Gran Jurado del Condado de Stanislaus
2001-2002
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
82 hallazgos
F1:
The screening process for Grand Jury applicants is based on random selection, independent applications and recommendations by public officials in Stanislaus County. All persons interested in serving on the Grand Jury may return an application form. The Presiding Judge interviews all applicants who meet the 8 minimum statutory requirements. The Presiding Judge then chooses thirty (30) applicants from these interviews who participate in the final step; a random lottery where nineteen (19) names are drawn as the new jurors and four (4) additional names are drawn to serve as alternates. Penal Code Section 912 allows the Presiding Judge to select the Foreperson.
F2:
The Grand Jury=s nineteen (19) member panel changes significantly every year. The staff person is the only constant in the office.
F3:
The GJ staff person has written and subsequently updated the Stanislaus County Grand Jury Handbook. The original 2000-2001 Grand Jury Handbook gave staff person the title of Grand Jury Administrator whose role is described as an advisor.
F4:
The GJ staff person prepared and refined the Grand Jury Handbook over the years based on personal experience with the Grand Jury and researching other Grand Jury Handbooks throughout the state.
F5:
The 2000-2001 Grand Jury Foreperson testifed that the full panel did not Areview the handbook. We accepted it for what it was and used it the best we could.@
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F6:
County Counsel testified to having reviewed the Grand Jury Handbook written by the Grand Jury staff person, reporting it was reviewed by Deputy County Counsel as well. County Counsel does not recall the section describing the staff person attending full body meetings.
F7:
County Counsel then testified to not reviewing the Grand Jury Handbook, but signed that he had.
F8:
A 2000-2001 former grand juror testified, that while in a full panel meeting, he remarked it was inappropriate for the GJ staff person to write the handbook. Full panel disagreed and voted to keep the handbook Aas is@.
F9:
The GJ staff person=s duties are to assist the grand jury in its day to day business including: retrieving and opening correspondence, scheduling appointments at the direction of the committees, transcribing testimony, and compiling the agenda and minutes of the meetings as directed by the foreperson and/or the grand juror designated as the recording secretary.
F10:
The GJ staff person testified her formal training in Grand Jury secretarial duties was non-existent.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
In accordance with Penal Code Section 916, future Civil Grand Juries must receive training on statutory grand jury procedures. This should be done prior to being empaneled.
F11:
A 2000-2001 Grand Juror testifies the Foreperson had no active role in distributing cases to her as a committee chair, nor did he interact with her at any time as a member or a chair. All interaction was with the GJ staff person.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R1:
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury has taken the following corrective actions. The GJ staff person: a. no longer has input in selection of committee members and chairs. b. has been removed from full panel meetings. c. no longer edits handbook without the direction of the Grand Jury. d. no longer prepares agendas and minutes without the direction of the Foreperson or Recording Secretary.
R3:
Future Grand Juries must understand they alone have full authority to make decisions concernin
R5:
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F12:
The GJ staff person was involved in the holdover process.
F13:
GJ staff person asked a 1999-2000 Grand Juror to hold over. 9
F14:
A 1999-2000 holdover juror testified to being asked by the GJ staff person to become committee chairman of a new case prior to the empaneling of the next jury. The GJ staff person denied this.
F15:
The 2000-2001 Foreperson testified the GJ staff person participated and gave input during committee and committee chair selections.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R1:
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury has taken the following corrective actions. The GJ staff person: a. no longer has input in selection of committee members and chairs. b. has been removed from full panel meetings. c. no longer edits handbook without the direction of the Grand Jury. d. no longer prepares agendas and minutes without the direction of the Foreperson or Recording Secretary.
R3:
Future Grand Juries must understand they alone have full authority to make decisions concernin
R5:
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F16:
Five (5) 2000-2001 Grand Jurors recall GJ staff person having particpated in the choosing of committees and chairs.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R1:
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury has taken the following corrective actions. The GJ staff person: a. no longer has input in selection of committee members and chairs. b. has been removed from full panel meetings. c. no longer edits handbook without the direction of the Grand Jury. d. no longer prepares agendas and minutes without the direction of the Foreperson or Recording Secretary.
R3:
Future Grand Juries must understand they alone have full authority to make decisions concernin
R5:
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F17:
The GJ staff person was responsible for in-service grand jury training.
F18:
The Court Administrator testified he was asked by the GJ staff person if she could sit in during grand jury full panel meetings and was told ANo@.
F19:
At the request of the 1999-2000 Grand Jury, GJ staff person asked and received permission from the then Presiding Judge to attend full panel meetings as a resource person only.
