Sonoma County Grand Jury

2009-2010

14 reports

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F8: between their facility and FWD's in order to provide frost protection to vineyards near Forestville. The dissolution agreement with the SCWA called for a $25,000 per use fee to be charged to both the FWD and GCSD, but at no time was the FWD charged the fee. In May 2009 the SCWA requested that the agreement be amended to waive past fees and institute a fee based on volumetric use and not to exceed a combined fee of $25,000." FWD RESPONSE TO F-8: The implication of F-8 is that Graton gets charged the $25,000 fee and FWD does not. This is inaccurate. Either District will get charged whenever it uses the pipeline for its primary purposes. GCSD was charged the $25,000 fee on the occasion in question because it required use in an incident where it needed frost protection for one of its vineyard customers. GCSD was unable to use its own water because it had run out of chlorine and had to hold the water, 2009-2010 Responses to Grand Jury Report July 21, 2010 Staff of the GCSD called the General Manger of the FWD (George Roberts) and asked if FWD would supply treated water. Mr. Roberts stated that FWD could supply the frost protection, but there was a $25,000 fee, collected by SCWA, to open the valve between the two systems. Mr. Roberts told the GCSD staff they needed to contact Randy Cullen at SCWA to arrange for the valve to be opened. Randy Cullen (SCWA) later told Mr. Roberts that the GCSD staff had agreed to pay the $25,000 fee and he (Mr. Cullen) had the valve opened. FWD then supplied frost protection water to the GCSD customer, as well as FWD customers. The FWD has never been charged the $25,000 fee by the SCWA because it has never had to use the pipeline to meet its customers' demands. Instead, it has used the pipeline, but only to meet the water conservation goals of the SCWA and the general public. The pipeline has been used to ship water from Graton to FWD for treatment, and then to irrigate and provide frost protection of FWD customers. Normally, FWD would use its allotment of potable water for these purposes, but because of drought conditions, it agreed to the SCWA's requests to treat Graton water for these purposes instead. Neither FWD nor GCSD were charged the $25,000 fee for those instances when FWD was using the pipeline. FWD incurs a cost in treating that effluent, and it did not get reimbursed. The GCSD benefited from such uses because it was not charged for the added cost that FWD incurred in treating to tertiary standards; additionally, GCSD was able to get rid of water without discharging it into streams. The public and the SCWA benefits from such use because water is conserved for the region. Neither District was and is charged for such use of the pipeline by the SCWA. This is an example of how cooperation between the local agencies serves the public. Dated: 7/29/10 Submitted by: Yo over (Colorts, General Manager . . ORESTVI P.O. Box 261 Forestville, California 95436-0261 Phone (707) 887-1551 Fax (707) 887-1552 fwd@sonic.net ATER DI2 July 28, 2010 CERTIFIED MAIL: 7008-1830-0002-5305-1690 Board of Directors Graton Community Services District P. O. Box 534 Graton, CA 95444 Request for Joint Board Meeting RE: Dear Graton Board of Directors, It has been suggested in the Sonoma County Grand Jury for 2009-2010 by Recommendation R-6: "Serious consideration should be given to a joint venture with FWD!" Therefore, the Board of Directors for the Forestville Water District would like to extend an invitation to the Board of Directors for the Graton Community Services District to schedule a Joint Board Meeting to start discussing options for how our two agencies can share resources and services. Some of the following are potential benefits to a Joint Venture: POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM... Sharing Staff a.) - One General Manager for both agencies - Cross-trained Operators - Office Personnel: one Office Manager Possible lower/stabilized sewer rates for all customers by creating a larger customer base. b.) Less Capital Outlay by sharing Treatment Facilities and existing pipeline(s). c.) Sharing Reclaimed Water: long term goal is to get rid of excess water without having to d.) discharge (lessening chances for violations and fines when discharging). The Forestville Water District would like to start receiving all Board Meeting Agendas for Graton Community Services District meetings. FWD would be happy to reciprocate should Graton be interested in receiving all Board Meeting Agendas from FWD. Agendas can be either e-mailed, faxed or mailed in enough time for any interested Director or Staff member to attend these meetings. 8/5/10- www.sonomacountygazette.com - 31 Meanwhile Graton. By Hollynn D'Lil gratoncolumn@comcast.net (707) 829 9440 the tree treatment would work. It had to Potluck in the Community Garden have been well researched and thought Traditional Graton Friday night out, I thought. potluckers shared dishes and tomato Not so, evidently. Turns out the growing tips in the Graton Community designers didn't take into account a Garden, a new community effort layer of clay that redwood rc-ots can't thriving these days in the lot behind penetrate, a conclusion of the Grand Underwood's Restaurant. Headed up by Jury. The Grand Jury report states that Jane Kurtz, the garden was seeded by taxpayers via the Graton Co.nmunity Graton Projects. John Rohel, President of Service District and FEMA paid a local Graton Projects, says, "The Community engineering firm $1.5 million in the last Garden is the most positive thing that five years for advice on the redwood I have seen happen while I have lived treatment, other designs, and flood relief. here. Growing veggies is just plain The problem is that the 652 ratepayers fun and the wide assortment of people have seen their rates increase from $826 who 'farm' are fun to be around and annually in 2004 to $1,359 in 2009. Oops! they seem to like being there too. We The report leans heavily on a really are communing with each other. recommendation that the Graton Service Jane Kurtz has created a community District consolidate with other districts gathering place by sheer will and muscle for sewer treatment. Either that, they power." say, or come up with $7 million for a Attending the garden potluck traditional tertiary treatment plant. were Steve Sheldon, and Orrin and Graton residents in the past have Terry Thiessen. Steve is allowing the expressed a desire to retain local community use of the land for a few control over sewer treatment, which years until he commences with his plans keeps Graton water in Graton rather to build housing there. Orrin and Terry than having it pumped to other parts are providing the use of the well water of the county. Is there an agenda to for irrigation. Jane Kurtz (see Sarah get recycled Graton water available for Alexandra's photograph below), said development of drier parts of the county? the community is very appreciative of Can we salvage the tree treatment? the support of the local developers. It's a Would it help to add trees with strong project she's been wanting to see happen tap roots that would puncture the clay for years since a previous garden in the layer? On the other hand, shouldn't we same location transformed the property have more to show for the increasing in the early '90s. For more information amounts of money expended by the and to participate, call Jane at 823-7550. district on consulting fees and operating costs? We should have a report from Grand Jury's Report on the Sewer the GCSD responding to the issues and When I moved to Graton in 2004, my city concerns delineated by the Grand Jury in friends asked