinting and background checks when they are appropriate and necessary because the contractor or contractor's employee will be working in proximity of students.

R13: School districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre-employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means that all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. WSCUHSD Response: With specific exceptions, the WSCUHSD already complies with this recommendation. In the event that an employee's fingerprints have not cleared and the employee's services are essential to the business of the district (i.e. teaching), employees have been allowed to begin work under the direct supervision of a substitute teacher, administrator, or other certificated employee who has passed fingerprint clearance.

R14: The Sonoma County Sheriff's Office (S.O. should make available to all school districts information on how to access services available to them through the S.O. that would aid districts in determining if individuals should be approved to serve as volunteers in our schools and at school sponsored activities. WSCUHSD Response: This recommendation is directed at the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office. The WSCUHSD welcomes information from the Sheriff's Office regarding services that would aid our district in determining if individuals should be approved as school volunteers.

R15: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. WSCUHSD Response: In the WSCUHSD, athletic volunteers sign a code of ethics, but the code does not state the consequences if broken. It is implied that the individual will be removed, as a volunteer if the code of ethics is not followed. The district does not believe it is necessary or beneficial to require other volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines expected behavior and consequences, as volunteers serve under the direct supervision or general supervision of district employees.

September 18, 2007 — Grand Jury Horicon School District Sep 3 5 2007*

3 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Further in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person or system should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U.S. Mail. Horicon Elementary School District agrees with the finding and has one employee, the School Secretary, who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website; the Superintendent/Principal is the alternate person responsible.

R4: School districts should consider changing their policies to require successful employee applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. There is at least $65,000 in 06-07 school district budgets for fingerprinting. As costs are shifted to paid employees, districts could use savings to fund costs for volunteers. Horicon Elementary School District partially disagrees with the finding. It is already difficult to find highly qualified employees in certain categories; we do not wish to make the application process more costly or cumbersome to potential applicants than it is already. Additionally, employment costs are negotiable conditions of employment (Public Employees Relations Board—PERB). Currently, the district funds the costs of required background checks, TB clearance, and pre- employment physicals as required for employees and TB Clearance and fingerprinting for volunteers that we do not have long time knowledge about .

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. Horicon Elementary School District feels that this may be a Public Records Act issue. We do not provide address or telephone information to the general public.

R6: School should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public positing of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so it if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. Horicon Elementary School District partially agrees with this finding. The School Secretary uses the website and we encourage our parents to check the Megan's Law website. Beginning this school year, we add a reminder and encouragement to check the Megan's Law website in the school newsletter.

R7: School districts should request criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Courts Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to a district. Horicon Elementary School District partially disagrees with this finding. This is a small, isolated, rural community school with long term employees and families. We have only 85 students. I taught some of our students' parents and know their grandparents and entire families. Volunteers are supervised by district employees so for most volunteers, this recommendation would be unnecessary. We agree with and have implemented the recommendation for volunteers that we do not know.

R8: School districts should, individual and collectively, request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received and would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail services is actually being received. Horicon Elementary School District agrees with this finding and agrees to assist the County Superintendent, Dr. Wong, in writing such a letter to the DOJ on behalf of all districts. Currently, we do get notices of subsequent arrest. SCOE also provides us with subsequent arrest notices on substitute teachers that work in our district.

R10: School districts should require fingerprinting for all adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. Horicon Elementary School District partially agrees with this finding and has already implemented it for volunteers that we do not know. All programs that are school sponsored have staff members in attendance. Tutoring program(s), dances, and overnight field trips are all well chaperoned. As an example of the caliber of our volunteers--our flag football coach is a past Board President of 15 years (now on the Board of the High School district), his wife currently works for the district, and he has been involved with the district since 1975. We did not ask for fingerprinting on this man.

R11: School districts should implement provisions of Ed. Code Section 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. Horicon School District agrees with this finding and requires any contractors to confirm that their employees have undergone background checks and they are supervised by district employees while students are on campus.

R13: School districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre-employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. Horicon Elementary School District agrees with this finding and has been doing this for several years now.

R14: The Sheriff's Office should make available to all school districts information on how to access services available to them through the Sheriff's Office that would aid districts in determining if individuals should be approved to serve as volunteers in our schools and at school sponsored activities. Horicon Elementary School District does not disagree with this finding but does not understand what services would be available. We have a close relationship with our local sheriff who serves an area of 65 miles of coastline. The Sheriff's Office is in Santa Rosa two hours travel away. The Sheriff can and does have information on people who would not be good to have at the school site. This information is usually given verbally. If there are other ways that the Sheriff's Office can help then we would welcome that help.

R15: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. Horicon does give its school volunteers copies of the school rules and discipline procedures. The Village tutoring center has its own rules and extensive year long training as it is under a school employee but held in a different location. Those who drive on field trips are given an inservice by the teacher in charge and provide drivers licenses, proof of insurance, TB clearance.

September 12, 2007 — Gravenstein Union School District Response to Grand Jury Report*

3 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: School districts should consider changing their policies to require successful employee applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. There is at least $65,000 in 06-07 school district budgets for fingerprinting. As costs are shifted to paid employees, districts could use savings to fund costs for volunteers. Currently, the GUSD funds the costs of required background checks and pre-employment physicals as required for employees. We are planning to fingerprint volunteer coaches and volunteers chaperoning on overnight field trips. Employment costs are negotiable conditions of employment. Employees are unlikely to voluntarily shoulder this proposed additional cost. It is difficult to find highly qualified employees in certain categories, and we do not wish to make the application process more costly or cumbersome to potential applicants. Response to 2007 Grand Jury Report 9/12/2007 ٤

R6: School should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public positing of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. The GUSD will encourage principals and teachers to check for the names of their volunteers on the website whenever they have any suspicion about a potential volunteer and, in other cases, when time permits. We also encourage our parents to check the Megan's Law website.

R7: School districts should request criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Courts Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to a district. The GUSD plans to implement this recommendation for volunteer coaches and those chaperoning overnight field trips. However, we believe this recommendation is unnecessary and impractical for all volunteers. We have approximately 300 parents and grandparents volunteering in various capacities. Our volunteers are routinely supervised by district employees.

R8: School districts should, individual and collectively, request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received and would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail services is actually being received. The GUSD agrees to assist the County Superintendent in writing such a letter to the DOJ on behalf of all districts. Currently, we believe we get notices of subsequent arrest. SCOE also provides us with subsequent arrest notices on substitute teachers that work in our district.

R9: School districts should request FBI responses on all classified employees and volunteers that they do a DOJ response regardless of the time they have lived in California. The relatively small fee of $24 to get prior criminal activity from a national database seems justifiable, reasonable and the right action to take. The GUSD already has implemented the recommendation for classified employees. We are considering the recommendation for volunteer coaches and overnight chaperones. Response to 2007 Grand Jury Report 9/12/2007

R11: School districts should implement provisions of Ed. Code Section 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. The GUSD believes it complies with Education Code section 45125.2. Section 33193 does not appear to be applicable.

R13: School districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre- employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. The GUSD does not allow new employees to begin work until all pre-employment requirements are met.

R15: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The GUSD will consider this recommendation. Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Jim/Horn President, Board of Trustees, Gravenstein Union Elementary School District Response to 2007 Grand Jury Report 9/12/2007

August 24, 2007 — Sonoma County*

3 pages 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The county tax assessor should complete billboard inventories annually. Assessor's Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The cost to inventory all billboards each year would far outweigh the benefit. With the current workload of the Assessor's staff, inventories of billboards can only be conducted every four years, in conjunction with the mandatory audit. It should be noted however, that while mandatory audits are performed every four years, asset listings for each billboard company are reviewed on annual basis, when supplied on the 571 L form. If any billboards were omitted from annual Business Property Statements and revealed during the audit, escaped assessments can be issued for all four years.

R2: The county tax assessor should require the inclusion of a mandatory itemized listing of the billboards on form 571 L. Assessor's Response: This recommendation has been implemented to the extent possible within the jurisdiction of the Assessor. Form 571L is a state form, prescribed by the State Board of Equalization. The Assessor cannot make changes to the form to require the inclusion of an itemized listing of billboards. We have, however, reviewed our internal procedures concerning the reporting of billboards on Business Property Statements. While there is no legal requirement that billboards be itemized on a Business Property Statement, when billboards are indicated, but not itemized, we will make every reasonable effort to follow up and collect such information. This procedure has been implemented.

R3: All information regarding billboards in the county should be available in a central location: assessors parcel number and address, property owners, location on the property, billboard owner, advertising agency, permits. Assessor's Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. Sonoma County Assessor's Response 2006/2007 Grand Jury Report "Sign of the Times" The permitting/planning agencies in the cities and county have the responsibility of issuing permits for billboards within their respective jurisdictions. State law does not provide for a central agency to be charged with the duty of collecting and maintaining the data set forth.

R4: County tax assessor should compare current cost value method with the Caltrans process recommended by the California Assessors Association to see which is the most beneficial to the county. Assessor's Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. While the Assessor does use the Caltrans cost approach method to value billboards, the California Assessors' Association also holds that if the Assessor has other market derived information, that information should be considered in determining the property's "full cash value." Revenue and Taxation Code §110 (full cash value) is the preeminent authority for property tax assessment. In addition, the Assessor assesses property in accordance with the California Revenue and Taxation Code and does not take into consideration what is most beneficial to either the county or the taxpayer.

R5: The tax assessor should be the central repository for information regarding billboards. Assessor's Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. Pursuant to state law, the duty of the Assessor is to assess property for the purpose of imposing taxes, not to act as a repository of information, or as a regulatory agency. Current staffing and workload levels do not permit this office to assume the additional workload that would be required in adopting this recommendation. Some of the data noted in Recommendation 3 is not included in that which the Assessor is required to keep for the production of the assessment roll. The permitting/planning agencies in the cities and county have the responsibility of issuing permits for billboards within their respective jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction's permitting/planning agency should serve as the repository for billboard information for the respective jurisdiction. Assessor's Conclusion: On behalf of our office I would like to thank the Grand Jury for the opportunity to respond to the report. As we previously noted, we agree that the tracking of existing and new billboards in Sonoma County can be improved. As a result of this report, we have reviewed our internal procedures to be certain that the taxable assessments are correct for billboards located in our county. The regulation process falls under the jurisdiction of the various planning/building departments. The Assessor will encourage cooperation and communication with all of these departments so that we may continue to apply fair assessments. Very truly yours, Vanice Atkinson Sonoma County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor Superior Court Judge, Robert Boyd c. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Superior Court Executive Officer Bob Deis, Sonoma County Administrator Bill Rousseau, Chief Deputy Assessor

August 14, 2007 — Guerneville School District Grand Jury Report*

3 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district... should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule... In the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person... should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. The District is in total agreement with this recommendation and already has this recommendation in place.