F20:
Eight (8) prior Grand Jurors testified the GJ staff person was present during deliberations and voting in full panel meetings, functioned as the recording secretary, and prepared and distributed the agenda and minutes.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)
R1:
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury has taken the following corrective actions. The GJ staff person: a. no longer has input in selection of committee members and chairs. b. has been removed from full panel meetings. c. no longer edits handbook without the direction of the Grand Jury. d. no longer prepares agendas and minutes without the direction of the Foreperson or Recording Secretary.
R3:
Future Grand Juries must understand they alone have full authority to make decisions concernin
R4:
The section of the Grand Jury Handbook pertaining to GJ staff person should be edited to read: The
R5:
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F21:
GJ staff person attendance in full body meetings was later brought to County Counsel=s attention. His office sent a letter recommending this section be stricken from the Handbook.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The section of the Grand Jury Handbook pertaining to GJ staff person should be edited to read: The
F22:
A 2000-2001 Grand Juror testified the GJ staff person delayed him in making a presentation before the full panel regarding report writing procedures.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R1:
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury has taken the following corrective actions. The GJ staff person: a. no longer has input in selection of committee members and chairs. b. has been removed from full panel meetings. c. no longer edits handbook without the direction of the Grand Jury. d. no longer prepares agendas and minutes without the direction of the Foreperson or Recording Secretary.
R3:
Future Grand Juries must understand they alone have full authority to make decisions concernin
R5:
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F23:
The 2000-2001 Foreperson testified the GJ staff person tried to dissuade him from allowing a juror to address the full panel regarding Grand Jury procedures.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R1:
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury has taken the following corrective actions. The GJ staff person: a. no longer has input in selection of committee members and chairs. b. has been removed from full panel meetings. c. no longer edits handbook without the direction of the Grand Jury. d. no longer prepares agendas and minutes without the direction of the Foreperson or Recording Secretary.
R3:
Future Grand Juries must understand they alone have full authority to make decisions concernin
R5:
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F24:
The GJ staff person was not questioned regarding the issues in #23 and #24 above.
F25:
GJ staff person prompted County Counsel to write a letter to the Grand Jury Foreperson insisting that the current methodology viewing a finding as a fact was to be kept intact.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
The 2002-2003 CGJ should conduct a study of the final report writing methodology Aa fin COMPLAINT #2: A Letter of Complaint from a local elected official asking:
F26:
Berkeley graduate student interviewed GJ staff person and testified that GJ staff person told him she: a. attended full panel meetings b. controlled agendas for upcoming meetings c. wrote the Grand Jury Handbook
Recomendaciones relacionadas (4)
R1:
The 2001-2002 Grand Jury has taken the following corrective actions. The GJ staff person: a. no longer has input in selection of committee members and chairs. b. has been removed from full panel meetings. c. no longer edits handbook without the direction of the Grand Jury. d. no longer prepares agendas and minutes without the direction of the Foreperson or Recording Secretary.
R3:
Future Grand Juries must understand they alone have full authority to make decisions concernin
R4:
The section of the Grand Jury Handbook pertaining to GJ staff person should be edited to read: The
R5:
Future Grand Juries need to immediately: a. review the Grand Jury Handbook--edit and revise as necessary. b. establish the methods and procedures for selecting committees and committee chairs. c. elect one member as the Recording Secretary for full panel meetings.
