Sonoma County Grand Jury
2010-2011
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Although the state provides some guidance, its standards or guidelines are not clear about when a case should be closed. This causes considerable variance between supervisors’ judgments and opinions as to when cases are to be closed. Some supervisors are more lax and some are more stringent. Supervisors and their social workers are entrenched in doing things their own way with regard to closing cases. As a group, supervisors are inconsistent in interpreting rules, regulations and codes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Re: F1, F2, F3 and F6 above: Currently, using the SDM process, referrals must be prioritized and coded to require investigations within either 24 hours or 10 days. Each referral/case also should be coded when the case is closed on a “seriousness scale” as a means of alerting staff if and when a case has to be re-reviewed or might 4 be reopened. The coding can be based on the SDM Final Risk Levels.
F2:
If a closed case is later re-opened because of a new allegation, there are no written procedures and no encouragement for a social worker or supervisor to request that the closed case be reviewed if it is thought that the assessment or the case closure decision was lacking.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Re: F1: Once the new ER policies and procedures are developed by FYC, there should be an ongoing evaluation of their implementation and its results for improving the outcomes for children and the closing of cases.
F3:
In a small, but important number of cases, children have suffered the consequences of inadequate case assessment. However, the FYC director appears to be conscientious and is striving to remove inadequacies in case management and is to be commended. FYC has adopted the Structured Decision Making tool (SDM) and, based on recommendations from an in-house committee, it is revising all of its ER policies and procedures to improve assessment and case closure decisions. It appears that the SDM will help meet the needs for improving assessment and decision making about, and the management of, child safety, risk and parental adequacy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Re: F2: Through policy and training, the social workers should be encouraged to bring forth previously closed cases, or cases which are forwarded to another section in the Division, and appear to have deficiencies in assessment or other decision-making, e.g., case closure or inadequate assessment. This is one means of training social workers to do more thorough assessments.
F4:
With regard to FYC’s self assessment and the three-year System Improvement Plan that resulted from it, the work and input received from various people and groups are very commendable, but the social work staff appears to have little awareness or memory of either the self-assessment process or the plan except for the change to using the SDM tool.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Re: F1 and F5: A written procedure, including guidelines, should be developed allowing a case to stay open beyond the 30 day limit and requiring a follow up by supervisors after a pre-determined time.
F5:
Conscientious employees in ER are at risk of having low morale and being exhausted, partially due to inadequate supervision and management, time pressure to close cases, inconsistencies in interpretation of regulations for case closures, as well as the many cases that require investigation. However, the FYC’s implementation of new ER policies and procedures and the hiring of case social workers could reduce this risk.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Re: F6: The procedure for a random review of cases should be carried out by section managers rather than, or in addition to, supervisors as a way to make section managers more familiar with the actions of their supervisors and social workers. Cases that were judged to be high risk should be a priority for re-review. A process for evaluating the implementation of the procedure needs to be established.
F6:
FYC Policy/Procedure “II-16 B. General” concerning the subsequent review of randomly selected cases was not known to managers or supervisors who were interviewed and is not followed. It appears that no one looks to see if this policy is followed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Re: F4: The FYC Director should develop a means for better informing staff of the Division’s self-assessment and the System Improvement Plan and giving periodic reports on their results over the plan’s three-year lifespan. For example, since there are regular staff meetings where these topics can be discussed, they can be addressed at the beginning of the meeting. REQUIRED FOR RESPONSES n From the FYC Division Director: F5, and R1 through R6.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
There is a 2007 county policy addressing performance evaluations, but there is no monitoring system to see that it is followed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The 2007 performance evaluation policy should be updated to include where written evaluations are to be kept, and that HR should be assigned the role of monitoring the completion the evaluations.
F2:
Personnel File Guidelines were developed in 1992, but there is no up-to-date policy and the guidelines do not cover securing employee files, which are actually kept in each county department and not at HR. The guidelines do not specifically prohibit the copying of employee files as happened in the Agricultural Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Although personnel file guidelines exist, a policy on securing employee files is needed and should include policy on who is in charge of files, who has access and for what purposes they may have access.
F3:
There is no policy on where and how department directors’ contracts and hiring resolutions are to be kept, what they are to contain, who has access and how they are to be secured.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
A policy is needed on maintaining and securing hiring contracts and resolutions and what should be included in these contracts/resolutions.