why i would want to move September. to such a small town as Graton. I liked Gunshot Kitty Recovering to joke that it was because we have such a great sewer! The newly formed Graton Sue Miller's kitty, Skeeter, is recovering Community Service District (GCSD) from her gunshot wound, inflicted by an had developed an environmentally unknown assailant. Thanks to Betty Ann friendly tertiary treatment by pumping Sutton, owner of Mr. Ryder's Antiques, the secondary-treated water under a more than $700 has been raised for the 20-acre plot of redwoods trees. I, like kitty's medical expenses. Though her leg so many others in the area, trusted that has to be amputated, Skeeter can know that in spite of one person's insanity, she has a community to lean on. More People To Thank A few more people to thank for their contributions to the "Party for a Park!" fund-raiser last spring are Susan Nestor who provided face painting, Catherine Sagan who provided a booth with wares from Guatemala and Auric Blends which also provided a booth. Thank you for helping with our park! cc: Ay Bd Mtg. August 10, 2010 The following items have been mailed from the Forestville Water District (FWD) to the names & addresses below: FWD Responses to 2009-2010 Sonoma County Civi! Grant Jury Final Report A.) FWD Certified Letter to Graton CSD Board of Directors B.) Article from the 8/5/10 issue of the Sonoma County Gazette "Meanwhile in Graton" C.) by HolLynn D'Lil Superior Court, State of California 2.) .) ATTN: Gary Nadler, Presiding Judge P. O. Box 5109 600 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Sonom: County Administrator 4.) Sonoma County Board of Supervisors 3.) ATTN: Veronica Ferguson -575 Administration Drive, Room 100-A 575 Administration Drive, Room 104-A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Graton CSD Director John Roehl 6.) Graton Community Services District 5.) P. O. Box 365 Board of Directors Graton, CA 95444-0365 P. O. Box 534 Graton, CA 95444-0534 Graton CSD Director Rolan Wiebe 8.) Graton CSD Director Jane Eagle 7.) 2601 South Edison 510 South Edison Graton, CA 95444 Graton, CA 95444 Graton CSD Director David Jeppesen 10.) Graton CSD Director Judith Christensen 9.) P. O. Box 308 2882 South Edison Graton, CA 95444-0608 Graton, CA 95444 -- James Smith, Chair of Board Forestville Water District Board of Directors 11.) - Claudia McDermott, Vice-Chair P. O. Box 261 -- Steven Bandettini, Director Forestville, CA 95436-0261 -- Richard Benyo, Director -- Edmund Brush, Director Malcolm Manwell, Legal Counsel for FWD 12.) Perry Law Offices P. O. Box 1028 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: educational institutions, schedule training conferences relating to new industry developments and trends, and cost effective management. Ideally, as there are many small districts such as GCSD in Sonoma County and elsewhere in Northern California, the conferences should be open to any who would benefit from attendance. Small districts such as the GCSD have well intentioned members who do learn from experience, but the lack of training does cause mistakes that can be expensive." FWD RESPONSE TO R-3: Training is essential to successful and effective operations. There are several organizations that offer educational opportunities; however, we have learned that the material is often repetitive. Also, because smaller districts have limited staff, it is difficult, if not impossible to send a key staff person long distances to attend these seminars, because the long absences tend to hamper operations. Therefore, FWD recommends that: (1) the smaller Districts in the area, the SCWA and the NCRWQCB all join in coordinating conference(s), locally; and (2) that efforts be made to ensure the material presented is not redundant. Also, to the extent allowable, training conferences scheduled in the evenings or on weekends would allow board members and district engineers to attend as well. GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATION #R-6: "Serious consideration should be given to a joint venture with the FWD! The pipeline
R5: ability to work cooperatively with neighboring districts and agencies. Joint appointments with adjacent districts should be considered as they can both save money and institutionalize cooperative work." FWD RESPONSE TO R-5: FWD agrees that when hiring personnel, having experience and the ability to work cooperatively with other agencies and districts is extremely important. Having districts share manpower would help keep costs down and save rate-payers money. FWD WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY FINDING #F-8 "GCSD was charged a $25,000 fee for opening the valve controlling the pipeline
R6: between the 2 facilities combined with irrigation and frost protection in the areas served by the GCSD and FWD indicate such a venture would be mutually beneficial. A good starting point would be to open negotiations with SCWA to assign the title of the pipeline's valve jointly to the GCSD and FWD." FWD RESPONSE TO R-6: Prior to FWD and GCSD taking control of their individual sanitation zones, the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) was planning to use the two districts together. The idea was to treat water in Forestville and store it in Graton, then use common irrigation and frost protection sites to get rid of the water, as well as using the same manpower to operate the two districts. FWD READ AND CONSIDERED APPROVE 2009-2010 Responses to Grand Jury Report July 21, 2010 believes that this idea should be looked at again to see what savings could be accomplished in a more efficient operation of the two districts. FWD is already working with the SCWA to obtain ownership of the pipeline from Forestville to Ross Station Road and has installed a meter to measure water being brought over from Graton. Graton already owns the pipeline from Ross Station Road to the Graton Treatment Plant. The following is the Forestville Water District (FWD) Requested Response to: GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATION #R-5: "Job announcements should include full job descriptions emphasizing experience and the

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Employee confidentiality and ongoing litigation with conservatees’ families impeded Grand Jury inquiry into allegations of misappropriation of conservatees’ property. However, investigation into past and recently revised PG procedural policy indicated corrective actions have been undertaken to address future situations so that such allegations would be less likely to arise. Outcome of the present allegations will await adjudication by the Court.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Public Guardian’s Office must continue to pursue its recently revised standard of accountability to the public and provide increased public exposure to its role in assisting citizens who cannot help themselves.
F2: The complaints received by the Grand Jury had a common theme: there has been inadequate documentation of conservatees’ wishes regarding how they wanted their estates and persons to be administrated in case of incapacity to act for themselves.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Public Guardian should create an outreach program, including efforts to inform vulnerable populations, especially seniors, about options for assigning alternate agents to step in when necessary.
F3: The PG operates under the jurisdiction of the Probate Code and the Probate Court. Complaints about the PG frequently revolve around the perceived ponderousness of deliberation and protracted time it takes to address even routine requests. These complaints are commonly heard about any of the agencies working with the overloaded court system.