R10: Districts should require fingerprinting for all adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. The District agrees that fingerprinting should be done for all adults involved in athletic programs and for overnight field trips. The district does not agree that all volunteers who participate in off-campus field trips should be fingerprinted. If this were the case, we would be fingerprinting almost every parent of a kindergarten and 1st-grade student!

R13: Districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre-employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means that all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. The District is in total agreement with this recommendation and has already implemented this employment practice.

R15: Districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The District is in agreement with the recommendation. The above response to Grand Jury recommendations was adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on August 14, 2007. Diane Ogden, Ed. D. Superintendent

∼ June 30, 2007 — Sonoma County Sheriff's Department

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

June 26, 2007 — Access and Recreation in Open Space District Properties*

7 pages 11 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: Measure F adds new language to the expenditure plan. This new language makes it clear that the open space district can and should provide funds for open space projects in incorporated areas (cities). 9

Page 4

F2: Approximately two-thirds of the sales tax revenue comes from residents of the nine cities and their suburbs.

Page 5

F3: A public opinion survey showed very strong support for environmental and open space issues. By implication the survey shows very strong support for the goals and objectives of the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District.

Page 5

F4: The same public opinion survey shows strong support for neighborhood parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. Testimony from witnesses confirms there is a strong public interest and demand for neighborhood parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, and picnic areas.

Page 5

F5: The district places a lot of emphasis on the acquisition and development of land for trails that are for hiking, biking and horseback riding.

Page 5

F6: The Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District has a low level of interest in providing funds for active recreation e.g., neighborhood parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, picnic areas, hunting, fishing, etc.

Page 5

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: The Board of Supervisors should require greater emphasis and greater willingness to spend district funds on neighborhood parks, playgrounds, athletic fields and picnic areas.

R5: Recognizing that the great majority of the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District tax funds come from city residents and that they have expressed strong desire and support for neighborhood parks, playgrounds and athletic fields, the Board of Supervisors should direct the allocation of a greater portion of these tax funds to provide, operate, and maintain recreational facilities in or near city residential areas.

F7: The Open Space District in the past has not met with city planning departments to review the city open space element of each city's general plan and there has been no development of a comprehensive, long-term approach with each city.

Page 5

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The Board of Supervisors should establish policies to require the Open Space District to conduct conferences with each city planning department and city parks department to review the open space element of each city's General Plan. Among the goals of such a conference would be a review of both the county and city open space elements to establish coordination and planning on a comprehensive and long-term basis.

R6: City Councils should establish policies and practices to meet with the Open Space District to review planning on a comprehensive and long-term basis.

F8: Representatives from city planning departments praised the Open Space District and its staff. The staff was described as very knowledgeable, helpful and a source for expertise and contacts that are not available to city planning departments.

Page 5

F9: The public opinion survey, public statements, media coverage, and interviews have indicated a strong desire to obtain access to the properties and easements obtained with public funds.

Page 5

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Board of Supervisors should establish policies and practices that will maximize public access to land acquired through both fee purchases and easement agreements. This would include instructions to the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District staff to consider that public access is a top priority.

F10: The Open Space District does not budget or plan the allocation of funds for future acquisitions.

Page 5

F11: A review and revision of policies and directives is the responsibility of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. Conclusion With the passage of Measure F, the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District has the opportunity to break new ground in the areas of active recreation, partnership with cities, implementing an operations and maintenance program, and increasing access to properties and easements acquired with public funds. With direction, guidance, and support by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, significant progress can be obtained in the implementation and execution of these objectives. Commendations The Sonoma County Grand Jury would like to thank all those who assisted in providing valuable information toward this report. The members of the Sonoma County Grand Jury who interviewed the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District staff were impressed by the educational qualifications, experience, knowledge and attitudes of staff members. Witnesses from city planning departments praised the Open Space District and the district staff. A typical remark was, "they are very responsive." When describing individual projects these witnesses described the participation of the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District staff as positive, helpful, and a good resource for expertise and assistance.

Page 5

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The language change in exhibit A of Measure F states, "The purpose of this expenditure plan is to implement the Sonoma County General Plan and the General Plans of the county's incorporated cities by preserving agricultural land use and open space." It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors initiate an independent study to determine what effect, if any, the new language has on the policies and practices of the Open Space District.

Page 6

June 26, 2007 — Appendices*

15 pages 3 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: 2.3. Craigslist Hispanic Outlook La Voz El Mensajero 4.

F4: 5. Sonoma County Grand Jury Citizen Response Form We Want to Hear from You! Mail to: Grand Jury, P.O. Box 5109, Santa Rosa, CA 95402 (707-565-6330) To Our Residents: Please give us your confidential comments for future Grand Jury consideration. This Final Report is a change from the previous booklet format and is a cost saving effort while still aiming to reach as many residents as possible. This Report may also be viewed at public libraries. Individual copies are available by phone, mail or at: www.sonomasuperiorcourt.com/pages/gjury_info.php. ______ What do you think of this new report format? Any comments on individual reports? Suggestions for subject of future reports? (See also Citizen Complaint Form) Name/Address/Phone: (optional here) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ****** Please send me: ____ Application to Serve on Grand Jury Citizen Complaint Form Name/Address/Phone: (required here) Thank you! 78 2006-2007 Sonoma Grand Jury Citizen Complaint and Investigation Status Committee Date Subject Disposition From Prior Jury Measure O Law & Justice Case Closed SR Sign Permits Cities Case Closed From Prior Jury From Prior Jury County Case Closed County Purchasing Law & Justice Case Closed From Prior Jury Correctional Officer Overtime Case Closed Rohnert Park Gen Plan Complaints Cities From Prior Jury Case Closed Law & Justice From Prior Jury Cloverdale Police Department Cities Case Closed From Prior Jury Rohnert Park Gen Plan Complaints Human Services Case Closed From Prior Jury Child Protective Services Child Removal June 2006 Fatal Incident Protocol - Welch Law & Justice REPORT Law & Justice June 2006 Fatal Incident Protocol - Thurston To next jury Rohnert Park Gen Plan Cities July 2006 Case Closed Law & Justice REPORT July 2006 Correctional Officer Overtime July 2006 Schools Consolidation Human Services Case Closed Monte Rio Wastewater Case Closed July 2006 County Case Closed July 2006 Unlicensed Drivers Law & Justice July 2006 Human Services Case Closed Risk Management July 2006 9-1-1 Calls Law & Justice Case Closed July 2006 Adult Care Concerns Human Services Case Closed Law & Justice Case Closed July 2006 Conflict of Interest - SRPD Case Closed Private Use of Public Property Cities August 2006 REPORT Fatal Incident Protocol - DeCosta Law & Justice August 2006 Unfair Labor Practices Cities Case Closed August 2006 Cotati Police Misconduct Law & Justice Case Closed August 2006 Case Closed August 2006 Open Space District Practices County August 2006 Law & Justice Case Closed County Inmate Complaint Case Closed August 2006 County Conflict of Interest County Case Closed August 2006 Cities Sebastopol Housing September 2006 County Case Closed Permit & Resources Mgmt General Plan Case Closed September 2006 Sheriff Recording Devices Law & Justice Self Generated School Background Checks Human Services REPORT September 2006 Lack of Representation Law & Justice Case Closed October 2006 Law & Justice Case Closed District Attorney Misconduct Cities REPORT Self Generated Signs of The Times Human Services Case Closed October 2006 Creekside Nurses October 2006 Case Closed Open Space District Funds Use County October 2006 Human Services REPORT Santa Rosa Junior College Employment November 2006 Sheriff Brutality Law & Justice Case Closed Case Closed November 2006 Winery Approval County November 2006 Trespass / Theft Law & Justice Case Closed November 2006 County Case Closed Big Springs Cleanup November 2006 Fatal Incident Protocol - McDowell Law & Justice To next jury November 2006 Farmers Markets County Case Closed Cities Case Closed November 2006 Santa Rosa Code Harassment November 2006 Wage Dispute Human Services Case Closed Fatal Incident Protocol - Tolosko REPORT December 2006 Law & Justice Self Generated REPORT Emergency Preparedness County January 2007 Sheriff Assault Law & Justice Case Closed January 2007 Child Protective Services Child Abuse Human Services Case Closed Cities REPORT Self Generated Wastewater January 2007 Child Support Law & Justice Case Closed January 2007 Use of Force Law & Justice Case Closed REPORT Self Generated Open Space District County February 2007 Fatal Incident Protocol - Chass Law & Justice To next jury February 2007 Child Support Human Services To next jury February 2007 Fatal Incident Protocol - Nace Law & Justice REPORT March 2007 Chass Fatal Shooting Complaint 1 Law & Justice Case Closed March 2007 Chass Fatal Shooting Complaint 2 Law & Justice Case Closed March 2007 IMPACT Fee Collection Cities To next jury March 2007 Inmate Rights Law & Justice Case Closed March 2007 Wage Dispute Law & Justice Case Closed April 2007 Development Issues County To next jury April 2007 Inmate Right to Privacy Law & Justice Case Closed County April 2007 Russian River Sanitation - Misuse of Funds Case Closed April 2007 Law & Justice Case Closed Public Defender Dispute County Case Closed April 2007 Russian River Redevelopment Agency April 2007 Fatal Incident Protocol - Heller Law & Justice To next jury County April 2007 Schools Emergency Preparedness To next jury April 2007 Sebastopol Hospital Tax Cities To next jury April 2007 Child Support Human Services To next jury Sonoma County Grand Jury Response Requirements RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS Following are pertinent excerpts from the California Penal Code concerning responses to Civil Grand Jury reports. "Section 933(b) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. "A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor, when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall remain for a minimum of five years." Copies of the Responses to the 2006-2007 Sonoma County Grand Jury Final Report will be evaluated by the 2007-2008 grand jury and will be available in the Family Law division, Room 101-J of the Sonoma County Superior Court. This report will also be available for review at all branches of the county library, by gjury@sonoma-county emailing the grand jury at .org online or http://www.sonomasuperiorcourt.com or by mailing a request to Sonoma County Superior Court, 600 Administration Dr. Room 107-J, Santa Rosa. "Section 933.05 (a) For purposes of the subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) the respondent agrees with the finding; (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. "Section 933.05 (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury

F5: Sonoma County Grand Jury Citizen Response Form We Want to Hear from You! Mail to: Grand Jury, P.O. Box 5109, Santa Rosa, CA 95402 (707-565-6330) To Our Residents: Please give us your confidential comments for future Grand Jury consideration. This Final Report is a change from the previous booklet format and is a cost saving effort while still aiming to reach as many residents as possible. This Report may also be viewed at public libraries. Individual copies are available by phone, mail or at: www.sonomasuperiorcourt.com/pages/gjury_info.php. ______ What do you think of this new report format? Any comments on individual reports? Suggestions for subject of future reports? (See also Citizen Complaint Form) Name/Address/Phone: (optional here) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ****** Please send me: ____ Application to Serve on Grand Jury Citizen Complaint Form Name/Address/Phone: (required here) Thank you! 78 2006-2007 Sonoma Grand Jury Citizen Complaint and Investigation Status Committee Date Subject Disposition From Prior Jury Measure O Law & Justice Case Closed SR Sign Permits Cities Case Closed From Prior Jury From Prior Jury County Case Closed County Purchasing Law & Justice Case Closed From Prior Jury Correctional Officer Overtime Case Closed Rohnert Park Gen Plan Complaints Cities From Prior Jury Case Closed Law & Justice From Prior Jury Cloverdale Police Department Cities Case Closed From Prior Jury Rohnert Park Gen Plan Complaints Human Services Case Closed From Prior Jury Child Protective Services Child Removal June 2006 Fatal Incident Protocol - Welch Law & Justice REPORT Law & Justice June 2006 Fatal Incident Protocol - Thurston To next jury Rohnert Park Gen Plan Cities July 2006 Case Closed Law & Justice REPORT July 2006 Correctional Officer Overtime July 2006 Schools Consolidation Human Services Case Closed Monte Rio Wastewater Case Closed July 2006 County Case Closed July 2006 Unlicensed Drivers Law & Justice July 2006 Human Services Case Closed Risk Management July 2006 9-1-1 Calls Law & Justice Case Closed July 2006 Adult Care Concerns Human Services Case Closed Law & Justice Case Closed July 2006 Conflict of Interest - SRPD Case Closed Private Use of Public Property Cities August 2006 REPORT Fatal Incident Protocol - DeCosta Law & Justice August 2006 Unfair Labor Practices Cities Case Closed August 2006 Cotati Police Misconduct Law & Justice Case Closed August 2006 Case Closed August 2006 Open Space District Practices County August 2006 Law & Justice Case Closed County Inmate Complaint Case Closed August 2006 County Conflict of Interest County Case Closed August 2006 Cities Sebastopol Housing September 2006 County Case Closed Permit & Resources Mgmt General Plan Case Closed September 2006 Sheriff Recording Devices Law & Justice Self Generated School Background Checks Human Services REPORT September 2006 Lack of Representation Law & Justice Case Closed October 2006 Law & Justice Case Closed District Attorney Misconduct Cities REPORT Self Generated Signs of The Times Human Services Case Closed October 2006 Creekside Nurses October 2006 Case Closed Open Space District Funds Use County October 2006 Human Services REPORT Santa Rosa Junior College Employment November 2006 Sheriff Brutality Law & Justice Case Closed Case Closed November 2006 Winery Approval County November 2006 Trespass / Theft Law & Justice Case Closed November 2006 County Case Closed Big Springs Cleanup November 2006 Fatal Incident Protocol - McDowell Law & Justice To next jury November 2006 Farmers Markets County Case Closed Cities Case Closed November 2006 Santa Rosa Code Harassment November 2006 Wage Dispute Human Services Case Closed Fatal Incident Protocol - Tolosko REPORT December 2006 Law & Justice Self Generated REPORT Emergency Preparedness County January 2007 Sheriff Assault Law & Justice Case Closed January 2007 Child Protective Services Child Abuse Human Services Case Closed Cities REPORT Self Generated Wastewater January 2007 Child Support Law & Justice Case Closed January 2007 Use of Force Law & Justice Case Closed REPORT Self Generated Open Space District County February 2007 Fatal Incident Protocol - Chass Law & Justice To next jury February 2007 Child Support Human Services To next jury February 2007 Fatal Incident Protocol - Nace Law & Justice REPORT March 2007 Chass Fatal Shooting Complaint 1 Law & Justice Case Closed March 2007 Chass Fatal Shooting Complaint 2 Law & Justice Case Closed March 2007 IMPACT Fee Collection Cities To next jury March 2007 Inmate Rights Law & Justice Case Closed March 2007 Wage Dispute Law & Justice Case Closed April 2007 Development Issues County To next jury April 2007 Inmate Right to Privacy Law & Justice Case Closed County April 2007 Russian River Sanitation - Misuse of Funds Case Closed April 2007 Law & Justice Case Closed Public Defender Dispute County Case Closed April 2007 Russian River Redevelopment Agency April 2007 Fatal Incident Protocol - Heller Law & Justice To next jury County April 2007 Schools Emergency Preparedness To next jury April 2007 Sebastopol Hospital Tax Cities To next jury April 2007 Child Support Human Services To next jury Sonoma County Grand Jury Response Requirements RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS Following are pertinent excerpts from the California Penal Code concerning responses to Civil Grand Jury reports. "Section 933(b) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. "A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor, when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall remain for a minimum of five years." Copies of the Responses to the 2006-2007 Sonoma County Grand Jury Final Report will be evaluated by the 2007-2008 grand jury and will be available in the Family Law division, Room 101-J of the Sonoma County Superior Court. This report will also be available for review at all branches of the county library, by gjury@sonoma-county emailing the grand jury at .org online or http://www.sonomasuperiorcourt.com or by mailing a request to Sonoma County Superior Court, 600 Administration Dr. Room 107-J, Santa Rosa. "Section 933.05 (a) For purposes of the subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) the respondent agrees with the finding; (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. "Section 933.05 (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury

June 26, 2007 — Correctional Deputies Overtime*

6 pages 7 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: During its investigation, the grand jury determined that there were two significant aspects affecting the issue of mandatory overtime: (1) the issue of recruitment and retention of correctional deputies, and (2) the Detention Division's Safety and Loss Prevention efforts.

F2: As with many law enforcement recruitment efforts, the recruitment of qualified applicants remains a daunting task. Recent newspaper articles state that the County of Mendocino is short approximately 30% of its authorized patrol staff, and that the California Department of Corrections is close to 4000 officers short of being fully staffed in state prisons.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The grand jury recommends that the Sheriff's Department continue its efforts to hire additional correctional deputies as vacancies occur.

F3: From 2001 through 2006, the Sheriff's Department Detention Division hired 129 correctional deputies and lost 137 correctional deputies. There were several reasons for the decline in the number of correctional deputies, including the hiring of correctional deputies by other law enforcement departments (33 in the past 5 years), the termination of Deputies (8 in the last 5 years), the promotion of deputies (21 in the past 5 years), and the retirement of 36 deputies. Additionally, a number of deputies have left the Department for unspecified "personal reasons" (see Figure 1). However, since neither the Sheriff's Department, nor the correctional deputies' union conduct exit interviews, the specific reasons for their decision to leave the department remain unknown.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The grand jury recommends that the Sheriff's Department continue its efforts to hire additional correctional deputies as vacancies occur.

F4: In the past year, the Sheriff's Department has added additional personnel to assist in the processing of employment applications, including permanent personnel and the use of extra help, light duty deputies and correctional deputies. This effort has substantially reduced the time required to conduct background checks and other post-offer, pre- placement screening.

F5: The safety and loss prevention efforts of the Sheriff's Department and the Risk Management Division of the County Human Resource's Department have been significant factors in the reduction of Industrial Injury claims and have greatly aided in reducing the number of overtime hours in the Corrections Division.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Risk Management Division of Human Resources should continue its very effective management of industrial injury claims through its Disability Management Unit. Required responses to Findings None Required responses to Recommendations Sonoma County Sheriff, R1 Sonoma County Risk Manager, R2 Requested responses to Recommendations None Correctional Officers 40 36 35 32 31 29 29 30 -27 25 24 25 23 20 18 15 3 12 10 9 10 8 8 18 66 6 6 5 5 5 3 3 3 2,1 2 0000000 0 O 0 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2007 Year ■ Hired ■ Lost □ Promotion □ Transfer ■ Personal Reason ■ Demoted ■ Retired □ Terminated Figure 1 2004 MONTHLY OT HOURS PER OFFICER 40 35 30 30 28 27 26 26 26 25 25 24 25 21 21 20 19 20 17 17 17 16 16 15 15 12 11 10 5 0 `4° MADF= NCDF= □ April ■ MAY ■ January ■ February □ March ■ June ■ July □ August ■ September □ November ■ October □ December Figure 2 30 2005 MONTHLY OT HOURS PER OFFICER 30 28 Ę 26 25 23 22 20 19 20 19 18 17 17 14 14 13 13 11 11 10 10 9 E. \hat{p_{i,j}} 5 5 2 0 MADF= NCDF= 大声 33 ■ January ■ February □ April □ June □ March ■ MAY ■ July □ August ■ September ■ October □ November □ December Figure 3 2006 MONTHLY OT HOURS PER OFFICER 50 45 45 42 41 40 40 39 40 38 36 34 35 33 32 32 31 31 30 29 30 28 27 25 25 25 23 19 20 18 16 15 10 5 0 Ĉ. MADF= NCDF= ALTERNA 31. RH tijn, ps. Y ■ January ■ February □ March □ April ■ MAY ■ June □ August ■ July ■ September ■ October □ November □ December Figure 4

F6: Another substantial reason for the decrease of the number of overtime hours required has been the significant decline in the number of hours lost. The number of industrial injury indemnity claims (claims resulting in time lost from work), has declined from 168 claims in 2001-2002 to 78 claims in 2006-2007. From 2004 to 2006, the number of days lost due to indemnity claims has declined from 1742 in 2004 to 793 in 2005, and has further declined in 2006 to 411 days. As each day lost results in additional days of required overtime, this significant reduction in days lost results in an equal reduction in the number of required overtime hours.