F4:
HR has the responsibility of informing department managers and supervisors of personnel policies, procedures and practices with regard to employee files. A great deal of information is conveyed via training sessions and communications. However, implementation and oversight are still lacking.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
A policy is needed on completing exit interviews. The policy should stipulate HR’s responsibility for ensuring that exit interviews are done. (This can be a form of questions that the exiting employee fills out.)
F5:
There is no policy that requires exit interviews.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The HR Director should prioritize policies that need to be written or updated. New and updated policies should be announced and made available via paper or electronic copy to all departments.
F6:
HR management recognizes that more written policies are needed, or that current policies need updating, but HR staffing resources have been, and will be, cut making it less likely that these get done.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
HR and county departments should develop a system to assure that promoted employees are informed of their new probationary period at the time that their new positions begin.
F7:
Employees can be promoted, but not be told when their new position began or that they are on probation. 10
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
There is need for a hiring policy for department directors, which requires a signed contract between the Board of Supervisors and the candidate. No director should be hired by resolution alone. A policy on contracts should include information regarding salary ranges, performance evaluation procedures, exit clauses and severance packages. In addition, a new policy on contracts should include information on whether the director will be covered by any civil services rules or state regulations and, if so, a reference to those rules and regulations should be provided.
F8:
A review of the Personnel File Guidelines suggests that discretion for employee file security and maintenance, and where to file employee information that should not be in the personnel file, is left with each department director.
F9:
The County Board of Supervisors does not use employment contracts for hiring every department director. Two director positions have been filled by Board of Supervisor hiring resolution only.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Employee Involved Fatal Incident Protocol was followed in each incident of shootings.
F2:
The District Attorney’s Office reviewed the evidence and produced a report in the required time i.e. within ninety days of receipt of investigation reports. RECOMMENDATIONS: None 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
There are 40 school districts in Sonoma County, one of the highest numbers of districts in any California county.
F2:
With over 70,000 students in 40 school districts, Sonoma County has more school districts per pupil than any other similar county.
F3:
School districts are closing schools. Student population and budgets/revenues have been declining, and are expected to continue to decline in Sonoma County.
F4:
Charter Schools are increasing in number and student enrollment in Sonoma County.
F5:
State funding has decreased in California.
F6:
The graduation rate is in decline, and the dropout rate has increased in Sonoma County High Schools.
F7:
Parents are able to take over failing schools (Charter Schools) and/or move their children out of failing schools (Open Enrollment Act, E.C. 48350)
F8:
Certain elected bodies (city and town councils, County Board of Supervisors, governing body of a special district or local agency formation commission with jurisdiction over all, or a portion of, a school district) may request the County Committee on School District Organization (CCSDO) to do a study on unification/consolidation (E.C. #35721 (c)).
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Every city or town council in Sonoma County should exercise their prerogative per the E.C. 35720-35724 to initiate a CCSDO study of educational and financial benefits that might be achieved for their citizens through consolidation or unification of school districts within their city boundaries.
R3:
As per the E.C. 35720-35724, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors should request that the CCSDO initiate a fact finding study for the purpose of determining the educational and financial benefits, if any, of reconfiguring or consolidating school districts within their overlapping jurisdictions within Sonoma County into K12, or other configurations of unified school districts, that would benefit all stakeholders.
F9:
The County Superintendent of Schools does not have the authority to initiate a study on consolidation/ unification even if a school district is, or is in danger, of economically failing
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Every school district in Sonoma County that is not currently a K-12 or basic aid district should request a CCSDO study to determine if educational and/or financial benefits could be achieved through either consolidation or unification.
R7:
The County Board of Education and the County Superintendent of Schools should support and work with state legislators to establish a provision in the educational code that would empower the County Superintendent to make his/her own request for district consolidation or unification studies if a school district has filed qualified or negative financial certification for two or more years.
F10:
The last study of school district consolidation/unification in Sonoma County was initiated in 2004.
F11:
Articulated curriculum supports consistency in learning experiences from feeder schools to high schools.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools should sponsor twice-annual regional meetings of all school district superintendents to: (a) discuss and implement “best practices”; (b) explore and implement school district cost-sharing programs that would reduce school district duplication; (c) initiate horizontal and vertical articulation of classroom curriculum, in order to meet educational needs, which benefit the students going forward feeding into the high school district; (d) provide for prompt transfer of pupil records among all schools that any student may chose to attend in Sonoma County, especially those students who are entering a secondary school districts.
F12:
School Boards of districts in receivership lose financial control (assumed by a trustee appointed by the state) but continue to control those academic decisions that have no financial implications and remain in an advisory capacity.