F4: The PG has undergone a significant re-organization in the recent past resulting in reassignment of responsibilities of the Chief Guardian, who now has a greater role in overseeing operations and supervising Deputies. CONCLUSIONS The staff of the Public Guardian presents as highly knowledgeable and qualified for the tasks of providing conservatorship as defined in the Probate Code. Confidentiality is a significant and appropriate consideration in dealing with conservatees and their families. Conservatees cited in the complaints reviewed by the Grand Jury have been and are being provided with care and compassion appropriate to their needs. It is extremely difficult at times for the Public Guardian to balance the demands of conservatees’ families with the responsibilities to provide competent, legal and compassionate care. The PG has experienced some troubling lapses in the recent past and management has made changes in personnel and policy to address perceived difficulties. They are continually monitoring and improving the quality and effectiveness of their mandate to provide care and supervision. Potential conservatees (and that means anybody) could avoid considerable stress and conflict if they (and all of us) attend to the continuity of health and well-being by thoughtfully and thoroughly preparing advance financial and healthcare directives. These directives would include a will or living trust, Durable Power of Attorney for Finances that specify who will administer money matters, and Advance Healthcare Directive to assist family, domestic partner, or other designated agent(s) to make informed medical decisions in case of a person’s inability to speak for him or her self. A frank discussion of these matters with family members before the need arrises would go a long way to assure that wishes are honored and would greatly lessen the necessity to require the PG’s services. For those who cannot fend for themselves and for those who have no family or trusted surrogate to speak for them, the PG is there to assure health and well-being are professionally and compassionately available as best it can be. RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: The Jury found that significant progress is being made by local schools in providing more nutritious food choices to students. Priority is given to serving whole grain foods, fresh fruits and vegetables. Only low fat or fat-free milk is offered. Sodium content is being systematically reduced. School meals are planned to provide less cholesterol and trans fats. Foods are baked, not fried, and are prepared in ways that offer better choices to students. F- 2 In addition to providing nutritional lunches for their students many of the schools we visited have garden programs which help teach the value of fresh vegetables and fruits in daily nutrition. Schools have daily fresh fruit choices. Many of the schools have salad bars from which their students can choose various fresh fruits and vegetables to create individual salads. In some cases the fruits and vegetables come from the school gardens. F.-3 Several schools had programs through which they educated parents regarding good nutrition and other aspects of healthy behavior. Additionally, vending machines containing soda and candy have been eliminated as lunch time options.
F4: Schools provided a positive environment for the lunch period. Students were given adequate time to eat (usually 20 minutes) in a safe setting with provisions made for slower eaters where necessary. F.-5 Due to budget considerations, the only eating utensil most schools provide is a light weight plastic “spork”. The children and the Jurors disliked the combination spoon-forks and found them very difficult to use. We felt that something better is needed. F.-6 The jury found wide interest in further, continuous improvement of nutritional and physical activity opportunities for children in Sonoma County Public Schools. Individual districts appear to have on going administrative assessment systems in place that will capture and react to the views of the public, parents, and administrators. COMMENDATIONS The Sonoma County Grand Jury would like to commend each of the school administrators, superintendents, teachers, kitchen staff, volunteers, and especially the students at the schools we visited for their participation in this study. CONCLUSION It was our conclusion that Sonoma County Schools are committed to establishing healthy behaviors among their students. We found evidence that they are pursuing this goal in a variety of innovative ways; through student input, choices of food, student participation in food preparation, recycling, and in some instances growing part of their food in school gardens. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the public notice and applaud the remarkable progress being made in Sonoma County Schools related to providing healthy meals and encouraging more physical activity. These changes are the result of effective concern and cooperation among students, parents, teachers, cafeteria staff and administrators in the Sonoma County public education system. We recommend that districts continue and expand communication with staff, students, parents and the community regarding Wellness Policies and the impact of these policies on students’ eating habits and physical activity levels. Active family participation is a very important factor in the continuing success of these innovations. Parents play a pivotal role by incorporating these changes so that they become lifetime habits. We recommend that this good news be recognized, publicly applauded and supported over the next couple of decades. It will take this level of sustained attention to change a generation and start building a more healthy society. Required Responses: Since this is an informational report there are no required responses. Suggested Responses: Continuing community participation in neighborhood schools to maintain the momentum on this important subject.
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: The Law Enforcement Employee Involved Fatal Incident Protocol requires that investigations be conducted “free of conflicts of interest”. For that reason, the investigations were conducted by a law-enforcement agency whose employees were not involved in the incidents, with the exception of jail deaths. The District Attorney’s Office also participated in the investigations and had the authority to investigate separately.
F2: Upon completion of each incident investigation, the District Attorney’s Office reviewed the physical evidence, the transcribed witness interviews, photographs and all other evidentiary material.
F3: Based on the evidence, the District Attorney’s Office reached a conclusion and issued a fatal incident report in each of the four cases, and in each case there was no evidence of criminal liability.
F4: The agencies that employ the involved officers conduct their own internal investigation to determine if the agency’s policies and procedures were followed and whether there could be improvement in those policies and procedures. They also make a determination as to whether any disciplinary action should be imposed.
F5: The District Attorney has failed to produce a report within ninety days of receipt of the completed investigation as stipulated in 2009. RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The District Attorney must complete the investigation and produce a report relating to criminal liability within ninety days of receipt of all investigative reports.
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: Historically investigative documents have been available to the Grand Jury in advance of the District Attorney’s Final Report. However, at times, documents have been delayed while awaiting the District Attorney’s Final Report. The Grand Jury recommends the District Attorney establish a policy, to provide timely distribution of all fatal Incident documents, in order to comply with its obligation for independent review. Required Responses to Recommendations: Sonoma County District Attorney: R1, R2, -15-
Findings & Recommendations 12 findings
F1: PRMD monitors complaints received from their clients. Types of complaints received, in order of frequency, are: 1. Time it takes to complete process 2. Consistency of requirements 3. Cost of completing process
F2: Many of the complaints received by the Grand Jury deal with problems of communication within the Department and between the Department and the public it serves.
F3: Slow but persistent efforts have been made over the last ten years to resolve communication problems.
F4: There is an apparent reluctance on the part of some within PRMD and some of its public clients to say anything negative about the agency for fear of retaliation. However, the Grand Jury was not able to substantiate any instances of retaliation.
F5: Projects are sometimes initiated and irretrievable costs incurred by members of the public without a clear understanding of the permits needed and the costs of permits, if they can be obtained.
F6: The number of permit applications has dropped steadily over the last five years.
F7: Cost per plan review has increased during the last five years due to new regulations to protect public resources.
F8: Speed of permit approval varies, with some inordinately slow. There is a policy in place regarding turn-around time for the plan check portion of the PRMD process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: More emphasis is needed on avoiding unreasonable delays. Monitoring of application progress should be used to detect and resolve any bottlenecks. If a delay is due to the workload or abilities of the staff assigned to the task, then steps should be taken to provide additional assistance for completing the application review in a timely fashion. The entire Division should take responsibility for adhering to the turn-around time policy, as appropriate for each case. Required Responses: PRMD Director: R-1, R-2
F9: Pre-application meetings are offered by PRMD for a fee. These meetings are designed to identify all approvals and permits a client will need for a particular project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: PRMD should take a more active role in leading applicants through the complexities of the permit process. For example, initial screening could be provided to determine whether or not a specific application calls for a pre-application meeting. If a pre- application meeting is called for, it could be required. The fee structure for such a screening and pre-application meeting could be adjusted to the size and complexity of the project and should be revenue neutral with respect to the current fee structure.