F27:
Berkeley graduate student testified GJ staff person showed him a confidential document from case file 01-10-C.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F28:
In testimony, GJ staff person denied sharing a confidential document, and remembers only discussing the selection process and the final report with the Berkeley graduate student. 10
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F29:
GJ staff person then testified the confidential document might have been on her desk, and the student could have looked at it when she left the room.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F30:
Court Administrator testified the Assistant DA gave the GJ staff person permission to use the title of Grand Jury Administrator. CONCLUSIONS The Civil Grand Jury concluded that:
F31:
The 2000-2001 Grand Jury Foreperson testified that the Mayor=s letter was a privileged document and should not have been released.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F32:
County Counsel testified to requesting and receiving a copy of Mayor=s letter as well as the Foreperson=s response from GJ staff person.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F33:
County Counsel testified he should have asked the Foreperson rather than the GJ staff person for a copy of the Mayor=s letter.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F34:
County Counsel testified he agreed with the following statements in a Modesto Bee article dated November 20, 2001 in which he was quoted: a. The Mayor=s letter to the Grand Jury was not confidential and was subject to the Public Records Act because: (1) The Mayor=s letter was on City of Modesto letterhead. (2) The letter had been discussed in numerous public conversations and on the radio. b. He had not released a copy of the letter to a current BOS member.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F35:
The Mayor testified that his letter was already printed in the Modesto Bee prior to his discussing it on a radio program. 16
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F36:
The Mayor testified he called the Court Administrator and the DA to ask if his letter was confidential.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F37:
County Counsel testified he called the BOS member suggesting the letter be removed from his website due to public controversy.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F38:
County Counsel testified in retrospect he wished he had not advised the Supervisor to place the letter on the website.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F39:
County Counsel testified to the following eight (8) points as the basis he used to declare the Modesto Mayor=s letter to the 2000-2001 Civil Grand Jury and response to the Modesto Mayor by 2000-2001 Foreperson of the Civil Grand Jury as public information A...under the Public Records Act@: a. AFirst and foremost, California Law is very clear under the public records law that release of documents should be released to the public.@ [sic] b. ASecond, these two letters were discussed publicly by the Mayor ... on a public news radio station.@ c. AThird, by Mayor... publically discussing the letters and their contents in public on at least two occasions, any claim of confidentiality was eliminated in my opinion.@ A...there=s a Government Code Section 6254.5 that talks about if the documents are made public, they lose their confidentiality.@ d. AFourth, Mayor ... further discussed these two letters in the public forum on July 9th during the Civil Grand Jury orientation, once again placing these letters in the public domain.@ e. AFive, to the best of my knowledge, no laws in the State of California that apply...or clearly state that these two letters were confidential. The letters were not a part of a Civil Grand Jury investigation.@ f. ASix, the fact that Mayor...used City of Modesto letterhead and that the document was signed as Mayor makes the May 16, 2001 letter to the Grand Jury foreperson a public document which is subject to release under the Public Records Act. The response that was sent back from the Grand Jury foreperson to Mayor ... at the city address at City Hall then became part of the public record and those documents were subject to disclosure under the public records law.@ g. ASeven, Mayor ... letter of May 16th, as indicated earlier, did not rise to the level of a Grand Jury complaint or Grand Jury matter where confidentiality attaches.@ h. ANumber Eight, and last, I applied the appropriate balancing test also that is prescribed under California law in favor of not having secret communication and having all documents that are not specifically exempted under the Public Records Act or other applicable laws made available to the public.@
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F40:
The Presiding Judge, Superior Court suggested that the 2001-2002 Civil Grand Jury might wish to investigate the matter of confidentiality. CONCLUSIONS 17 The Civil Grand Jury concluded that:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F41:
After reviewing this document, CGJ Foreperson expressed his concern and annoyance to County Counsel that he (County Counsel) would make such a request of the GJ staff person without his knowledge or that of the Presiding Judge. 22
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F42:
In testimony, County Counsel denied that he received calls from 2001-2002 CGJ Foreperson voicing concerns regarding the presentation of this statement.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F43:
In testimony, County Counsel then recalled the conversation, but could not remember if he told the Foreperson there was or was not going to be a presentation to the BOS.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F44:
CGJ Foreperson notified County Counsel that since the document contained confidential grand jury information he was opposed to the presentation.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F45:
CGJ Foreperson informed the Presiding Judge who subsequently notified County Counsel of his opposition to said document in writing.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F46:
County Counsel later informed CGJ Foreperson (by calling his home that weekend) the presentation had been reconsidered and would not occur.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F47:
County Counsel testified that GJ staff person has the right as a citizen to appear before the BOS during public comment period and make any statements she wants.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F48:
County Counsel then testified GJ staff person has no legal right to make public statements if it would reveal confidential Grand Jury business.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F49:
CEO testified that he was aware that the GJ staff person wanted to make a presentation to the BOS regarding case file 01-10-C.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F50:
Two (2) 2000-2001 CGJ members testified that GJ staff person released confidential information to them regarding the reopening of Grand Jury case 01-10- C.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F51:
In testimony, GJ staff person denied sharing with anyone the fact that the 2001-2002 CGJ was reopening a 2000-2001 Grand Jury case.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F52:
In testimony, 2000-2001 Grand Jury member admits calling a current Grand Jury member regarding the reopening of CGJ case 01-10-C.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F53:
GJ staff person testified to sharing with prior grand jurors that she was under investigation.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F54:
Four (4) 2000-2001 Grand Jurors testified receiving information from the GJ staff person that she was being investigated by the 2001-2002 Grand Jury.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F55:
A 2001-2002 Grand Juror committee chairperson states that the GJ staff person tried on three (3) occasions to dissuade him from continuing an investigation regarding a County agency.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F56:
The GJ staff person questioned a 2001-2002 Grand Juror regarding the progress of an ongoing investigation which involved her.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F57:
A former local radio talk show host testified to a conversation with GJ staff person during which she told him that everything she did was approved by County Counsel. 23
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F58:
The 2001-2002 Foreperson stated that on January 23, 2002, GJ staff person questioned and challenged him after being instructed to retrieve previous grand jury records.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F59:
In testimony, GJ staff person admitted questioning the Foreperson on January 23, 2002 regarding his need for requested Grand Jury records.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F60:
Approximately two (2) hours after the request for records, County Counsel called Foreperson to inform him that GJ staff person had filed a hostile work environment complaint due to interference in performing her job.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F61:
County Counsel testified GJ staff person forwarded a written hostile work environment complaint to the CEO.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F62:
CEO testified that the GJ staff person met with Deputy Executive Officer and County Counsel regarding a hostile work environment complaint, but to his knowledge a formal complaint was not filed.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F63:
Deputy Executive Officer testified she was on leave from December 7, 2001 through January 22, 2002 when the purported complaint was made. She had no contact with the GJ staff person until early April 2002, and has never received a hostile work environment complaint from GJ staff.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F64:
Court Administrator and GJ staff person had disagreements over the secretarial position; the staff person wanted the position to be considered full time.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F65:
The DA testified that the GJ staff person, a Confidential Assistant IV, informed him that she was working out of class and should be a management employee.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F66:
The most recent formal job classification study of the GJ staff position was conducted by Melson and Boggs on June 20, 1997.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F67:
Melson and Boggs= report regarding the GJ staff position job classification study, dated June 24, 1997, concluded the position should remain as a Senior Executive Secretary (now known as Confidential Assistant IV).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F68:
GJ staff person was promoted to Manager II position on September 22, 2001. Job description has changed and now staff person is reporting to the Deputy Executive Officer for administrative purposes.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F69:
CEO testified Deputy Executive Officer is assigned to work with GJ staff person regarding issues of budget, personnel and administrative matters.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F70:
CEO testified that GJ staff person was previously under direct supervision of the Presiding Judge and the Court Administrator.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F71:
In testimony, GJ staff person reported as of January 2001, after a Legislative change was made to court employees, a letter by Presiding Judge told her she would remain a County employee.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F72:
GJ staff person testified she is aware she reports to the Grand Jury foreperson, the 24 Presiding Judge, and the Court Administrator.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F73:
A prior Grand Juror testified that GJ staff person discussed being intimidated by the Court Administrator.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F74:
A prior Grand Juror testified she spoke with DA and Superior Court Deputy Executive Officer regarding the GJ staff person not wanting to work for the Court Administrator.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F75:
Court Administrator testified that CGJ needs the staff person reporting to CGJ Foreperson, not the County.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F76:
GJ staff person testified she would prefer to report to the DA rather than the Court.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F77:
The GJ staff person testified that she was informed by the Court Administrator to report directly to him instead of the Presiding Judge.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F78:
County Counsel testified Athe Court and the Grand Jury made a mistake@ in its
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F79:
County Counsel testified had he been present when the CEO was notified of the Grand Jury request for reassignment of the GJ staff person, he would have advised him against taking this action.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
F80:
After reviewing documents received from Auditor-Controller=s office, dated January 2001 through June 2001, regarding Civil and Criminal Grand Jury expenditures, the names of confidential witnesses were discovered on invoices.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R7:
This report be referred to the California State Attorney General=s office to review for possible criminal violations.
R8:
All billings and invoices must be screened for redaction or masking of names or other confidential evidentiary information prior to their release.
F81:
The 2001-2002 CGJ members discovered that archived CGJ records were stored in a poorly secured area shared with another Stanislaus County agency.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
The Court locate a secure CGJ storage facility for archived Grand Jury records. Access to this location should be controlled by the Presiding Judge.
F82:
The 2001-2002 CGJ was not kept informed of, nor had input into, Grand Jury budget matters. CONCLUSIONS The CGJ concluded that:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Outgoing CGJs should have input into the preparation of the budget for the following year=s CGJ. RESPONSE REQUIRED per Section 933 [c] and 933.05 of the California Penal Code: Stanislaus County Chief Executive Office. Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors. 2002-2003 Civil Grand Jury This Final Report will be available for public review on the Civil Grand Jury website located at: http://www.co.stanislaus.ca.us/COURTS/courts/grandjury/index.html and at the Stanislaus County Main Library 1500 I Street, Modesto, California 95354. '933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury Recommendations [c] No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge 27 of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. '933.05 Response to Grand Jury Recommendations--Content Requirements A. Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code requires that a responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding(s); or (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding(s). If this response is chosen, the respondent will specify that portion of the
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
15 hallazgos
F1:
The Men=s Jail is a maximum-security facility built in 1955. There are three (3) floors, a basement and a rooftop exercise area.