F13:
As noted in F8 above, CCSDO oversees and approves school district requests for territorial transfer, school board issues and studies for consolidation. They approve all school district consolidations before sending them to the state for approval prior to final public approval by election.
F14:
The County Board of Education is an elected body of seven trustees at present. The CCSDO has the authority to reduce membership to five trustees to realize a cost savings to the citizens of Sonoma County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The CCSDO, in an effort to better manage costs, should study the potential savings available by reconfiguring the CBOE trusteeships (currently 7 members) to align with the County Board of Supervisors (currently 5). A new, smaller CBOE would then also reflect current census distribution within the county.
F15:
There has only been one contested election for the County Board of Education in the last 10 years.
F16:
Student record transfers from one school district to another are problematic. In some instances it can take up to a year to get records transferred within Sonoma County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools should sponsor twice-annual regional meetings of all school district superintendents to: (a) discuss and implement “best practices”; (b) explore and implement school district cost-sharing programs that would reduce school district duplication; (c) initiate horizontal and vertical articulation of classroom curriculum, in order to meet educational needs, which benefit the students going forward feeding into the high school district; (d) provide for prompt transfer of pupil records among all schools that any student may chose to attend in Sonoma County, especially those students who are entering a secondary school districts.
F17:
Parents can get statistical data for a teacher’s grade level performance from SCOE; however, districts do not disseminate this information routinely.
F18:
A breakdown of the number of schools in the school districts of Sonoma County is as follows: 12 districts 1 school 6 districts 2 schools 4 districts 3 schools 5 districts 4 schools 3 districts 5 schools 2 districts 6 schools 8 districts have between 8 and 19 schools 31 Additional information can be found in the attached Appendix.
F19:
Some Sonoma County school districts are failing financially (Schedule of 2010 - 2011 Financial Reporting in the attached Appendix).
Related Recommendations (3)
R5:
All CCSDO studies should include the statutory elements required by the state educational code and: (a) an evaluation of an articulated K-12 curriculum, (b) the economic benefits of Special Education, transportation, administrative services, (c) board members’ health and welfare benefits, and (d) stipend savings through elimination of duplicate services.
R8:
The Sonoma County Board of Education should conduct a study of SCOE to determine the possible costs and savings of fewer school districts to manage Sonoma County Schools, and where those costs/savings, if any, could be applied to better the education of students.
R9:
All 40 Districts in Sonoma County shall respond to the following questions, as summary of which will be published by the Grand Jury: a. After hearing public comments and by a majority vote of the Board of Directors we ___invite or _____ decline to cooperate with a SCOE funded study to discover whether there could be benefits to both educational and financial costs in district consolidation. 32 b. Current 2010/2011 enrollment is ________. Enrollment for 2009/2010 was _________. c. We are currently a K-12 unified school district? ____ yes, or ____no. If not our current structure is: _______ ___________________________________________. d. We ____are or ___ not currently classified as a Basic Aid District. As a Basic id District we derive the following financial benefit: ___________________________ e. We currently have enrolled ________students living outside district boundaries. Five years ago there were _________ students living outside district boundaries. f. We currently have _____ students living inside district boundaries who have chosen to attend schools in other districts. How many such students were there in the 2005/2006 school year_____? g. There are currently _____dependent and________ independent charter schools operating within our district. Five years ago there were _____ dependent and _______independent charter schools in our district. h. We currently have developed effective protocols with all surrounding districts to insure complete and timely access to student records transferring in or out of our district ___yes ___no. i. We currently _____have or _____ have not implemented coordinated plans to insure articulation and basic curriculum compatibility with those districts most likely to receive our students and from whom we are likely to receive students. j. We currently _____have or _____ do not have Joint Power Agreements (JPAS), or similar significant shared cost saving plans with neighboring districts. REQUIRED RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS From the following school districts: To R1, R9 and to Findings F3, F5, F7, F11, F16, F17, and F19: Alexander Valley Union Montgomery Elementary Bellevue Union Oak Grove Union Bennett Valley Union Old Adobe Union Cinnabar Petaluma City Elementary Cloverdale Unified Petaluma Joint Union High Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified Piner-Olivet Union Dunham Rincon Valley Union Forestville Union Roseland Fort Ross Santa Rosa City Elementary Geyserville Unified Santa Rosa City High Gravenstein Union Sebastopol Union Guerneville Sonoma Valley Unified Harmony Union Twin Hills Union Healdsburg Unified Two Rock Union Horicon Waugh Kashia West Side Union Kenwood West Sonoma County High Liberty Wilmar Union Mark West Union Windsor Unified Monte Rio Union Wright From the City or Town Councils of Cotati, Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma and Windsor to: R2 and F8. From the County Superintendent of Schools to: R4 and R7, F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F9, F11, F12, F17 and
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The financial impact of the economic downturn has affected local government at all levels. Because of this, the agencies are not always delivering service at the same levels as they were when the last Municipal Service Review (MSR) was done.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCo initiate the necessary MSR update to reflect changes brought about by the economic downturn and its effects on public agency budgets.