F10: An automated system to reduce waiting time for applicants scheduled to visit various desks within PRMD has been successfully installed in the last year.
F11: Marin County uses a software package for permit applicants which produces a checklist of required permits, based on the location of the project and an applicant-supplied project description.
F12: A survey of PRMD employees was conducted in 2009 to identify problems they felt existed in the Department. Action Committees have been established to make recommendations for resolving identified problems. CONCLUSIONS Obtaining the permits required to proceed with almost any project within unincorporated Sonoma County is a daunting task, especially if it represents a departure from what has been done before. The task will get more difficult as population growth puts more pressure on public resources and public infrastructure. As the agency designated to administer this permit process, PRMD inevitably generates complaints from the public it serves. Any steps it can take to reduce the cost and frustration of this process are desirable. The following recommendations of the Grand Jury are paths which could be explored to approach this goal. RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: The Parking division of Santa Rosa oversees 5 garages and 7 metered parking lots with a total of 3,374 combined parking spaces. All downtown businesses are within the Downtown District and have minimal private parking. There are 1519 garage permits (215 reserved and 1304 non-reserved) sold for 2798 total garage spaces. The assumption is that not all permit holders will use their space at the same time. Permits are readily available except for the 3rd Street garage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: That the SRPD and SR Parking Division coordinate patrols within the downtown shopping district with “real time” communication.
F2: Permits may be issued in multiples (that are monthly billed to the business) or as individual permits. Business permits may be reassigned to employees as staff turns over, while individual permits are returned to the city and made available to the next person on the waiting list. The waiting time for an individual permit is 3-12 months at most garages, except except the 3rd Street garage, where it may be as long as 15 years. The order status for permits may be checked on an individual basis. Reserved space violations are monitored on a basis of complaints received. This investigation found that permits were being handled in accordance with the planned process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Acknowledging budget constraints, camera surveillance of alleys in the downtown shopping area should be increased.
F3: Senior citizen temporary workers were used to collect parking fees until unionization of the workers and the cost to create permanent positions became too expensive. The seniors were replaced by automated ticketing machines and a contracted security patrol service. The automated ticketing allowed the city staff to patrol throughout the garage levels instead of being limited to the toll booth. In July 2009, the Parking Division replaced the private security service with full time employees. The facility staffing typically operates from 8am to 10:30pm weekdays, with extended evening hours on Friday and Saturdays.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Increased patrol of the parking lots and garages near the SRJC Brickyard culinary campus should be increased during the late evening hours when classes are being dismissed.
F4: Currently, garages are patrolled on a 24 hour basis seven days of the week with one or two mobile patrols utilizing a random patrol pattern. There is camera surveillance at the entrances, exits and toll paying areas of each garage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Increase patrol presence in the early weekday mornings beginning no later than 6am.
F5: There is minimal garage mobile patrol coverage between 2am and 8am weekdays and on Saturdays and Sundays. The response time from the garage patrol during minimal coverage hours and between the most distant points is approximately five minutes if a call is made. Routine garage patrols use random patterning and may be at intervals of two to thirty minutes to pass any given point. Garages have checkpoint validation confirming patrol occurrence.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Installation of an emergency call system on each level in the garages connected to SRPD.
F6: Camera surveillance is used to protect property and monitor toll collection points in the parking garages and the transit mall. Camera surveillance for public security is available in Courthouse Square and outside the 3rd Street garage and the 7th Street garage. Santa Rosa has 87 video surveillance systems in use (19 video systems are used by SRPD).
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Measurable check points for patrols in lot parking (the garages already have check points).
F7: Santa Rosa Police Department (SRPD) has two bicycle patrols (two officers each) in the downtown area six days a week at peak use times. Currently, there is no coordination of patrols between SRPD and the Parking Division. Both have their fewest patrols in the early morning before 8am.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: Increase the visibility of patrol cars by distinctively marked and colored vehicles.
F8: Crime statistics for the first four months of 2010 in the downtown shopping area reveal 13 assaults, 4 robberies and 16 thefts. The majority of these incidents occurred in the Railroad Square area. During the same period, there were 19 recorded thefts at Santa Rosa Plaza. In contrast, there have been only two reported assaults in the city garages in the past four years. Incidents which occur in the city garages are reviewed monthly. RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: Formation of a permanent group to study parking issues in the downtown shopping area. Required Responses: City of Santa Rosa Parking Division: R1, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 City of Santa Rosa Police Department: R1, R2, R3, R4 City of Santa Rosa IT Department: R2 Requested Responses: 2010-2011 Grand Jury may wish to explore whether parking garages are cost effective.
Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: The initial capital plan for a low cost treatment of sewage was based on the assumption that natural filtration through the root system of a redwood grove would result in zero discharge. This led to the conclusion that treating effluent to reach tertiary standards was unnecessary. While there are examples of successful effluent filtration through redwood trees, serious early planning was not done to develop alternative methods of filtration should the redwood grove process fail. a. Some GCSD Directors felt the redwood grove natural filtration did not succeed because of capricious decisions by the NCRWQB. b. The Grand Jury found that the redwood trees had a layer of clay just below their roots which impeded successful filtration. The resulting need to treat sewage to meet tertiary standards has led to a project that will now cost over $7 Million. c. Management is actively seeking outside grants, in addition to those mentioned in BACKGROUND, to help fund the project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: That the GCSD contract for a management audit of its current policies and procedures. A determination should be made to ensure sufficient checks and balances are in place to avoid unnecessary expenses. The management audit should be in addition to financial audits conducted by the Sonoma County Auditor’s office.
F2: Management continues to explore both conventional and unconventional means to treat sewage. Environmentally friendly options receive attention, but don’t always work. The cumulative billings of the engineering firm that evaluates treatment options to ensure compliance with Title 22 of the California Water Code is a major expense to the rate payers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: That the GCSD periodically review their rate structure, preferably at an open community forum, to ensure that fees charged users are realistic and meet the goals set during the LAFCO investigation prior to formation of the GCSD.
F3: The assertions that a portion of the high costs are due to poorly maintained and/or inappropriate equipment turned over to the GCSD by the SCWA display an eagerness to finger point, obscuring inadequate initial planning. SCWA had a well publicized plan, which was included in the West County Sanitation Report, to consolidate regional systems in West Sonoma County by shipping effluent to a state of the art treatment facility in Guerneville. This plan included pumps designed for that purpose, which were turned over to the GCSD who subsequently had to replace them as they were not the proper design for their needs. It was alleged that representatives of the GCSD were not allowed to fully inspect the facility and equipment prior to its formation. As individuals involved with the formation of the GCSD, including the current General Manager, had worked at the facility and also with the SCWA, along with NCRWQB inspections of the Graton facility being in the public domain, these circumstances cast doubt on some of the assertions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: In cooperation with either the SCWA, the NCRWQCB, and/or one or more local educational institutions, schedule training conferences relating to new industry developments and trends, and cost effective management. Ideally, as there are many small districts such as GCSD in Sonoma County and elsewhere in Northern California, the conferences should be open to any who would benefit from attendance. Small districts such as the GCSD have well intentioned members who do learn from experience, but the lack of training does cause mistakes that can be expensive.