Related Recommendations (1)

F7: In reviewing the number of overtime hours in recent years, the grand jury discovered the following factors: In 2004, the average number of overtime hours mandated for MADF was 26.0 • hours per month. The number of hours for NCDF was 18.0 hours (see Figure 2) In 2005, the number of hours was 6.0 for MADF and 9.0 hours for NCDF (see ٠ Figure 3) In 2006, mandatory overtime hours for MADF were 28 hours per month and 17.0 • hours for NCDF (see Figure 4) In 2007, MADF averaged 13.0 mandatory overtime hours per month and NCDF • averaged 4.0 hours per month. The grand jury sees this as a significant improvement. Conclusion The Sheriff's Department, together with the Risk Management Division of the Human Resources Department, has made great strides toward reducing the number of mandatory overtime hours. The County Sheriff's stated goal of reducing all mandatory overtime to a point where overtime is voluntary may well be realized in the near future. Commendations The Sheriff's Department and the Risk Management Division of Human Resources are to be commended for their extraordinary efforts in reducing the number of industrial injury claims, which has had a direct impact on reducing the number of required overtime hours.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R31: RH tijn, ps. Y ■ January ■ February □ March □ April ■ MAY ■ June □ August ■ July ■ September ■ October □ November □ December Figure 4

June 26, 2007 — See Dick. See Jane. See Dick and Jane Go to School. Are They Safe?*

15 pages 51 findings 16 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 51 findings

F1: A SCOE Fingerprint Technician compares a picture I.D. to the applicant but has not been trained in how to detect a fraudulent I.D. Requests to local law enforcement for training have not been successful.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: The Sonoma County Sheriff's Office (S.O.) shall provide training to fingerprint technicians at the SCOE in how to detect a fraudulent I.D. If they cannot provide the training, they should be able to refer SCOE to another agency for that training.

F2: A SCOE Fingerprint Technician does not actually ask applicants how long they have lived in California. Three signs in that office tell the applicant to say if they have lived in California for less than six (6) months.

F3: The LiveScan request form also does not ask about length of residence in California. Of the 36 district employment application forms sent in with surveys, only 10 included a question about length of time in California. One district reported that the DOJ knows how long someone has lived in California and the DOJ is responsible.

F4: The SCOE Fingerprint processing fee, charged to school districts, is the highest fee in the county. The SCOE fee of $28-34 is high compared to fees as low as $18 for AmeriPrints and $20 for the Sebastopol Police Dept.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Sonoma County Office of Education should modify its fingerprint rolling fee of $28-34 to school districts in order to bring it more in line with other fees in the county for comparable service. A higher fee for an applicant who must also have FBI response does not seem justifiable as the work required from SCOE is not more than for a DOJ response.

F5: A SCOE Fingerprint technician was asked to prepare a draft document of a Volunteers Guideline and did so utilizing San Diego County guideline already in place. This draft was sent out to school districts sometime in December, 2006.

F6: On surveys, some districts (13 out of 40) included on their surveys a reference to the length of time applicant has lived in California as a determination of whether FBI response is required. Of the 36 districts that sent in copies of their employment applications, only 10 included a question of the length of time applicant has lived in California.

F7: On surveys, not one district responded with the law requiring an FBI response if a person has lived in California less than seven years, more than one year, and has a sex offense conviction on record.

F8: On surveys, almost all (36 out of 40) districts knew of a contract with the DOJ for notification of any subsequent arrests. In interviews, the jury learned that school officials have widely different understandings of this process, including how the information should be sent and received, and what the district should do after receiving such a notice. One district had never even heard of an electronic response from the DOJ.

F9: According to the surveys, some districts fingerprint all volunteers, some print some volunteers, and some do not print any volunteers. From interviews the jury learned that factors in this decision include whether the volunteer is a parent, a parent of a child in the school where they are volunteering, the frequency and/or the duration of the volunteer's service.

F10: Whether or not a volunteer has been printed and is therefore eligible to be alone with a student is not general knowledge at the school site. Usually the principal and/or school office staff, and sometimes the teachers know. Only one district, which prints some but not all, responded that they assume all volunteers are not printed.

Related Recommendations (4)

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided.

R7: School districts should request criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Court Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to a district.

F11: School districts also have very different practices about fingerprinting requirements for contractors including vendors, assemblies, construction, etc.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: School districts should implement provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks.

F12: All school districts interviewed were emphatic that school personnel are empowered to ask strangers on campus who they are and what they are doing.

F13: Districts depend to a large extent on volunteers, vendors, private contractors, etc. to not be alone with students at any time. Common terms are "line of sight" and "under direct supervision." The meaning of these terms varies with some districts using them to describe the volunteer as being kept in line of sight and others using them to describe the students as always in line of sight. Because we were not able to speak directly with volunteers, the grand jury investigation does not know what an individual volunteer understands this to mean.

Related Recommendations (1)

R15: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. Requested responses to Recommendations State of California, Department of Justice: R8 Required responses to Recommendations Superintendents of All Sonoma County Public School Districts (individually): Alexander Valley Union School District Bellevue Union School District Bennett Valley Union School District Cinnabar School District Cloverdale Unified School District Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District Dunham School District Forestville Union School District Fort Ross School District Geyserville Unified School District Gravenstein Union School District Guerneville School District Harmony Union School District Healdsburg Unified School District Horicon School District Kashia School District Kenwood School District Liberty School District Mark West Union School District Monte Rio Union School District Montgomery School District Oak Grove Union School District Old Adobe Union School District Petaluma City School District and Petaluma Joint Union High School District Piner-Olivet Union School District Rincon Valley Union School District Roseland School District Santa Rosa City School District and Santa Rosa City High School District Sebastopol Union School District Sonoma Valley Unified School District Twin Hills Union School District Two Rock Union School District Waugh School District West Side Union School District West Sonoma County Union High School District Wilmar Union School District Windsor Unified School District Wright School District:

F14: On surveys, eight (8) out of 40 districts reported that they would allow a newly hired employee to begin work before all pre-employment requirements were completed, under certain circumstances such as: the district had unofficial copies of credential; if the new employee would be under direct supervision of another district employee; if the new employee would not have contact with students; • if the work would be done when students are not present (i.e. summer). This is • prohibited under law.

Related Recommendations (1)

F15: The DOJ does not provide clearances. The DOJ provides Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI), responses based on prints provided. It is up to the hiring agency to clear or not. Many districts refer to the report from the DOJ as the "clearance" and say this means that the employee is cleared to go to work. The DOJ prefers that agencies use the word "response" when referring to the information they send.

F16: Although the Ed Code requires that the DOJ respond within 72 hours, often a DOJ response is received within hours. Others may take in excess of 30 days. Reasons for delays vary and can be due to unclear prints, missing court dispositions, or because the response requires manual handling.

F17: A DOJ response will never include criminal activity from outside the state of California. The DOJ used to combine criminal activity from outside California on the DOJ response but that stopped in early 1980's. Most districts that the jury spoke with about the 12-month rule they follow for requesting FBI responses, indicated that they were told that DOJ would have all criminal activity on an individual once they had lived in California for at least 12 months. In other words, that criminal activity outside of California would have caught up with them by the time they had lived here for a year.

Related Recommendations (1)

F18: The DOJ does not know how long someone has lived in California.

Related Recommendations (1)

F19: The DOJ does not automatically launch an FBI response. According to the DOJ, school districts must know when to request an FBI response in addition to the DOJ response. More than one district reported to the jury that it is their understanding that it is up to the DOJ to decide whether or not to launch an FBI response.

Related Recommendations (1)

F20: Although Ed Code Section 45125 requires an FBI response for persons who have lived in California for more than one year but not more than seven (7) years and who have a sex offense conviction, the DOJ was unable to explain how this Ed Code section could be followed. When asked how a school district would know this in order to request the FBI response, the DOJ responded that the school district must determine this. It is not up to the DOJ. The jury found that districts are not aware of this requirement.

Related Recommendations (1)

F21: If the DOJ is unable to get a disposition from the court on an arrest, it is suppressed. There are many reasons why a disposition may be unavailable including that there is still action pending. For older arrests, court records may have been purged. The DOJ has no control over this. It is frustrating for them as well. The need to contact courts for dispositions is often the reason for a 30 day delay.

F22: The DOJ reports that applicants can often speed up the delay process by contacting the court directly and requesting the information be forwarded to the DOJ. In order for the DOJ to use this information, it must come from the courts, not from the applicant.

F23: The DOJ processes subsequent arrest data from law enforcement agencies daily, Monday through Friday. Subsequent arrest notifications are on those individuals whose prints have already been processed.

F24: When the subsequent arrest is of an individual linked to a retainable agency (e.g. school district), the DOJ notifies the retainable agency immediately. Notification is done via electronic notice to the DOJ's secured website or by U.S. mail. The DOJ never telephones an agency although the Ed Code allows for it. One district reported that all of their subsequent arrest notifications came via fax. Over half of the districts the jury interviewed reported that the notices come to them via the U.S. Mail.

F25: California is a closed state, meaning it has a privacy clause which protects against the irresponsible dissemination of criminal history information. Florida is an open state meaning that criminal history is openly available to anyone, at any time, for any reason. There is no federal level privacy clause. The closed state status adds to the complexity of the entire fingerprint response process.

F26: Agencies with electronic mail code must check the DOJ's secured website in order to receive notification of subsequent arrests. Agencies like school districts must have a process in place to check for these notices on regular basis. Some districts have a practice in place that provides for daily access to the website. Some check weekly and others are not even aware of the website. It varies from district to district with some having only one employee authorized to check the website. Some districts reported that when the authorized person is out of office, even for vacation, there is no provision for checking the DOJ website for notices of subsequent arrest.

Related Recommendations (1)

F27: There is no follow up process on notices of subsequent arrest to make sure that they have been received. The DOJ does not require agencies to confirm receipt nor does the DOJ send a second notice. If sent via U.S. Mail, it is not certified or registered. Nothing further is sent from the DOJ once the subsequent arrest notice is sent. The DOJ assumes that if it is sent, it is received. Districts responded that they do not in fact have assurance that all notices sent by the DOJ have actually been received.

Related Recommendations (2)

F28: One district reported that the DOJ denied the district's request for a listing of those individuals for whom the DOJ had that district as the retainable district. The DOJ responded that they could not provide that information.

F29: A subsequent arrest occurring outside of California would not generate a notice to school districts. Arrests must be in California for the DOJ to be notified.

F30: California law provides for a no-cost DOJ response for certain non-profits for them to process their volunteers. Public school districts are excluded and must pay the DOJ fee of $32 for their volunteers.

F31: Although LiveScan has been used since 1998, the DOJ still receives some hard cards. The DOJ scans these prints. Old hard card submissions get U.S. mail notices of subsequent arrests. LiveScan submissions would trigger electronic notifications of subsequent arrests.

F32: The DOJ maintains that school districts cannot request an FBI response on certificated, credentialed individuals. FBI responses on these individuals only go to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing as part of the credentialing process. Yet districts routinely reported on the surveys that they request an FBI response for certificated employees based on time lived in California. Of the 19 districts interviewed, 5 districts reported that they never request an FBI response on any employees and 6 other districts reported that they didn't know if or when an FBI response is required.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Sonoma County Office of Education, on behalf of county school districts, should determine when a school district must actually initiate an FBI level response on a new certificated employee applicant who is fully credentialed and clearly communicate that to all school districts.

F33: Separate agencies, such as the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and any public school district, are prohibited by law from sharing criminal activity information (CORI) with each other.