F2:
The maximum capacity of the Men=s Jail is 392 inmates. The current population, on the date of inspection, was 357 inmates.
F3:
Three hundred twenty-six of the beds are maximum security. 2
F4:
In addition to inmate housing, the Men=s Jail provides: a. A secure medical treatment area staffed by CFMG twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. b. A kitchen facility that receives and processes meals sent from the Central Kitchen at the Public Safety Center. c. A non-contact visitors room. d. A booking area that includes holding cells and a suicide watch cell for detainees not yet processed. e. An updated law library made available to all inmates upon request. f. Inmate commissary.
F5:
Inmate welfare funds, which are monies from the commissary and telephones, fund inmate programs.
F6:
Stanislaus County received a Violent Offender grant in October 1997 to repair the Men=s Jail. The grant stipulated that the jail would be used for an additional ten (10) years.
F7:
This grant was used in 1998 to replace inadequate security control panels, interior doors and to add an exterior security gate. In addition, Arepeaters@ have been made available to enable the custodial staff to maintain continuous radio contact.
F8:
The Men=s Jail is housed in an aged building requiring continual repairs to maintain safety. According to CSBOC, the Men=s Jail is Ain dire need of overhaul@. The areas of plumbing and fixtures, electrical and lighting, and ventilation and showers were specifically cited as needing attention.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
A Needs Assessment Plan for replacing the current facility be finalized by 2004. The plan would include cost estimates, funding resources and a completion date.
R2:
Maintenance issues need to be addressed in a timely manner.
F9:
Maintenance issues are reported to, and handled by, Stanislaus County Public Works.
F10:
The Men=s Jail has a secure tunnel that runs from the basement of the jail to the basement of the Stanislaus County Superior Court, which houses a holding cell. Inmates scheduled for a court appearance are transferred through this tunnel to maintain public safety. Inmates are held in the holding cell until called into the courtroom.
F11:
The Men=s Jail has a persistent contraband problem, most notably illegal drugs and cigarettes.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Improve lighting of the perimeter fences to deter the flow of contraband into the facility. This will also increase overall security. Stanislaus County Juvenile Hall inspected December 13, 2001:
F12:
Work-related injuries are a main factor contributing to staff shortages. CONCLUSIONS
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Sheriff=s Department continues to review the existing policy regarding disability leave, investigate the actual costs of the current program and find less costly solutions. Stanislaus County Public Safety Center inspected January 25, 2002:
F13:
Every minor admitted to Juvenile Hall is also given a mental health evaluation for the purpose of identifying suicide risks.
F14:
Nutrition and physical exercise are part of the daily routine.
F15:
Presently, the booking, fingerprinting, interview room and clerical staff are located in one large, open area. CONCLUSIONS
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
16 hallazgos
F1:
It is common that family members will choose the same career interests and will often work in the same public safety department.
F2:
The KFD by-laws state, AAny person who resides within a ten (10) minute response time of the Keyes Fire Station may obtain a membership application from the Chief...@ (Section B, , Recruitment of Members).
F3:
At least one application, dated 6/23/00, was rejected due to the applicant living Aout of district.@ Testimony revealed three (3) other applicants also were denied a position because they resided Aout of district.@
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Chief apply the by-laws equally among all members of KFD.
F4:
The Chief=s son, who is a member of KFD, resided at an address approximately two (2) blocks south of Tuolumne Boulevard in the City of Modesto from 1997 through March 2001.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Chief apply the by-laws equally among all members of KFD.
F5:
Testimony indicated that it took between thirteen (13) and twenty-five (25) minutes to drive from the Tuolumne Boulevard address to KFD. The driving distance is eight and one-half (8-1/2) miles. Members of the Civil Grand Jury made this drive on four (4) separate occasions with travel times between eleven (11) and fifteen (15) minutes. This was performed under normal driving conditions while obeying posted speed limits.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Chief apply the by-laws equally among all members of KFD.
F6:
The Chief=s son filed a written request for leave of absence on 11/18/97 and filed a doctor=s release to return to work on 7/07/98.
F7:
According to court documents filed with the Stanislaus County Superior Court (case #29507 - Income and Expense Declaration) dated 7/03/01, the Chief=s son indicated that he was receiving disability payments and had not worked since 6/17/99.
F8:
In a letter dated 5/19/01, the Social Security Administration advised the Chief=s son 4 that, according to their records, he became disabled on 2/11/00 and was entitled to receive benefits as of August 2000. As of 2/27/02, the Chief=s son was still receiving disability payments.
F9:
A review of the KFD Participation Detail by Staff Report indicates the Chief=s son participated in 156 calls from November 2000 through March 2001.