F4: The Graton general manager is the owner of Industrial Wastewater Solutions and also teaches water treatment at Santa Rosa Junior College He previously worked for Sonoma County Department of Public Works and the SCWA, with experience operating West Sonoma County sanitation facilities. He has served and been paid as an expert witness in law suits organized by Northern California River Watch that claim to protect water quality by suing SCWA projects. He is a paid consultant for operating treatment systems both locally and internationally. With the ready, if expensive, track record of the GCSD in continually trying alternative approaches, he has acquired a wealth of knowledge which he is able to use in his consulting activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The GCSD should routinely arrange outside independent peer review of its professional staff rather than simply using its limited expertise to make evaluations.
F5: Engineering support paid since inception averages over $250,000 a year. Payment to the general manager is based on the number of hours worked, including activities related to FEMA and Proposition 50. Records indicate that remuneration as been as high as $19,000 for a 3 month period including FEMA related reimbursements. Add to that the full time salaried staff of the plant operator, 2 assistants, a bookkeeper and routine operational costs make it clear that the rate payers face the potential for additional rate increases based solely on operating costs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Job announcements should include full job descriptions emphasizing experience and the ability to work cooperatively with neighboring districts and agencies. Joint appointments with adjacent districts should be considered as they can both save money and institutionalize cooperative work.
F6: Cease and Desist Order R1-2008-1009 was issued by the NCRWQCB requiring the GCSD to meet tertiary treatment standards by October 2010. The Cease and Desist Order actually increases their priority ranking for obtaining outside funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Serious consideration should be given to a joint venture with the FWD! The pipeline between the 2 facilities combined with irrigation and frost protection in the areas served by the GCSD and FWD indicate such a venture would be mutually beneficial. A good starting point would be to open negotiations with SCWA to assign the title of the pipeline’s valve jointly to the GCSD and FWD.
F7: GCSD will save significant R&D expense by contacting and developing working relationships with other wastewater treatment facilities in the area. Other facilities sharing their experiences with various tertiary treatment methods will assist the GCSD in finalizing their plans to meet the Cease and Desist Orderrequirement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The GCSD Board should ask the California Fair Political Practices Commission to give an opinion whether the activities described in F-4 amount to a conflict of interest under State law. Required Responses to Findings: Graton Community Service District: F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6, F-7, F-8 Sonoma County Water Agency: F-3, F-8 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board: F-1a, F-6 Requested Responses to Findings: General Manager, Graton Community Services District: F-3, F-4 Required Responses to Recommendations: Graton Community Services District: R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7 Forestville Water District: R-3, R-6 Requested Responses to Recommendations: Sonoma County Water Agency: R-3, R-6 Sonoma County Auditor: R-1 Forestville Water District: R-5 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board: R-3
F8: GCSD was charged a $25,000 fee for opening the valve controlling the pipeline between their facility and FWD’s in order to provide frost protection to vineyards near Forestville. The dissolution agreement with the SCWA called for a $25,000 per use fee to be charged to both the FWD and GCSD, but at no time was the FWD charged the fee. In May 2009 the SCWA requested that the agreement be amended to waive past fees and institute a fee based on volumetric use and not to exceed a combined fee of $25,000. CONCLUSIONS While there was strong pressure from within for the citizens of Graton to maintain local control over their wastewater treatment facility, it is evident that economic feasibility was not given sufficient consideration. In all probability, if the consolidation of smaller districts and zones had been implemented, GCSD rates would not have increased over $500 in 5 years, and their tertiary treatment plant would be up and running, having been completed for as much as $2 Million less than the current projected cost. Although regulatory approval was not received, the use of a redwood grove for filtration in order to reach the zero discharge requirement was a conceptually viable approach. However, not having alternative plans has had an extremely negative impact on the GCSD. Too much emphasis has been placed on experimenting with unconventional filtration means rather than investigating proven means and determining which best meets GCSD’s unique requirements. While well intentioned, utilizing a part time consultant as general manager is not cost effective or efficient. The operation would be better served with a full time licensed sanitation plant operator acting as both general manager and plant operator. COMMENDATIONS Both complainants are to be commended, not only for bringing this most important matter to the attention of the Grand Jury, but also for their well documented and informative complaint submissions. The Board of Directors, General Manager and staff of the GCSD for their continuing efforts to develop environmentally friendly wastewater treatment and disposal solutions. Also the SCWA’s Deputy Chief Engineer and the President of the engineering firm contracting with the GCSD for their most appreciated “above and beyond” efforts in providing invaluable documentation, insight, and details relative to the complaint. RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: The required biannual ethics training program for planning commissioners and the brief training program for new commissioners are apparently insufficient and ineffective. For example, one commissioner correctly abstained from discussion and the vote on the Lowe’s matter because she owned between $2,000 and $10,000 of the applicants stock. This amount is disclosed on the mandatory reporting document Form 700. Another member reported that he owned from $10,000 to $100,000 of stock in Home Depot, which is a major competitor of Lowe’s and active in the region with several nearby large stores. No recusal (the technical term for abstaining from discussion and voting) was offered by the latter commissioner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa needs to adopt and publicize its own ethics code.
F2: Two planning commissioners, other than the above commissioner with the Home Depot stock, voted against the Lowes EIR while serving on the Board of Directors of a non-profit lobbying group actively opposing the Lowe’s proposal. One of those commissioners, who was chairman of the executive committee of this lobbying group, took a particularly active role. He testified about EIR issues to the Planning Commission prior to his selection as a planning commissioner. He was a leader of the task force appointed by the lobbying group to focus on the Lowe’s matter. He was chairman of another lobbying group that provided coverage of the first lobbying group making it qualified for 501c3 contributions that are tax deductible. The first nonprofit lobbying group developed a presentation for the Planning Commission hearing complete with lawyer, professional planning expert, and professional graphics that cost an estimated $100,000. This money presumably qualified as tax deductible. The first planning commissioner, on interview, said he was predisposed on the matter before the Planning Commission but open minded. He had refrained from active participation in the activity of his non profit group during the time he actually was on the Planning Commission. The records of this lobbying group are very sparse and were carefully edited before being turned over on subpoena to the Grand Jury. No activity by the special task force is described.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The legal counsel available to planning commissioners might consider advocating modernization of the Brown Act and conflict of interest laws to deal with circumstances in this case study. Non profit organizations containing planning commission members that make decisions in secret with organizations that normally participate in the public debate violate the spirit of the Brown Act if not the letter of the existing law. Sonoma County representatives could raise this issue in the State legislature. It certainly is the right of commissioners to be active in the political process but prejudicial commitments can also follow from such involvement that need to see more transparent disclosure. Just because one gets no salary from sitting on a non-profit Board does not mean that strong pre-decision commitments and substantial financial consequences can flow from such activities.