F2:
The most recent Municipal Service Reviews are five years old and the information is often out-of-date. Given that this is a primary tool used in evaluating a political jurisdiction’s ability to provide quality community service, there may be reason for concern.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends LAFCo update and keeps its web site current on all issues, which should include additional information about what it does and how it functions.
F3:
LAFCo’s administrative structure, requiring inclusive public and private representation and autonomous funding mechanisms, along with developer fees, creates effective insulation against outside influence in its decision- making roles.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
LAFCo’s policies on such things as property tax revenue loss and fire district mergers should be clearly spelled out so that all parties to the LAFCo action(s) will be well-informed and can see they are being treated equally. We recommend LAFCo policies be written and made readily accessible on the web site.
F4:
LAFCo is not a well-known government entity and would benefit by making its functions better known. The current website is incomplete and contains dated materials. It would be beneficial to both LAFCo and the public if the web site was updated to contain LAFCo’s policies on specific issues such as fire protection, property tax loss and city islands. This would facilitate a more consistent, even handed, approach to these issues. 24
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
In the future, LAFCo should appoint special district members that represent larger and more diverse areas of the county.
F5:
The LAFCo board seeks to cover a broad spectrum of political interest, and has one troubling irregularity. The two commissioners representing the “special districts” component come from Valley of the Moon Water District and Valley of the Moon Fire District. These district boundaries overlap and provide representation to only a very small area of the county RECOMMENDATIONS R1. The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCo initiate the necessary MSR update to reflect changes brought about by the economic downturn and its effects on public agency budgets. R2. The Grand Jury recommends LAFCo update and keeps its web site current on all issues, which should include additional information about what it does and how it functions. R3. LAFCo’s policies on such things as property tax revenue loss and fire district mergers should be clearly spelled out so that all parties to the LAFCo action(s) will be well-informed and can see they are being treated equally. We recommend LAFCo policies be written and made readily accessible on the web site. R4. In the future, LAFCo should appoint special district members that represent larger and more diverse areas of the county. REQUIRED RESPONSES n R1, R2 R3 & R4 Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission LAFCo should be aware that its comment or response should be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. BIBLIOGRAPHY Interviews conducted: LAFCo Staff LAFCo Commissioners Rohnert Park City Officials Rancho Adobe Fire District Representative Rincon Valley Fire District Representative Previous LAFCo staff member Documents Reviewed: Government Code sections 56000-56001 and 56375-56388, Fire and Police Protection portion of the EIR for the Northeast Specific Plan annexation, Portions of the current LAFCo Municipal Service Review that addressed Rohnert Park Public Safety Department and the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District, LAFCo fee schedule, LAFCo Executive Officer job description, LAFCo staff report May 5, 2010, Item 4 concerning unincorporated islands, The MOU between LAFCo and County of Sonoma for professional and support staff, office space, equipment, supplies and legal services. Internet Sites Referenced: CALAFCo, Marin LAFCo, Inyo LAFCo, Sonoma LAFCo, leginfo.ca.gov, “About Us” from the Sonoma County LAFCo web site 25
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Staff reductions, due to budgetary priorities, have left the city without the proper resources required to adequately maintain and repair all city infrastructure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The new departmental reorganization should result in improved cooperation between those employees responsible for repair of infrastructure buried in the streets and those responsible for the surface condition of the streets.
F2:
Limited communication between the two departments with public works’ responsibilities creates delay in accomplishing important infrastructure activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Cross training of Public Works and Utilities Department employees should be a major goal within the new combined administrative structure. The result should improve both service and efficiency.
F3:
The department responsible for street maintenance (former Public Works Department) did not appear to have the authority to supervise and approve street repair work done by, or under the direction of, the former Water Resources and Conservation Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Budget priorities should be set that provide the necessary funding to maintain the current minimal level of maintenance, and to prevent further degradation of infrastructure.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
Future funding sources need to be found to acquire restoration, replacement and/or upgrading revenue.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Sonoma County offices follow state law by posting the State Attorney General’s hotline number on employee bulletin boards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Every governmental unit: county, city, school board or special district should encourage employees and citizens alike to report suspected waste, fraud or abuse issues to a central county reporting location. This local whistleblower hotline should be administered by the Civil Grand Jury or the Auditor-Controller’s office to provide anonymity and assurance that investigations will be thorough and impartial for any government entity in Sonoma County. Why would the Grand Jury want the County of Sonoma to provide this service and include cities and other government entities? We suggest this for the greater good of the citizens!