F10:
For at least five (5) years prior to January 2001, KFD had a vacancy in the position of Second Assistant Chief. When the Chief=s son returned to work from a leave of absence, he was promoted to fill this position.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Chief and all members of KFD review and understand Federal law regarding equal employment opportunities.
F11:
Although the Chief has the final authority for promotions, it was usual for him to request input from the Assistant Chief and Captains. Two (2) of the four (4) Captains stated they were never consulted about the promotion and, if they had been, they would not have recommended the Chief=s son for the position.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2:
The Chief consult with his command staff and seek their input prior to making promotions.
R3:
The Chief and all members of KFD review and understand Federal law regarding equal employment opportunities.
F12:
There is no formal testing process for promotions.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Chief and all members of KFD review and understand Federal law regarding equal employment opportunities.
F13:
Five (5) of the seven (7) volunteers interviewed believed that the Chief=s daughter- in-law received preferential treatment. a. The volunteers detailed an instance where the Chief=s daughter-in-law did not want to participate in a training scenario. When the training officer told her she had to participate, the Chief overruled him and threatened to cancel training if the matter was pursued. b. Other instances were detailed where the Chief=s daughter-in-law did not take an active role at the scene of emergencies.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Chief and all members of KFD review and understand Federal law regarding equal employment opportunities.
F14:
The Chief admitted he gives women firefighters preferential treatment.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Chief and all members of KFD review and understand Federal law regarding equal employment opportunities.
F15:
The Chief=s son (Assistant Chief) stated that he responds to emergency calls but, due to physical limitations, selects which duties he can and cannot perform.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Fire department personnel dispatched to the scene of an emergency have the ability to perform all required firefighting and lifesaving functions. COMPLAINT #2 - LACK OF LEADERSHIP ON THE PART OF THE KFD CHIEF:
F16:
There have been several times when the Chief, his son and one (1) firefighter have been the only persons from KFD to respond to emergency calls. CONCLUSIONS The Civil Grand Jury concluded that:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Fire department personnel dispatched to the scene of an emergency have the ability to perform all required firefighting and lifesaving functions. COMPLAINT #2 - LACK OF LEADERSHIP ON THE PART OF THE KFD CHIEF:
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R5:
Commissioners of KFPD evaluate the needs of the community and determine if KFD meets those needs. COMPLAINT #3 - MISLEADING INFORMATION ON ONE (1) EMPLOYEE=S EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION:
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
12 hallazgos
F1:
Reclassifications were based on the intent SCBOS to simplify SCCSA staff structure, streamline overall department operations, and produce a workforce better equipped to provide client services. These changes not only met the legal requirements of the new system, but also reflected the spirit of welfare reform.
F2:
SCCSA employed a consulting firm, CPS, to assist in the reclassification study. The CPS study involved meetings with a panel composed of management and non- management employees. Periodic informational meetings with employees and their bargaining units were held during the development of the reclassification plan and after its implementation to familiarize SCCSA employees with the new system.
F3:
As part of the reclassification plan, an internship position was created. This internship was created to provide an interim job classification until new educational 3 requirements were met to become an FSS. An employee who meets the experience requirements of the new position, but does not meet educational requirements, may elect to become an intern. As an intern, an employee will receive a two percent (2%) pay increase until educational requirements are met. Once educational requirements are met, an employee is given the FSS title and moved to the FSS salary range.
F4:
Each new job classification has five (5) pay steps. For example, FSSIII is a new classification with five (5) pay steps. If employees do not meet the education requirements of an FSSIII, they can become an FSSIII intern.
F5:
When employees were moved from their current classification to an internship, they were given internship pay. Some employees were inadvertently placed in the third step rather than the second step of the pay scale. This administrative error was discovered after two (2) pay periods and explained to the affected employees in a letter dated September 19, 2001. All errors were subsequently corrected. CONCLUSIONS The Civil Grand Jury concluded that:
F6:
CPS recommended against the concept of grandfathering for the following reasons: a. While SCCSA=s rationale for the grandfathering is that some employees are Aalready doing the job@, the scope of these jobs is expanding significantly in most areas. b. If grandfathering is allowed, employees will be going into a new classification when they do not meet the minimum qualifications. These employees will not have met the educational requirements to be promoted to any higher class in the series. c. Job titles and duties from current positions to new positions are often different. Many employees in the new job classification plan will have more diverse duties requiring greater skills. d. SCCSA desires to promote education within the ranks and feels that education in certain areas will enhance an employee=s performance in their new job classification.
F7:
SCCSA, realizing that some employees did not meet educational requirements of their new classification, assisted these employees by providing work time for study and funds for purchasing books.