F3: The second planning commissioner, also on the executive committee of the lobbying group, said that he did not participate actively in the decision of the lobbying group and was not a member of the task force dealing with the problem. No mention of recusal is made in the minutes of this lobbying group.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Whether or not contact by Sonoma County representatives with legislators in Sacramento can produce legal reform, our practice of disclosure in Santa Rosa could be enhanced. As part of the ex parte disclosure one might mention any organized group with whom the commissioner had discussed the matter under consideration. What role, if any, the commissioner took in that discussion or in facilitating a course of action by that group should also be disclosed.
F4: Several planning commissioners recognized the distinction between the quasi judicial and the legislative nature of different decisions they make on the Planning Commission. This distinction comes up in both ethics training and appeals court decisions based on common law. There was, however, no clear consensus on how to draw this distinction in the Lowe’s case.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The practice of running for office invites much conflict of interest that could be avoided if the local Planning Commission made it a policy that anybody running for office should not continue to service on the commission. That restriction might also apply to persons who recently have run for office. In both cases the role of campaign contributions can come into play. California Government Code Section 84308 provides some help here with disclosure and disqualification rules for contributions over $250 going back twelve months and forward three months. An ethics code could extend this time frame and also include endorsements, either anticipated or received, that produced or could produce multiple contributions smaller than $250.
F5: The key to” ex parte” disclosure made by all planning commissioners with whom we discussed the topic is to ensure that the same information base is available to all participating decision makers. The problem arises that highly committed participants can interpret the same information, rationalize and select from available data in a manner that fits preexisting prejudices. This decision and many other high profile decisions have long complex EIRs presenting many scenarios with much data supporting positive and adverse consequences of different courses of action.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The City of Santa Rosa Planning Commission should strengthen its ethics training programs. Make the training internal if financially necessary. Consider real life complex examples which invite thinking through cases to find applicable principles. Responses Required: Community Development Director, City of Santa Rosa: R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa: R-1, R-4, R-5 Acting City Manager, City of Santa Rosa: R-1, R-5 Mayor, City of Santa Rosa: R-1, R-5 Responses Requested: State legislators representing Sonoma County: R-2
F6: A quorum for the seven member planning commission is four members. Any motion that passes must have four affirmative votes, so long as it concerns a legislative matter. The Lowe’s application had a general plan amendment accompanying the EIR and, therefore, needed a 4-0 vote ratheer than a 3-1 majority. If the highly active planning commissioner and the Home Depot stock holder both recused themselves, the motion to reject the EIR would have failed to attain four affirmative votes. The Grand Jury believes that both cases have the clear appearance of predetermined decision making that on ethical, if not legal, grounds should have led to recusals. Virtually every training resource we consulted emphasized the importance of maintaining the appearance of unbiased and impartial judgment.
F7: If the planning commissioner sitting on the Board of an organization actively lobbying on one side of a matter before the commission had recused himself, there would not even have been a quorum. CONCLUSIONS No general conclusions can be proven by a case study of one Planning Commission decision. One cannot claim any general pattern for planning commissioners opposing other big box developments. Nor can one claim that these same commissioners might evidence similar conduct on other decisions. What the Grand Jury does believe, and did find in this investigation, is that ethical issues abound which need to see the light of day. The City of Santa Rosa has an opportunity through implementing stronger ethics training to provide leadership on these issues that can illuminate practice in other cities, the County, and even the State. RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: Since being notified of the possible CEQA violation the SRSD has adopted a policy that includes mandatory neighborhood outreach and compliance with CEQA for all construction projects at their schools. a. While the SRSD has a general protocol in place for Community Relations, it does not fully address community notification avenues or the means for community response or input. SRSD in the process of modifying Board Policy 1100 - Community Relations, to include a Comprehensive Communications Plan for establishing community outreach priorities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: License Agreement for Land Use Between SRSD and SRALL a. That all future Use Agreements between the SRSD and SRALL include penalties or recourse in the event the SRALL does not fully comply with each of the provisions contained in Section I. A. “League’s Responsibilities and Duties.” Specific penalties or fines, up to suspension of use for repeated violations of the same provision, should be adopted based on the type and severity of violation. b. Amend the License Agreement for Land Use for the period January 30, 2010 through November 7, 2010 to include the penalties or fines for noncompliance, and revising Section II. Property and Equipment, D. changing the first sentence to read: “LEAGUE will be permitted use of the property on weekdays from 4:30 p.m. until dark, Saturdays/Holidays from 8:30 a.m. until dark, Sundays from 12:00 noon until dark, with no inning starting after 7:30 p.m. on any day, with the exception of the following days (Back to School Night, Open House, Memorial Day, Mothers Day, and Fathers Day) during the term of the Use Agreement. c. No later than 60 days prior to the SRSD’s Board of Education Meeting to renew the SRALL’s Use Agreement the SRSD should schedule and invite all neighbors adjacent to Monroe School and SRALL officials to an open meeting to discuss possible Agreement changes as well as being a forum designed to improve all aspects of the SRALL’s Monroe School activities. The meeting notification and agenda should include procedures for filing complaints alleging violations of the Agreement.
F2: Continuing efforts to minimize parking and dust problems have met with little if any success. a. The SRSD and SRALL jointly installed chip seal on the access road and dirt parking areas, but this proved to be inadequate. As many as 100 cars per hour use the access road during scheduled games, contributing greatly to the high dust levels. b. The SRSD has put out for bid a paving plan for the access road and parking area. The SRSD’s Director of Maintenance and Operations is working with the complainant on the paving plan, primarily the location of speed bumps and fence line setbacks. The plan calls for widening the buffer zone between neighbor’s fences and the road, 68 parking spaces, and will include a series of the newest type of speed bump. As this project is for improving an existing feature it is exempt from CEQA or local permitting. c. SRALL installed a gate at the entrance to the access road, which they lock each day upon completion of activities. Since installation of the gate the S.R.P.D. has seen a substantial drop in the number of complaints. d. The SRALL now requires parents to sign, and adhere to, a Parking Lot Agreement designed to control hours of use, speed, parking along the fence line and noise. It includes being courteous to and respectful of neighbors and their property. Enforcement of this agreement is the responsibility of the SRALL.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The SRSD and SRALL jointly investigate, to reduce SRALL activity at Monroe School, the availability of other playing fields. In addition to fields at other SRSD schools, Santa Rosa Recreation, Parks and Community Services should be contacted about availability of A Place to Play or their other ball parks. The former playing field at the Sonoma County Fairgrounds should be among the other venues considered.