F2:
Many of the larger counties and several cities in California have created their own whistleblower programs. Most are provided only for their own employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
When a Sonoma County central whistleblower program and administrator is established, every governmental unit should provide clear, easily accessible information about the program and 24- hour hotline on their websites, in their employee training and as a notice on employee bulletin boards.
F3:
There is no central administrator in Sonoma County to report evidence of waste, fraud and abuse among the multitude of local governmental organizations and to ensure that a fair and confidential investigation takes place.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The county budget for 2011/2012 and forward, include the cost of a commercial whistleblower hotline service (est. less than $15,000/ yr), either as part of the operating budget of the Civil Grand Jury or the office of the Auditor / Controller.
F4:
The cost to implement a whistleblower program applicable to all governmental units in Sonoma County would be modest and initially focused on publicizing contact information and educating employees and citizens about its availability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The designated office for Sonoma County should provide an annual report to the public on the whistleblower program including such information as the total number of whistleblower complaints received, the number of complaints that were formally investigated, and the dollar value (if applicable) that was recovered. REQUIRED RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE QUESTIONS IN
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R5:
Do you believe that a local twenty-four hour hot line, additional assurance of confidentiality and summary annual reports to the citizens would be of substantial value when managing increasingly scarce governmental resources? ___ Yes ___ No
R6:
Given time and adequate description of a proposed structure and process, would you consider formally adopting a resolution to participate in a countywide whistleblower program administered by either the Grand Jury or the County Auditor-Controller office? ____ Yes ____ No
R7:
Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________________________________________ By For 48
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
There was disagreement among town staff regarding the amount of recycled water that was discharged, the cause of the discharge, when, and in what areas, the discharges occurred.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Public Works Department should ensure that guidelines clarify the chain of command with respect to the handling of non-permitted discharges. These should become part of each written description for job classes involved in reporting discharges.
F2:
No false reports were submitted to the Regional Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each job description should be reviewed to ensure that it includes a clear, specific definition of reporting responsibilities of all supervisory and management staff in order to clarify the chain of command. 51
F3:
The changes to reports alleged in the complaint were the result of review by more experienced staff as authorized by the department director.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Town Manger should address the issue of employees who are currently engaged in the continuation of longstanding interpersonal conflicts, which have created a stressful and possibly inefficient work environment.
F4:
The Town has provided its employees opportunities for additional training through courses given by Santa Rosa Junior College and other educational providers. In spite of such efforts, the interpersonal relationships of several employees remain strained, causing an uncomfortable, and occasionally confrontational, work environment, which interferes with the efficient execution of required job duties.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Town Manger should confirm the right of any employee to provide sworn, secret testimony to any legal body without fear of exposure or retaliation.
F5:
The Grand Jury has determined through our interview process, that there appears to have been some violations of the confidentiality admonition given to, and signed, by each person interviewed by the committee.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Issues from prior Grand Jury reports concerning expanding mental health services were met.
F2:
Due to budget constraints, physical facilities cannot be expanded at this time.
F3:
All existing programs are being administered well.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The SRPD has a trained and qualified officer on duty around the clock, 365 days a year to deal with allegations of sexual abuse.
F2:
The procedures employed by SRPD in sexual abuse matters are comprehensive and professional.
F3:
The response by the SRPD to the 911 call was immediate with the prompt arrival of two uniformed officers. This was supplemented by the arrival of two additional officers from the DVSA to the scene.
F4:
The initial steps taken by the SRPD, from receipt of the 911 call to release of the complainant, were promptly completed and follow established procedure.
F5:
The responding DVSA detective was fully trained and experienced in responding to, and dealing with, allegations of rape and sexual violence. His background included 240 hours of specific, focused training.
F6:
All recordings and videotapes demonstrate that the DVSA detective acted with appropriate sensitivity and care toward the alleged victim.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All future SRPD’s Incident/Investigation Reports shall include the results of any required medical (SART) examination.
R2:
All future SRPD’s Incident/investigation Report of sexual assault/abuse shall state whether or not the interview with the suspect was recorded. If not, that information should be included, together with the reason.