F34: Based on interviews with school district officials, it is commonly believed that criminal history from the FBI database is combined into the DOJ California database by the time an individual has lived in California for 12 months. One district specifies a 24 month period and one district specifies a 6 month period. One district specifies an FBI response if applicant has ever lived outside California. The understanding is that when the district requests a DOJ response and the individual has been in California for a year or longer, it is expected (erroneously) that the DOJ response will include all criminal activity whether it was in California or somewhere else.

Related Recommendations (1)

F35: Many districts (13 out of 18 interviewed) sponsor after school athletic programs. Of those 13, only 8 require fingerprinting for all adult volunteers participating in after school athletic programs.

Related Recommendations (1)

F36: Most districts (15 out of 18 interviewed) allow overnight field trips with adult chaperones/adult participation. Of those 15, only 5 require fingerprinting for all adult volunteers participating on overnight field trips.

Related Recommendations (1)

F37: Most districts (16 of the 18 interviewed) allow parent driven field trips. Of those 16, only 1 requires fingerprinting for all adult volunteers participating in parent driven field trips.

Related Recommendations (1)

F38: No district currently requires fingerprinting employees of field trip destinations.

F39: Two districts that the jury interviewed require employee applicants to pay the cost of their own fingerprinting and the DOJ response. One district requires that volunteers bear this cost. In other districts, these costs are borne by the school districts budgets.

Related Recommendations (1)

F40: Districts reports of what the fees are vary but range as follows: cost to roll prints via LiveScan: $18 - $32; DOJ response: $32-50; FBI response: $0-56. However, the DOJ reported that their fee is always $32 and that the FBI fee is always $24. An FBI response is always run through the DOJ. SCOE reported that their fee ranges $28-32 and most districts indicated that they pay SCOE a fee of $28, with the higher fee due when an FBI response is also requested. Districts using AmeriPrints pay $18 for that same service. The Sebastopol Police Department charges $20.

F41: Most schools require visitors and/or volunteers to sign in at the school office. Many issue badges or stickers. Some collect these at the end of the visit when visitor or volunteer signs out. Some schools escort visitors while they are on campus, but usually only for the first time. Vendors, service, or repair people, while they are on campus, may be placed under supervision of a school employee

F42: A few school districts maintain databases that record which volunteers have been fingerprinted and are therefore allowed to be alone with students.

F43: Some districts rely on the SCOE to notify them of criminal activity including subsequent arrests of district employees.

F44: The SCOE is the responsible agency for certificated substitutes (substitute teachers) throughout the county as far as fingerprinting and credential verification. This is allowed under the Ed Code as it eliminates the need for an individual substitute teacher to have to undergo a fingerprinting process for each individual school district.

F45: One district reported hearing that the SCOE may offer a program of reduced fee (1/2 off) for districts to have their volunteers printed on certain days.

F46: Of the 18 school districts the jury interviewed, 5 reported that they had used the SCOE template mailed to them in November 2006 to complete the survey they returned to the grand jury.

F47: Of the forty (40) surveys sent to private schools in the county, the jury received twenty (20) back. They showed that all but one school require a fingerprinting background check of all new employees.

F48: Many private schools use the SCOE department for their fingerprinting requirements.

F49: Not one of these 20 private schools ever allows an employee to work before all pre- employment requirements are met.

F50: Fourteen (14) of the 20 private schools require fingerprinting of at least some of their school volunteers, six (6) of whom require printing of adults involved in field trips.

F51: Three (3) private schools reported that they require their vendors to be printed. Conclusions School districts in Sonoma County appear to have implemented, for the most part, the education code with regard to background responses prior to employment. The authenticity of each district's separate response to the grand jury survey may have been compromised however by the mailing sent out by the SCOE which included language for answers to questions posed in the survey. School districts paid out at least $60,000 in 05-06 for fingerprinting, DOJ and FBI fees, and budgets for 2006-07 are in excess of $65,000. It appears that some districts may be requesting FBI responses based on length of time living in California but without regard to whether the individual is credentialed or not. Others are not aware of any requirements at all to do an FBI level search. All districts were asked to indicate any other safeguards they may use. No school district reported that they accessed the Megan's Law website or in any way used this website as a resource for determining whether an individual who is not being fingerprinted should be allowed to volunteer around children. No district responded that they contact local law enforcement or the Sonoma County court system to check on prospective volunteers, although the Sheriff's Office and court records are both available with information at no cost. An individual without any prior criminal activity is allowed to work and/or volunteer in our schools. This supports the purpose and expense of a background check to the extent of what it can tell us about an individual. The sad truth is that individuals arrested for molesting children may have been given access to them because they had no prior criminal activity. Even the most assiduously applied fingerprint policy would not have eliminated them. An individual with prior criminal activity that does not preclude their being hired may be cleared to work in our schools. This provision starts to muddy the waters a bit as it leaves it up to the school district to interpret the severity of the offenses, how old the offenses are, how many, etc, and it also assumes that the offenses have not been suppressed by the DOJ. Common responses from school districts indicate that criminal records are mostly "just DUIs" and one district reports that DUIs are not the district's business. The jury thinks they are of interest. The Ed Code includes a provision that an individual with prior criminal activity that would preclude their being employed (even a violent or serious felony) shall not be denied employment if the person has obtained a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. Although no one we spoke with had ever seen such a certificate, this provision of law seems not to be in the best interest of our children. The Ed Code also provides that an individual convicted of a serious felony that is not also a violent felony shall not be denied employment if that person can prove to the sentencing court of that offense that he or she has been rehabilitated for the purposes of school employment for at least one year. Here again, this provision of law appears to give the applicant more consideration and protection than it does our children. Given these existing laws and statutes, a school district is very dependent on our judicial system to adequately identify and successfully prosecute individuals in order that criminal activity may be disclosed. Schools and school districts have a difficult challenge in exercising their protective oversight responsibilities. Circumstances, such as the following, can occur. Even in the high profile arrest of John Mark Karr in connection with the molestation and murder of young JonBenet Ramsey in Colorado, his lack of recorded criminal activity had allowed him to obtain a substitute teachers credential and thereby access to many young students in our county. An article appearing in the local Press Democrat issue of February 5, 2007 detailed how • a man, convicted of two felony sexual batteries involving a 3 yr old, and listed on California's sex offender registry, obtained a ruling from a Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner giving him permission to volunteer in an elementary school. The school allowed him to be in the classroom. The school thought they were doing the right thing. And yes, he is a parent, often excluded from fingerprint process. In the Press Democrat issue of March 3, 2007 it was reported that the mayor of Los • Angeles, who had endorsed legislation (AB 1804) while he was an assemblyman, was taking issue with that same legislation when applied to him. AB 1804 requires volunteers who want to mentor students to undergo fingerprinting, an FBI check, a TB check, and an interview with the school principal. Now wanting to mentor someone himself, he was frustrated by these same requirements not being waived for him. He lashed out at the school district saying "It's another example of a school district that does everything it can to refuse the assistance it needs to make our schools good." He likened it to "losing the forest for the trees." School districts rely heavily on volunteers. Parents and non parents whether they are in the classroom, out on the playing fields, helping in the libraries, or chaperoning special events contribute to the richness of the education and the educational experiences we want for our children. They are not the mainstay of the educational program, and certainly the educational program would continue even if all volunteers were banned tomorrow. However, with a general ban on volunteers not desirable or very likely to happen, school districts must continue to accept responsibility for those adults they allow to have access to our children. This responsibility should not include confidential lists of volunteer names and addresses. Trustworthy adults volunteering in our schools do not have an entitlement to confidentiality. How does such confidentiality serve our children? In addition, schools must ensure that their prevailing culture allows for students to question adult behavior when it "feels wrong." Schools must ensure that all reports of questionable adult behavior are taken seriously and that those who report it are not harassed because of it. When students who are harassed, taunted, teased, or ostracized for having "told" on someone, this retaliatory behavior must be addressed and not left to simply die out. In today's society there are great ranges of thinking on what is acceptable behavior. It is incumbent on our public agencies, especially those who serve our children, to always strive for a balance so that one extreme is not catered to at the expense of the other extreme. It is difficult to avoid stepping on toes in today's world. Clear cut policies and consistent follow through are key contributors to making sure that everyone knows what will not be tolerated and the consequences if it happens. Adults (parents and non-parents alike), who are unwilling to undergo a background check and/or read and sign a code of conduct with regard to acceptable behavior around young children which includes immediate consequences, if broken, should not be allowed access to our children. Maybe years ago, but not today. Everyone needs to be vigilant and aware in order that children are not victimized. No one should worry that their concern will be ridiculed or that they will suffer retaliation if they bring it forward. The appearance of being tolerant is not more important than our children's safety and well-being. Commendations The grand jury commends school districts that have taken steps to more adequately assure the safety and well-being of their students by instituting fingerprinting requirements for their adult volunteers, especially those involved with athletic programs, overnight field trips, and parent driven field trips. The grand jury commends SCOE for preparing the draft of the Volunteer Guideline in that it offers good suggestions and valuable information such as how to access the California Megan's Law Sex Offender Locator site where one can search by name for a specific volunteer. The grand jury commends the effort being made by the SCOE to provide low-cost fingerprinting clinics for school volunteers. The grand jury commends those who spoke with the jury who were not defensive, who were willing to step forward, who were not locked into their bureaucracy, and who spoke honestly and courageously to help make our schools a safer place to educate our society's greatest asset.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R06-07: over just five years ago. In the interview with DOJ the jury sought to understand the process once DOJ receives the fingerprints. These fingerprints are most commonly transmitted via LiveScan, a digital image in real time, but can still be sent in on hard cards (a manual rolling of prints). The jury looked into the typical responses agencies might encounter, how they were notified, the time frames for responses, glitches or problems in the system, what DOJ does and does not do, and the subsequent arrest notification system. The interview with Commission on Teacher Credentialing focused on laws and regulations for required background checks on individuals seeking a credential for the first time or renewing a credential. The Volunteer Center has contracts with approximately ten school districts in the county and also the Sonoma County Office of Education to provide volunteers that have been screened and for whom appropriate background responses have been obtained. The fingerprint technician at SCOE is the initial contact a prospective employee or volunteer meets with in order to get his/her fingerprints forwarded to the DOJ. The technician meets with the applicant personally and verifies identification with photo I.D. Although most of the school districts contacted use the SCOE service, some use other agencies in the county depending mostly for the convenience of the person to be printed. Interviews were held with 18 school districts and the Sonoma County Office of Education. For the most part these interviews were with the individuals named on the survey sent in by the district. These interviews looked for a greater understanding of the district's policies and procedures as reported on the survey, as well as some insight into the staff's understanding of how and why certain processes are carried out. Districts responded to our requests for interviews quickly and in most cases interviews were easily accommodated. Only one district shared that they were waiting for our report and that they appreciated the work we were doing. That district also said they were aware of the challenges presented in not discouraging volunteers but also needing to keep all students safe. A different response received was that our survey gave school leaders the impression that they don't have enough common sense, concern or education to keep kids safe - that there have only been 1 or 2 incidents in the county and it was insulting to suggest that they don't place student safety #1. Findings F1. A SCOE Fingerprint Technician compares a picture I.D. to the applicant but has not been trained in how to detect a fraudulent I.D. Requests to local law enforcement for training have not been successful. F2. A SCOE Fingerprint Technician does not actually ask applicants how long they have lived in California. Three signs in that office tell the applicant to say if they have lived in California for less than six (6) months. F3. The LiveScan request form also does not ask about length of residence in California. Of the 36 district employment application forms sent in with surveys, only 10 included a question about length of time in California. One district reported that the DOJ knows how long someone has lived in California and the DOJ is responsible. F4. The SCOE Fingerprint processing fee, charged to school districts, is the highest fee in the county. The SCOE fee of $28-34 is high compared to fees as low as $18 for AmeriPrints and $20 for the Sebastopol Police Dept. F5. A SCOE Fingerprint technician was asked to prepare a draft document of a Volunteers Guideline and did so utilizing San Diego County guideline already in place. This draft was sent out to school districts sometime in December, 2006. F6. On surveys, some districts (13 out of 40) included on their surveys a reference to the length of time applicant has lived in California as a determination of whether FBI response is required. Of the 36 districts that sent in copies of their employment applications, only 10 included a question of the length of time applicant has lived in California. F7. On surveys, not one district responded with the law requiring an FBI response if a person has lived in California less than seven years, more than one year, and has a sex offense conviction on record. F8. On surveys, almost all (36 out of 40) districts knew of a contract with the DOJ for notification of any subsequent arrests. In interviews, the jury learned that school officials have widely different understandings of this process, including how the information should be sent and received, and what the district should do after receiving such a notice. One district had never even heard of an electronic response from the DOJ. F9. According to the surveys, some districts fingerprint all volunteers, some print some volunteers, and some do not print any volunteers. From interviews the jury learned that factors in this decision include whether the volunteer is a parent, a parent of a child in the school where they are volunteering, the frequency and/or the duration of the volunteer's service. F10. Whether or not a volunteer has been printed and is therefore eligible to be alone with a student is not general knowledge at the school site. Usually the principal and/or school office staff, and sometimes the teachers know. Only one district, which prints some but not all, responded that they assume all volunteers are not printed. F11. School districts also have very different practices about fingerprinting requirements for contractors including vendors, assemblies, construction, etc. F12. All school districts interviewed were emphatic that school personnel are empowered to ask strangers on campus who they are and what they are doing. F13. Districts depend to a large extent on volunteers, vendors, private contractors, etc. to not be alone with students at any time. Common terms are "line of sight" and "under direct supervision." The meaning of these terms varies with some districts using them to describe the volunteer as being kept in line of sight and others using them to describe the students as always in line of sight. Because we were not able to speak directly with volunteers, the grand jury investigation does not know what an individual volunteer understands this to mean. F14. On surveys, eight (8) out of 40 districts reported that they would allow a newly hired employee to begin work before all pre-employment requirements were completed, under certain circumstances such as:

June 26, 2007 — Signs of the Times*

5 pages 9 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: Audit and inventories are conducted only once every four years.

F2: Form 571 L or a change in ownership resulting in a request for a new permit are the only ways the tax assessor has to learn there is an opportunity for reappraisal.

F3: In 2004 the California Assessors Association recommended that when valuing a billboard, the current Caltrans method should be used.

F4: Although billboard ownership is a matter of public record, there is no realistic way for the public to access those records.

F5: There is no easily accessed way to learn of changes in ownership

F6: There is little or no exchange of information between government entities regarding billboards.

F7: No official agency monitors the content or safety of each billboard.

F8: No agency is determining whether each billboard is legally situated in conformance with zoning regulations.

F9: No official entity is determining whether each sign conforms to the standards of the Home Builders Association. Conclusions Billboards generate taxes for the county and for that purpose the county should know exactly where they are located and the responsible party. Illegal billboards should be removed. Building permits, assessors parcel numbers and use permits should be easily available so that permit infractions can be readily dealt with. The county is losing revenues as a result of incomplete, inaccurate and unaudited systems and processes. Commendations The grand jury commends the administration of the Town of Windsor for the accuracy of their records regarding billboards and their cooperation in presenting the information.

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The county tax assessor should complete billboard inventories annually.

R2: The county tax assessor should require the inclusion of a mandatory itemized listing of the billboards on form 571 L.

R3: All information regarding billboards in the county should be available in a central location: assessors parcel number and address, property owner, location on property, billboard owner, advertising agency, permits.

R4: County tax assessor should compare current cost value method with the Caltrans process recommended by the California Assessors Association to see which is the most beneficial to the county.

R5: The tax assessor should be the central repository for information regarding billboards.

R6: The legality of all billboards in the county should be examined and any illegal billboards should be removed. Required responses to Recommendations Sonoma County Tax Assessor: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 County of Sonoma, Permit and Resource Management Department: R6 Permit departments of the cities of Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma and the town of Windsor: R6 17

June 26, 2007 — Srjc Commitment to Diversity Post Proposition 209*

10 pages 38 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 38 findings

F1: The jury found many inconsistencies in the understanding of how a hiring committee is formed, including the composition of the committee.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The SRJC should provide sufficient direction and oversight at all levels of administrative supervision to ensure that SRJC practices equal opportunity employment with absolutely no employment p

F2: The jury found that recent changes in the composition of hiring committees may have impacted final candidate selection.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The SRJC should provide sufficient direction and oversight at all levels of administrative supervision to ensure that SRJC practices equal opportunity employment with absolutely no employment p

F3: There was a breach of confidentiality in a 2003 faculty hiring process.

F4: The job announcement for a recent permanent Spanish teacher, under preferred requirements for the position specified a demonstrated ability or potential to succeed in teaching Spanish to heritage speakers and developing curriculum in that area. The term heritage speaker has been defined to the jury by persons interviewed as: 1. A student whose first language is not English and who is enrolled in a course teaching that student's native language; 2. A person (student or teacher) who grew up in a non-English speaking country; 3. A teacher who has lived for an extended time in a country where the language being taught is spoken. Official SRJC documents, including this job announcement, use definition #1.

F5: SRJC administrators verified that it is not only legal but essential to give preference to a candidate who has taught heritage speakers. It was explained that one can't teach a language without having spent significant time in a country where that language is spoken.

F6: The jury, in reviewing recent job announcements for language instructors noted that the preference as listed in F5 above was included for Spanish instructors but not for a French instructor.

F7: According to testimony, having a stated preference for candidates who have taught heritage speakers may be, in fact, viable and legal ranking criteria. It may not then be used to give preference for scoring purposes to a candidate who happens to be a heritage speaker (definition #2 in F4) as they are not the same thing at all. In one case the students are heritage speakers and in the other case, the candidate would benefit by being a heritage speaker.

F8: Only criteria identified in published job announcements may be used for scoring or ranking candidates.

F9: SRJC administrators stated that at no time in a hiring process has a candidate been pre- selected.

F10: Ranking candidates based on race, gender or ethnicity is prohibited and the DCO was not aware of any hiring committee having used race or gender as a criteria. It was further reported that no official guidelines have been made available, nor should they be made available, to help any hiring committee select a candidate of a certain ethnicity.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F11: A 13 step hiring process was described to the jury. The process starts with the chairperson of the hiring department writing a job announcement (using mostly "boiler plate" language), forming a hiring committee and ending with a final, selected candidate being approved by the president. [Note: The process is not actually complete until the Board of Trustees acts on it.] As listed in the Hiring Procedure and the Chairperson Job Description, the chairpersons are allowed to use their best judgment in choosing whom to recruit for the hiring committee. The Human Resources department trains committee members and the DCO sits in on all meetings, not as a voting member, but to assure compliance with law and procedures.

F12: After establishing the hiring committee, the job announcement is created. This can and usually is based on prior announcements for the same position. The jury found that the announcements for Spanish instructors have been significantly altered to include the following preferences for candidates who have: Demonstrated ability or potential to succeed in teaching Spanish to heritage speakers and developing curriculum in that area Ability to speak Spanish with native or near native proficiency Prior study, travel and residence in Spanish speaking communities.

F13: According to testimony, these preferences, once included in the job announcement may then be used as criteria in ranking individual applicants. They may even be weighted, meaning they may be worth more than other preferences when candidates are scored. Additional points may be given for a candidate having these specific attributes. This creates ranking systems that can yield preference to underrepresented minorities.

F14: The jury found that the use of the words diverse and diversity in goals, policies and procedures, when vaguely defined, introduce uncertainty while Proposition 209 is specifically worded to bring clarity and certainty. This then introduces a semantics problem that the California Constitution avoids. California is somewhat unique in clearly forbidding preferential actions - a protection over and above previous legal measures and a constitutional level of protection greater than in all but one other state, Michigan. Michigan voters passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative in November 2006, mirroring Proposition 209.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

R2: The SRJC should include clear definitions, in the context of their use, of terms such as "diversity" and "heritage speaker" that are critical to the meaning of goals, policies, procedures and job announcements.

F15: An article in the Press Democrat (2/24/07) titled "Wal-Mart wants more diversity among suppliers" spoke in terms of women and minorities as the "diversity" it sought among its suppliers. This is a more commonly understood usage of the word.

F16: The Faculty Staffing Request for a recent Spanish instructor position clearly demonstrates that the goal of this search was to hire a faculty member "with expertise in teaching Spanish to heritage speakers, thereby contributing to the institutional goal of increasing the ethnic diversity of our faculty." Here, diversity is clearly used to mean "ethnic diversity", setting the wheels in motion for a potential violation of Proposition 209.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F17: The Faculty Staffing Request for a recent Spanish instructor position included the following language: "Although there is no guarantee that our new faculty member will be from an underrepresented group, with our priority on hiring faculty with experience teaching Spanish for Heritage Speakers, there is much greater probability that the outstanding candidate will be representative of the Latino community." This language does not even try to avoid references to ethnicity, much less an exact ethnicity.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F18: SRJC follows a policy/practice whereby the word Staff is used in the Schedule of Classes when the name of the instructor is not known at the time the schedule is published. This policy/practice was not followed in the Fall 2006 Schedule of Classes. That schedule included the name of an instructor who had not yet been hired.