F8:
SCCSA provided instructors and on-site classrooms so employees could take their required college courses. 5
F9:
Employees desiring to meet new educational requirements may have to spend some of their own money and attend courses on off-duty time.
F10:
The reclassification plan took three years to implement.
F11:
Employee labor groups participated in the reclassification process.
F12:
Informational newsletters were printed and distributed to employees throughout the reclassification process. CONCLUSIONS
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
23 hallazgos
F1:
THS and TJUHSD staff cooperated fully during the Grand Jury investigation of the allegations.
F2:
THS conduct of interscholastic athletic activities, including coaching, is based upon the Education Code (Sections 35179-35179.7) and Title V, CCR, Sections 5590-
F3:
TJUHSD Board of Education has established and published policies and procedures regarding its philosophy, goals, and safety standards affecting curricular and extracurricular activities within the district.
F4:
THS coaching certification requirements include knowledge in basic first aid, CPR, and coaching theory and techniques.
F5:
THS coaches annually sign CIF certifications stipulating to their knowledge and understanding of policies and regulations governing their responsibilities.
F6:
In compliance with Title 5, CCR, Section 5593, the THS principal must submit verification annually that active coaches have successfully completed certification requirements.
F7:
In compliance with Title 5, CCR, Section 5593, the TJUHSD Board President annually reviews and signs THS certification verifications. The certification 4 verifications are then mailed to the State Board of Education in Sacramento and a copy is mailed to the Superintendent of the Stanislaus County Office of Education.
F8:
THS employs a full-time athletic trainer to work with the school=s teams. This individual is certified by the National Athletic Trainers Association (NATA) and has served as THS trainer for nearly four years.
F9:
THS is a participant in the CIF program APursuing Victory With Honor.@ The program specifies standards that coaches, athletic directors, and administrators of participating schools agree to support. The program=s sixteen (16) principles are designed to promote sportsmanship and character building in interscholastic athletics.
F10:
All participants are required to sign an agreement indicating their understanding of this program=s principles and objectives, however, the APursuing Victory With Honor@ agreement was only signed by the THS principal.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
All TJUHSD coaches and student athletes sign and support the APursuing Victory With Honor@ agreement.
F11:
In 2001, all THS coaching staff attended the APositive Coaching Alliance@ workshop. a. The workshop was conducted by a nonprofit organization based at Stanford University. b. The program focuses on developing life skills for athletes that will serve them beyond the playing field. c. One of its goals is to assist sports organization leaders, coaches, and parents to provide a positive and favorable athletic environment.
F12:
District policy provides that, prior to taking part in interscholastic activities, all participants must be examined by a physician and medically approved for such participation.
F13:
Student athletes who are under eighteen (18) years of age require the permission of a parent to participate in THS sports.
F14:
Student athletes participate in preconditioning sessions prior to engaging in scheduled THS sports.
F15:
THS coaches are responsible for the conditioning, well being, and safety of student athletes under their supervision.
F16:
To recognize and prevent injuries or illness to student athletes, coaches are required to attend continuing education training conducted by the athletic trainer or district-approved organizations. Such training includes issues relating to athlete conditioning and health. 5
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
TJUHSD and THS administrators maintain their emphasis of providing continuing education in student athlete conditioning, as well as the tenets of good sportsmanship.
F17:
In July 2001, allegations of inappropriate behavior by some coaches were presented to TJUHSD Board of Trustees at a regularly scheduled meeting. These allegations purported that student athletes were being placed at risk for physical injuries and emotional trauma.
F18:
TJUHSD investigated allegations presented to the Board of Trustees at its July 2001 meeting with no conclusive action made known to the Civil Grand Jury.
F19:
Student athletes in water polo use the term AHell Week@ to refer to the week of intensive conditioning and practice prior to the opening of the school term.
F20:
The term AGauntlet,@ as defined by THS, is a team-imposed disciplinary action taken against a student athlete making a mistake in a swim meet resulting in a penalty. This practice has been discontinued and is no longer allowed.
F21:
One (1) student athlete sustained a medical condition that resulted in hospitalization after preconditioning sessions which were held over a two and one- half (2-1/2) day period.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
TJUHSD and THS educate students and coaches to recognize athletes= physical limitations and encourage athletes to notify the proper authority of any health problems. COMPLAINT #4: 7 THS allowed ineligible players to participate in interscholastic sports.
F22:
This student athlete did not communicate with coaching staff that he was feeling ill and could not continue practice.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
TJUHSD and THS continue to encourage communications among teachers, coaching staff, student athletes, administration, and parents.