F3: The SRSD, with financial assistance from the SRALL, has installed 2 motion activated security type cameras with sound capability to monitor the access road, parking area and the playing fields.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: That the Director of Maintenance and Operations coordinate with Monroe’s neighbors and institute a preventative maintenance program designed to control weeds, landscaping, irrigation and drainage adjacent to their property.
F4: There has been a substantial reduction in the number or participants, from a high of 651 in 1992 to just 414 in 2009. Based on applications received through February, there will be even fewer participants in 2010. SRALL will field 2 fewer teams for both the minor (rookie) and “T” ball leagues, resulting in fewer games on those fields.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: That the SRSD and SRALL each month during the term of the agreement jointly measure and record the crowd noise level to ensure it falls within the City of Santa Rosa’s ambient noise level criteria. In the event there are concerns over excessive noise or vehicle related activities, SRSD and SRALL should jointly review the camera system’s audio and visual for the period of the concerns. It will be the SRALL’s responsibility to take necessary corrective action if the concern was the result of SRALL related actions.
F5: The License Agreement for Land Use between the SRSD and SRALL for 2010 has addressed many of the concerns of both the complainant and neighbors. The term of the Agreement is now set at one calendar year and the SRSD will hold an open public hearing prior to renewal of the Agreement for 2011. It sets forth SRALL responsibilities, including use of the public address system, parking, respecting the privacy and property of neighbors, traffic control, refraining from honking horns and using car alarms, and the installation of access barriers to keep vehicles a reasonable distance from neighbors property. Hours of use are specified during the Agreement period as from 4:30 p.m. until dark on weekdays and 8:30 a.m. until dark on weekends and holidays. It does not address penalties for failure to comply with or violation of the SRALL’s Responsibilities and Duties. CONCLUSIONS The Grand Jury found that the SRSD and SRALL are now working together to provide a safe environment for League participants as well as being good neighbors to residents of homes adjacent to the playing fields. While organized youth sports activities such as little leagues have a very positive impact on today’s youth, equally important is ensuring that these activities create and maintain a friendly relationship with all members of a community. The Jury also found that today’s economy may delay the implementation of several viable options which would either eliminate or minimize concerns expressed by neighbors during interviews and discussions. It is a possibility that violations of CEQA and the California Code of Regulations occurred during the 1996 improvements and addition of the Rookie and “T” Ball fields, as well as the chip sealing of the access road and parking area. When notified of the possible violation the SRSD initiated their current district wide policy of full CEQA compliance in addition to beginning the process of amending their Community Relations Policy to ensure neighborhood involvement. COMMENDATIONS The complainant is to be commended for bringing these matters to the attention of not only the Grand Jury, but the SRSD and SRALL. His observations and comments were invaluable to the Grand Jury during their investigation. Additionally, he worked with the SRSD’s Director of Maintenance and Operations in development of the plan for paving the access road and parking lot, including the type and location of speed bumps. Both the SRSD, including staff and the board of education, and SRALL are to be commended for their positive efforts towards rectifying the concerns of neighbors living adjacent to Monroe School and the playing fields. Neighbors along the property line are also commended for their responses, both positive and negative, to the SRSD’s request for comments, their attendance at SRSD Board meetings, and the SRALL’s Neighborhood Feedback Survey. RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Although the Agreement for 2010 specifies when the public address system may be operated, the SRSD and SRALL shall ensure that the speakers are located and directed in such a manner as to minimize the noise levels reaching the neighbors adjacent to the playing fields.
Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R6: The amendments to SRSD Board Policy 1100 Community Relations include specific protocols for public notification. These protocols should also be included in Board Policy relating to their Comprehensive Communications Plan. The specific media to be used, dependent upon the notification’s purpose, must be identified. Each notification shall contain pertinent District contact information relative to the purpose of said notification, along with specific protocols for the filing of complaints or providing feedback.
R7: That SRSD develop a Board Policy specifying protocols to ensure that all SRSD construction related projects are in full compliance with applicable portions of Local Zoning Regulations, the California Government Code, California Civil Code, California Code & Regulations, California Education Code and the California Public Resources Code (CEQA). The protocol, in addition to ensuring compliance, should address procedures for both coordination with the Santa Rosa Community Development Department and community notification when requested. Required Responses to Findings: Associate Superintendent of Schools, Business - F-1, F-2, F-5 District Director of Maintenance and Operations - F-2(b) Required Responses to Recommendations: School District Board of Education - R-1, R-2, R-6, R-7 Associate Superintendent of Schools, Business - R-1, R-2, R-6, R-7 District Director of Maintenance and Operations - R-3, R-4, R-5, R-7 Requested Responses: City of Santa Rosa Community Development Department - R-7 Assistant City Manager, Recreation, Parks and Community Services - R-2 Sonoma County Fair and Exposition - R-2 Santa Rosa American Little League - F-2(d), F-4, F-5, R-1, R-2, R-4, R-5
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: A Review of the detention statistical data since 2004 indicates that the Sonoma County detention facilities have not reached capacity. The future of the aging NCDF will need to be reviewed in terms of ongoing obligations. The increase in the number of beds (1400) over what was stated in the Grand Jury Report 2003-2004 (1286) is due solely to the reorganization of the facilities by the correctional staff. Physical limitations of both facilities will require serious consideration in the near future.
F2: Although the carrying capacity of the Sonoma County detention system is not yet full, the type of beds needed to meet future demands is wanting and the needs of mental health inmates is clearly increasing at a rapid rate (Figure 1). Provisions for these inmates under the current space allocation will soon reach a crisis point unless budget allocations are seriously considered. In a recent Grand jury report, it was indicated that an increasing mentally ill inmate population would need to be served. The non-incarceration options are limited, which has forced the detention system to house and treat inmates with mental health issues that would be better off in less restrictive environments. Jail is not a good substitute for a mental health facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Inmates with mental health issues are the most rapidly increasing population in the Sonoma County detention facilities and many would be better served by expanded county mental health facilities and services. The issue of mental health inmates was addressed at length in the 2003-2004 Grand Jury report and little has been done to correct the problem. In the absence of state or federal programs, long term support should be extended to programs that would allow the transference and treatment of mentally ill inmates to alternative facilities. Required Response to Findings: Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4 Required Response to Recommendations: Sonoma County Board of Supervisors R-1 Investigative Interviews and Procedures: • Sonoma County Sheriff’s presentation to the Grand Jury • One Sonoma County Sheriff’s Lieutenant, two Correctional Sergeants and four Correctional Deputies. • The Grand Jury reviewed the statistical data on the detention facilities for the past six years. • The current Grand Jury also visited broad jail issues raised in the 2003-2004 Grand Jury report. This report provided statistical data through 2003. • A tour of both the MADF and the NCDF was conducted for the Grand Jury and the booking procedures were observed by members of the Law and Justice Committee. Reference Documents: • Sonoma County Grand Jury Report with responses 2003-2004 (July 2004) • Statistical data on the Sonoma County Detention Facilities provided by the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department 2004-2009 • Jail Inspection Handbook from the California Grand Jury Association, Corrections Standards Authority. • Title 15 and Title 24, California Code of Regulations (CCR) • Sections 919(a) and 919(b) California Penal Code • California Standards Authority report to the Sonoma County Sheriff-January 2010.