F19: One administrator reported to the jury that, given two equally qualified candidates, selection between the two could be based on race or ethnicity. This violates Proposition 209 in that the final selection is based on race or ethnicity – a clear violation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The SRJC should provide sufficient direction and oversight at all levels of administrative supervision to ensure that SRJC practices equal opportunity employment with absolutely no employment p

F20: SRJC management reported that any employee should feel free to express concern or criticism about any subject, including the administration, without fear of retribution.

F21: Some SRJC employees shared their fears of retribution for having spoken with the jury.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Board of Trustees of SRJC should provide all employees access to an independent ombudsman (not an SRJC employee) so that employees can express concerns without fear of retribution.

F22: The SRJC hiring policy 4.3.2P as posted on the SRJC web site, has not been updated since April 10, 2001. It still contains references to "affirmative action policy" as part of the hiring procedures.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F23: New employment laws are integrated into operating procedures and policies as the director of human resources (DHR) receives information from sources such as the college attorneys, professional organizations, Chancellor's office, etc. Equal opportunity issues are the responsibility of the district compliance officer (DCO).

F24: Testimony was given that SRJC "assiduously" adheres to Proposition 209, that all policies were reviewed intending to bring them into full compliance with Proposition 209. Changes to the hiring procedure went to the Board of Trustees in December of 2006. As of March 2007 it had still not been revised. Proposition 209 became law over 10 years ago.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F25: A review of the SRJC hiring policy 4.3.2.P raised concerns regarding certain provisions of the hiring process that put SRJC at potential risk of costly litigation, a waste of scarce resources for higher education. Proposition 209 pertains to the entire hiring process, not just to the final decision making. To prove a violation of Proposition 209, something official in writing, such as a policy or regulation, is usually needed. Those provisions of the hiring process referred to in the written policy, included: Composition of Search Committee as the policy states: "Each search committee should include members of underrepresented groups (i.e., ethnic/racial minorities, women, and people with disabilities) who are knowledgeable about District action goals." This provision gives preference based on immutable characteristics. Possible suspension of the hiring process as the policy states that the "DCO is to assist in determining whether the applicant pool is sufficiently diverse", and the policy also gives the DCO the power to "recommend a suspension of the hiring process at any time a question of non-compliance is raised." This language could be used to suspend hiring process if the applicant pool is judged to be not sufficiently diverse. This provision gives preference based on immutable characteristics. On-going training in affirmative action procedures tied to district goals when goals are not clearly specified as the policy states: "All [hiring committee] participants in the process are given regularly updated, appropriate training in affirmative action procedures and District goals and timetables to ensure success in reaching the goals." What goals? If members should include those of historically underrepresented groups, this gives preference to these individuals. This appears to be a violation of Proposition 209."

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

R3: The SRJC should provide sufficient direction and oversight at all levels of administrative supervision to ensure that SRJC practices equal opportunity employment with absolutely no employment p

F26: Violations of Proposition 209 could result in civil liability, including punitive damages risking scarce resources available for public education.

F27: One document reviewed by the jury was called White Paper: Increasing Faculty Diversity at Santa Rosa Junior College.

F28: The White Paper was described to the jury in different ways. They included: A document with an aura of secrecy about it - not openly distributed • A document that is widely circulated and readily available A document meant to educate and promote discussion · A document that hasn't been used by anybody for anything An end-run around proposition 209 A document that to whatever extent it is being used, is being used in a manner such as to circumvent Proposition 209.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F29: The White Paper outlined strategies that could be used to create an increased potential that successful candidates will be from underrepresented races/ethnicities, referred to as the "lack of diversity in SRJC faculty."

F30: One such strategy outlined is the careful crafting of job announcements "particularly in states where state law forbids considering race and ethnicity in hiring". The advice for the job announcement concludes with the direction that "if the institution has expressed diversity as a part of the definition of academic excellence, it can give positive consideration to candidates' agendas that enhance the understanding of race, ethnicity, gender, multiculturalism, etc." The jury saw this type of language inserted in the 2006 job announcement for a Spanish instructor. No such language was inserted in the job announcement for a French instructor.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F31: A second strategy outlined focuses on the composition of the search committee by stating that "the appointment of search committee members committed to diversity is essential to influencing the outcome of a search." It goes on to advise that "the department heads and deans should appoint senior faculty members from other departments who are known for their commitment to diversity". It was stressed that "committee should give guidance on ways to evaluate candidates in a way that values diversity."

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F32: The third strategy outlined has to do with effective advertising. Advice given includes to "advertise in journals and periodicals that make special efforts to reach minority faculty and graduate students." Suggestions for alternative places to advertise listed: CareersNow- Oline.com; Craigslist; Hispanic Outlook; La Voz; EL Mensajero.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F33: The White Paper appears to be written by someone very well versed in both federal and state laws. References in the White Paper go back and forth between federal and state laws. Some references in the report are troubling and of great concern, such as: "Race should be considered a 'plus' factor, not the deciding factor." Under California law, race is not a factor at all, at any time.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F34: Another reference began, "to the extent that race is considered, the burden on those who do not get a plus factor should be considered as part of the analysis of the impact of the diversity program." The law says that race is not to be considered to any extent, at any time.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F35: A definition of diversity given by an SRJC supervisory person to the jury: "A range of applicants. If you had two equal candidates and one was from an underrepresented ethnicity, you can choose that one." Statements such as this are illegal as they actually give preference based on ethnicity which is prohibited by law. A legal solution to a decision between equal candidates would be by chance.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

R3: The SRJC should provide sufficient direction and oversight at all levels of administrative supervision to ensure that SRJC practices equal opportunity employment with absolutely no employment p

F36: The jury was told by an SRJC administrator that SRJC is not constrained by Proposition 209 in accomplishing its commitment to diversity because diversity is a state of mind, a tolerance, having a much broader concept - not a limited view. Since diversity is neither race nor ethnicity it therefore is not covered by Proposition 209.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F37: There is a District Staff Diversity Committee listed on the SRJC web site list of standing committees. It was "established to assist the District to achieve an understanding and compliance with the employment policies and programs outlined in the District Affirmative Action Policy." The preceding quotation is from an undated paper that details committee function, meeting schedule and structure. This committee was unknown to all but one person interviewed by the jury and that person was the chairperson of the Diversity Committee.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F38: The State Chancellor's web site defines diversity as follows: "Diversity means a condition of broad inclusion in an employment environment that offers equality and respect for all persons." This definition is not precise enough to be used as the basis of evaluating one candidate in comparison to other candidates during the hiring process. Conclusions A higher education institution, such as SRJC, may have a beautiful campus and an extensive schedule of classes but the key to a high quality educational experience is the level of talent, expertise and dedication of the teachers that are part of that institution. The hiring and maintaining of the best possible teaching personnel by selecting the best candidates regardless of immutable characteristics, as Proposition 209 mandates, must be the rule. The jury concluded that a strong effort was being made at SRJC to achieve affirmative action goals by the creative use of a vaguely defined term, "diversity". By giving preference to job applicants for certain faculty positions to those with somewhat exclusive life experiences may, in fact, lead to a stronger ranking for members of certain races and or ethnicities. Aproposition 209 specifically prohibits any preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race or ethnicity or national origin. The SRJC, as well as other institutions of higher learning, has been slow to let go of "affirmative action" type programs and language that gives preference based on race, ethnicity, etc. A considerable time has passed since California voters, by a substantial margin, said yes to Proposition 209 – effectively ending affirmative action programs that give preference. Over ten years later SRJC has not completed updating its official policies to reflect this very major change in law. SRJC's use of the word "diversity" moves around from meaning a race or ethnicity to meaning a tolerance in thinking. The jury believes that this thinking and creative use of language might pose a risk to SRJC, a risk that could play out in a court of law, jeopardizing funds for higher education. This obfuscation may be unintentional or it may be an intentional strategy to circumvent Proposition 209. The jury does not know if either one is the truth. The jury does, however, raise the question of whether divergent uses of such a vital but apparently varied meaning of the word are appropriate. It is the jury's conclusion that, all things considered, the SRJC hiring process may have, in some cases, violated the spirit if not the letter of the law. The jury did not find that there was indisputable evidence to prove that the hiring process was illegal. The jury also did not find that SRJC is in absolute compliance with Article 1, Section 31 of the California Constitution. Commendations The jury commends faculty who have been willing to come forward to help the jury despite their fear of retribution. The fears were so pronounced that the jury is compelled to make a statement supporting the individual's rights not to experience any retribution, retaliation or failure to advance as the result of having spoken to this jury. The jury commends SRJC for initiating an independent investigation into its hiring practices.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: The SRJC should provide the grand jury with a copy of the independent investigation report. Required responses to Findings President of SRJC

June 26, 2007 — Wastewater: Money Down the Drain?*

14 pages 14 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 14 findings

F1: There is no overall plan for wastewater/ground water/surface water use and protection for any governmental entity within the county.

Page 12

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Begin the creation of a master plan that includes ground water, surface water, and waste water.

F2: There is an integral relationship between recycled water distribution, its usage and the need for potable water.

Page 12

F3: The SCWA has no ability to impose use reductions or other requirements directly on consumers.

Page 12

F4: There is no consensus on wastewater priorities or objectives throughout the county.

Page 12

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Determine overall county priorities regarding wastewater and examine sewer rate models to see if they are designed to accomplish the desired goals. 44

F5: Regarding water issues, the Board of Supervisors and the Sonoma County Water Agency Board include the same people.

Page 12

F6: The number and diversity of the wastewater treatment districts makes coordination difficult.

Page 12

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Reopen the examination of consolidation of smaller facilities and continue consolidation efforts.

F7: There is inadequate funding for capital improvements and facilities.

Page 12

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The cities and county should consider creation of a common fund, pooling grants and a percentage of user fees to cover capital improvements.

F8: Not one entity can afford the cost of its capital improvements from user fees alone.

Page 12

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The cities and county should consider creation of a common fund, pooling grants and a percentage of user fees to cover capital improvements.

F9: The planned SCWA reserve for needed wastewater projects is inadequate.

Page 12

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Determine how much, realistically, should be set side for capital improvements.

F10: Changing discharge points cannot resolve the wastewater issue.

Page 12

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Develop a plan to increase the quantity of water that can be discharged from Lake Sonoma.

F11: The estimate for the number of customers for recycled tertiary water was based on well pump-out limits, since overturned in a court decision. Information regarding aquifer capacity is largely unavailable.

Page 12

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: Continue and expand the study of the aquifers to better determine their health and capacity.

F12: F13 Water allotments were based on getting the 35% additional water rights from the state, but the request was not approved.