F3: Females comprise an average of 14% of the jail population and males average 86% over the past six years. The racial characteristics of the inmates are Caucasian (56.1%), Hispanic (30.8%), African - American (8.9%), and Native American (2.6%) over the six year sampling period. The other ethnic breakdowns comprise less than 2% of the total population. Most of the criminal behavior (53.2%) occurs between ages 26-45.
F4: The overall facility, in terms of both management and care of the inmates, was deemed highly professional and humane. The conduct of the correctional staff was professional, compassionate and secure. The environment of both facilities was clean, well lit, sanitary, well organized, and a concern for the safety of both the correctional staff and the inmates was evident. The correctional staff was keenly aware of the possibility of improving the organization and operation of both facilities and were amenable to changes in the future that would benefit both the County and the facilities. No indication was found during this investigation of the mistreatment of inmates. RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: Reviewed of both incidents and found all of the officers involved absolved of any criminal liability and not in violation of Department Policy.
F2: The factor of “excited delirium” was apparent in both incidents and the decedents were out of control and a danger to themselves and others.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: That RPDPS adopt a policy similar to the Sonoma County Sheriff, relating to “excited delirium” with frequent retraining, to sharpen judgment in stressful situations, with regard to the use of less-than lethal force, particularly in situations involving “excited delirium.”
F3: In the Fernandez case, one PSO fired a Taser which was not functional due to lack of a full battery charge and, therefore, failed to subdue him. The other PSO’s Tasers were unavailable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Tasers issued to RPDPS PSO’s should be fully charged and checked at the beginning of each shift. It should be carried at all times, on the officer’s service belt, in a proper holster on the weak side. PSO’s should leave on each shift with a fully functioning device. Replacement Tasers or fully charged batteries should be available at all times.
F4: Mr. Fernandez was attempting to leave Walmart with stolen goods and exhibiting signs of excited delirium. He was confrontational to others and waving around a pole. He was later manually restrained by the officers and died of asphyxiation while restrained.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: That RPDPS adopt a policy similar to the Sonoma County Sheriff, relating to “excited delirium” with frequent retraining, to sharpen judgment in stressful situations, with regard to the use of less-than lethal force, particularly in situations involving “excited delirium.”
F5: One incident involved the fatal shooting of a female citizen on 03/16/08. The officer responded to a family disturbance call. At the house Ms. Billings approached the PSO with a utility blade and failed to respond to directions to drop the blade. When the decedent was within four to six feet, the PSO fired his gun. Ms. Billings was struck and killed.
F6: The PSO in the Billings case was a lateral transfer to the RPDPS for eleven months, had four weeks of supervised training, rather than the departmental policy standard of sixteen weeks of supervised training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Probationary PSO’s be supervised for a full sixteen week period, without reduction for lateral transfers. The training officer should be recognized as experienced, and with a history of exercising excellent judgment. Responses to Findings: Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety F-1, F-2, F-3. F-4, F-5, F-6, F-7 Required Responses to Recommendations: Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety – R-1, R-2, R-3
F7: In Billings case, the PSO’s department issued Taser was inoperable due to a lack of battery power and was left in his patrol car. [2] A fully charged M26Taser should spark at twenty pulses per second but the PSO’s Taser was functioning at only four pulses per second. The newer X26 Taser has an LED readout to inform the user it is fully charged. At the time of the two incidents, RPDPS had issued M26 Tasers. [3] RPDPS current policy manual includes a section on “excited delirium”. CONCLUSIONS It must be emphasized that Tasers and their use is a highly controversial issue nationwide. Many police agencies will not issue them to their officers and Taser International, the largest producer of Tasers, is constantly issuing new guidelines for Taser use. Tasers must be considered potentially lethal weapons. Although their use does not often result in a fatality, they do occasionally, and in that context, they must be used as carefully as a side arm. Give the police an alternative to a lethal outcome in any situation and they will welcome it. However, Tasers must be carried, be fully functional and, above all, the training must be intense and thorough. RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Tasers issued to RPDPS PSO’s should be fully charged and checked at the beginning of each shift. It should be carried at all times, on the officer’s service belt, in a proper holster on the weak side. PSO’s should leave on each shift with a fully functioning device. Replacement Tasers or fully charged batteries should be available at all times.
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: Sonoma County Sheriff’s and CFMG medical staff failed to fully intervene in Mr. George’s further deterioration after return from SMC. (7/06/07 – 7/09/07).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: That “proof of life” be required at each “check” of an inmate in medical observation cell. Vital signs should be taken at each change of shift and recorded for as long as the inmate is in medical detention.
F2: Although Title 15 of the state penal code requires that an inmate receive six hours of uninterrupted sleep, failure by Sonoma County Sheriff’s correctional staff and/or medical staff of CFMG, to require proof of life, at each fifteen (15) minute interval, may have contributed to Mr. George’s death.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: That the Sonoma County District Attorney complete the review of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s investigation within 90 days.
F3: CFMG staff also failed to provide Mr. George with a physician’s examination within 24 hrs of his return to MADF as was required by the discharge orders from SMC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: CFMG and Sonoma County Sheriff provide complete investigational files to the Grand Jury.
F4: A complete medical record of Mr. George was not sent with him to SMC. On 7/01/07.Medical records are essential to accurate diagnosis and treatment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: CFMG be requested to keep complete employee time records, particularly for physicians.
F5: CFMG and the Sonoma County Sheriff failed to provide a complete set of requested documents to the Grand Jury including accurate time records and telephone calls.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: CFMG medical staff comply with discharge orders for hospitalized inmates and document compliance.
F6: The Sonoma County District Attorney’s Critical Incident Report was not received until February 2010, although the incident occurred July 2007. The review did not address all salient details; ie., ineffectual bed-checks for proof of life. [3] RATS Logs are mechanized logs indicating times of inmate surveillance by CDs RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: That CFMG undergo regular, independent peer review of medical care provided to jail facilities. Required Responses to Findings: Sonoma County Sheriff F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5 Sonoma County District Attorney F-6 Required Responses to Recommendations: Sonoma County Sheriff R-1, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6 Sonoma County District Attorney R-2 Requested Responses to Findings and Recommendations: CFMG F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5 • R-1, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.

Additional documents

Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.