Page 12

F13: Water allotments were based on getting the 35% additional water rights from the state, but the request was not approved.

Page 12

F14: The SCWA may not be able to meet its current contractual commitments. Conclusions 43 Effective overall management of Sonoma County's water and waste may be limited by the absence of a central decision making entity. Each district, large or small, maintains its independence. This is the case even when there is inadequate or no funding to provide or improve water quality or increase quantity. Certainly few, if any, are in a financial position to improve their facilities. While it is clear that complete physical plant consolidation is not feasible or desired, consolidation of some of the smaller entities might well lead to cost saving efficiencies. Further, there is currently nothing to compel performance or to make decisions based on the overall impact those decisions will have on the county as a whole. Decisions, therefore, tend to be made primarily on what is best for that particular entity. Failure to consider the county as a whole in the process can lead to short term, expedient "solutions." For example, Santa Rosa might enhance its ability to get rid of waste, but that does not resolve the wastewater problem, and could create problems for others in the county. It appears that the Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Board of Directors for the Sonoma County Water Agency and the Board of Public Utilities being appointed by the Santa Rosa City Council are organizational structures that can serve to politicize decisions about resources. Decisions regarding our precious natural resources might be better made on a non-partisan basis. The system of financing capital improvements almost entirely with user fees coming from the individual entity's users is clearly a concept that is past its time. While no one is happy about paying for improvements they will not personally use, the fact is that virtually none of the districts can afford, on their own, the improvements that are needed. There is no uniformity of user fees across the county. Over five years ago, the SCWA recommended consolidation of the smaller districts (under 2500 connections served) to provide less expensive service. To date there has been only one consolidation, and that one has been partial. All of this has a very direct impact on healthy growth and development of the county and its cities. The extent to which water and wastewater will constrain future growth will depend on the amount of ground water available to supplement the surface water supply, and the amount of treated wastewater used to offset potable water use and agricultural demand. Making wise decisions requires the kind of stake holder cooperation that brought the geysers project to a successful conclusion. Commendations The grand jury commends the stakeholders whose cooperation across partisan lines enabled the successful completion of the Geysers Project.

Page 12

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The SCWA and the BPU should contact other counties that have created a central, separate water board to examine its feasibility and adaptability to Sonoma County.

November 06, 2006 — Review of Moses McDowall Fatal Incident

7 pages 7 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The preponderance of forensic evidence and the Protocol specified that this investigation be led by a testimony of several witnesses suggest that Mr. division of the same law enforcement agency in which McDowall expired two to four hours before he was the fatal incident occurred (employer agency). The found dead at 8:18 a.m. on November 6, 2006. lead investigator was a former CO. The Grand Jury had to consider the obvious possibility that

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Sheriff’s Department should initiate another investigation of Mr. McDowall’s death. This investigation should be led by an outside law-enforcement agency. The focus of this investigation may be limited to the resolution of the issues (F1, F3, F4, F5) raised in this Grand Jury report.

F2: An independent forensic pathologist, consulted by the Grand Jury, concluded that the preponderance of discrepancies in the investigation may have been evidence indicates that Mr. McDowall died before intentionally overlooked. The appearance of, and possibly the actuality of, an impartial independent 6:00 a.m., and probably much earlier. investigation is destroyed by this exception to the

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Sheriff’s Department should develop a procedure to identify the COs performing rounds in MADF modules.

F3: The VCU/DA conclusion that Mr. McDowall was alive Fatal Incident Protocol. at breakfast (sometime after 6:00 a.m.) is

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The Sheriff’s Department should review the integrity of RATS and provide redundant storage of RATS data.

F4: The statement of one CO (no longer with the this critical time. The unlikelihood of a successful department) that slight movement was noticed at criminal prosecution was given as a justification for 6:56am is questionable in light of the inmate witness’s testimony, the testimony of other the lack of pursuit of these issues. Justifications aside, the Grand Jury found that the Deputy District employees, and the forensic expert’s estimated time Attorney did not identify any of the issues we raised. of death. The testimony (to VCU) by this same CO indicates that he first arrived in Module D at 5:45 a.m. on November 6, 2006. No documentary evidence F8 Our review discovered errors in the investigation, which resulted in false assumptions. Principal among these was provided to indicate his assignment to, or presence in, Module D before 6 a.m. that morning. If were miscalculation of Mr. McDowall’s time of death, the five earlier Module D rounds were done, evidence and a failure to properly investigate events prior to the presumed time of death. indicating which CO conducted those rounds and the nature of those checks is missing from the VCU investigation.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: The Sheriff’s Department Internal Affairs Unit should investigate independently what occurred in Module D during the time that Mr. McDowall was housed there, specifically findings F1, F3, F4 and F5. This investigation should determine: which COs were involved, if procedures were followed, and if procedures need to be revised. If warranted, recommendations for disciplinary action should be made.

F5: The Rounds Automatic Tracking System data files were lost due to hard-drive failure 17 days after the fatal incident and are unavailable to verify the paper documents indicating that rounds were completed in Modules C and D (Mr. McDowal l’s module) on the morning of November 6, 2006. The only available paper logs contradict statements of several COs interviewed. There is no reliable system available to identify who performed the rounds in Modules C and D that night. 14 \ Conclusions • The investigation of the in-custody death of Mr. McDowall represents a perfect example of “how not to do it” by all parties involved. Mr. McDowall’s demise was officially recorded in the autopsy as “Alcoholic Withdrawal Syndrome as a result of chronic alcoholism, a natural cause of death.” There is a viewpoint expressed by CO’s and staff in the Sheriff’s Department Detention Division that sick people die everywhere, including in jail. The Grand Jury disagrees with both the attitude and the assessment. Mr. McDowall‘s severe alcoholism had put his health at risk for many years. Until he was incarcerated, he was able to cope with the affliction in his own way. In jail, he does not have that option. It is the responsibility of the Sheriff’s Department to assess Mr. McDowall’s health and take the necessary measures to keep him alive. With appropriate attention and minimal effort, this death was preventable. Neither the initial VCU investigation nor the subsequent Grand Jury investigation indicate that the Sheriff’s Department lived up to its responsibility to sufficiently monitor an inmate whose health was at risk. The Fatal Incident Report sheds no light on the matter. • Mr. McDowall died sometime after he entered his cell at 3:15 am but before he was offered breakfast that morning. Our own research of the evidence and the independent assessment by a forensic pathologist concur. Usually the Coroner’s autopsy report includes no speculation as to time of death. The autopsy was normal in that respect. Several of the doctors we consulted, including the forensic pathologist, commented that the cause of death was unusually non-specific. • The VCU did not competently and impartially • The IA investigation relied on documentary investigate the Detention Division’s role in Mr. evidence from the flawed VCU investigation. No McDowall’s death. The interviews of involved independent interviews were conducted. The parties appeared to be prompted rather than presumption that a specific CO did rounds in interrogatory. The VCU investigator asked leading Module D before 6:00 a.m. on November 6, 2006, questions of the witnesses he interviewed. is unsupported by any documentary or testimonial Misinterpreted testimony led to the failure to evidence in either investigation. explore important issues. • The Law Enforcement Chiefs’ Association Fatal The Sheriff’s Department did not decide on its Incident Protocol generally provides for an own to lead the investigation of its own Detention impartial investigation free from the appearance of Division. That decision is mandated by the impropriety because the inquiry is led by a Association of Law Enforcement Chiefs’ Protocol. separate law-enforcement agency. The For that reason, the inference that the Sheriff’s association’s exemption for jail fatalities leaves Department wanted an in-house investigation for those investigations open to the suspicion of bias some clandestine purpose is not supported by and conspiracy. the Grand Jury. • Sonoma County correctional officers are • The District Attorney’s participation and review of confronted with over 12,000 bookings annually into the Fatal Incident Report was not adequate to a jail system with a constantly changing average conclude that there was no criminal act, unlawful population of 1,100 inmates. COs often view an act, or act of omission. The Deputy District inmate withdrawing from alcohol addiction as “just Attorney’s review of the VCU investigation should another drunk.” This indifference can result in have raised the same questions posed by the cursory security checks and missed opportunities Grand Jury. Several prosecutors indicate that it is for intervention in health crises. An inmate’s death very difficult to prevail in a case involving a may be the byproduct of such apathy. correctional officer. We do not presume that there was a criminal act. However, there could be criminal liability. The unlikelihood of a successful prosecution does not justify failure to investigate. 15

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: The District Attorney should conduct a new investigation into Mr. McDowall’s death, either independently or in concert with the outside agency referred to in R1.

F6: The Association of Joint Chiefs’ Fatal Incident

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Law Enforcement Chiefs’ Association should amend the Law Enforcement Employee-Involved Fatal Incident Protocol to require that investigations of deaths in custody be led by an outside law-enforcement agency. The exceptions to the routine prohibition--that the employer agency not lead or directly participate in the investigation-- would be consistent with the procedures mandated for other law-enforcement employee-involved fatal incidents. Required Responses to Findings Requested Responses to Sheriff’s Department F1, F3, F4, F5 Recommendations District Attorney F7 District Attorney R1 Law Enforcement Chiefs’ Association F6 Required Responses to Recommendations Sheriff’s Department R1, R2, R3, R4 District Attorney R5 Law Enforcement Chiefs’ Association R6 16

F7: The District Attorney’s review of the VCU investigation unsupported by the testimony of the only inmate witness to the incident. This erroneous assumption concludes that no criminal acts, unlawful acts, or acts of omission occurred between 3:15 a.m. and 6:00 on the part of the lead investigator (a former CO) diverted and minimized the investigation of events a.m., which in all probability was when Mr. McDowall earlier that morning. Furthermore, this died. There is no clear evidence indicating which, if misinterpretation was an important premise of the IA any, CO performed the five required cell checks during this period. Any one of these security checks, if investigation. done, may have saved his life. The DA and the VCU investigation failed to look into what occurred during

Fatal Incident Report*

3 pages 5 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

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

F2: The primary agency that employed the officers 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.

F3: The District Attorney's office, based on the evidence, reached its conclusions and issued a report for all the reviewed fatal incidents.

F4: The Critical Incident Report Status Log prepared by the District Attorney's office for the grand jury to review was not sent in a timely fashion.

Related Recommendations (2)

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

R2: The District Attorney must provide the grand jury with a copy of the Fatal Incident Report Status Log in a timely fashion on a quarterly basis. Required responses to Findings and Recommendations District Attorney, R1 and R2

F5: The District Attorney's Office concluded there was not sufficient evidence of criminal liability on the fatal incidents reviewed. Conclusions The grand jury found that the fatal incident reports reflected thorough, detailed and unbiased investigations by those assigned to the cases. 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 incidents reviewed.

* 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.