F23:
THS teachers, counselors, coaches, and administrative personnel communicated and worked together to fulfill this student=s request for transfer from one high school to another. CONCLUSIONS The Civil Grand Jury concluded that:
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
18 hallazgos
F1:
The Grand Jury received the full cooperation from the County and its employees in requests for information and documentation.
F2:
BBR validated the financial statements of the County which had been prepared by the Auditor-Controller for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001.
F3:
The Stanislaus County Mid-Year Report presented to the SCBOS indicates the need to make budget adjustments due to increasing costs, as well as anticipated revenue reductions. Adjustments are necessary, primarily due to the State=s projected financial deficit, which will greatly affect the revenues the County will receive.
F4:
Those employees interviewed and those whom the Grand Jury visited during the internal purchasing card audit procedure were aware of the County Purchase Card Program and Policies.
F5:
There are thirty-one (31) departments in the County that have purchase cards. As of February 26, 2002, there are 1,673 employees that have active purchase cards. Some employees have more than one active card.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R4:
The County develop criteria to reduce the number of outstanding credit cards - thirty-four percent (34%) of all County employees currently have a credit card. A review of card limits with appropriate reductions should occur annually.
R5:
The internal auditors review the process for cancellation of purchase cards when a County employee resigns, retires, or transfers to another department, or when a card is lost or stolen. These cards are to be returned to the Auditor-Controller=s office and immediately de-activated.
F6:
The CEO has verbally directed the Auditor-Controller=s office to obtain his approval for all purchase card limits over $10,000.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R3:
Purchase cards with limits of $5,000 or more must be approved in writing by the department head, the Auditor-Controller, and the CEO. This written policy needs to be implemented by October 1, 2002.
R7:
Travel and purchase card transactions of all department heads, including the CEO, be approved by their respective supervisor(s).
F7:
As of February 2002, eighteen (18) departments had issued 1,677 purchase cards with a combined credit of $5,168,500. Sixty-seven (67) of those cards have limits exceeding $5,000 distributed as follows: 1 at $ 6,000 = $ 6,000 6 at 7,000 = 42,000 4 9 at 7,500 = 67,500 2 at 8,000 = 16,000 34 at 10,000 = 340,000 1 at 15,000 = 15,000 2 at 20,000 = 40,000 1 at 25,000 = 25,000 4 at 30,000 = 120,000 6 at 50,000 = 300,000 1 at 70,000 = 70,000 67 $1,041,500
F8:
The majority of the departments= purchase cards are kept in a locked drawer or cabinet as recommended by the County. These cards are maintained by a designated employee.
F9:
Two (2) of the Library personnel interviewed allowed another person to use their credit card and a third person knew of the practice.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2:
Management enforce the policy that no employee shall allow another to use their purchase card. 8
R10:
The Purchase Card Audit Report, prepared by the internal auditors with departmental responses, should be forwarded to the SCBOS for their review.
F10:
All Library credit cards are kept in a locked safe and employees are required to sign for them.
F11:
The fiscal impact of the County Purchasing Card Program as reported by the SCBOS Action Agenda Summary dated August 7, 2001 is as follows: a. The program purportedly saved $2,000,000 per year in transaction costs and an additional $2,000,000 in discounts. b. This $4,000,000 total savings had been extrapolated from a September 27, 1994 action to implement a Total Quality Management (TQM) program. c. In 1994, the estimated savings was to be between $189,000 and $207,000 per year. d. The TQM program included a recommendation that employees use credit cards to purchase items costing less than $1,000.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
A complete analysis of the Purchase Card Program be conducted to determine actual savings to the County, if any. Cost factors should include time spent researching and approving purchases, ordering, checking invoices, approving payments, and checking with the appropriate departments (MIS, Purchasing, or Emergency Dispatch) to determine the best price/vendor. Internal audits, inventory control, and any other relevant costs associated with the purchase should also be determined.
F12:
Contrary to County policy, employees failed to obtain competitive quotes prior to 5 making credit card purchases.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The County continue to educate employees on purchase card policies and emphasize the necessity to reconcile, review, and approve the Transaction Detail Reports within ten (10) days of receipt. This should be the number one priority of each department.
R14:
Each department have one (1) employee assigned to purchase office supplies. More expensive items should be ordered through the Purchasing Department. 9
F13:
Those interviewed who use credit cards instead of the Purchasing Department listed the following major reasons for use: a. Convenience: Prior to credit card use, an employee had to prepare a purchase order and a check request. The Library Accounting Department typed it and sent it to the Audit-Controller=s office to have a check prepared and mailed. The transaction had to be entered into two (2) computer software systems--Dynex and Oracle. b. Timely transaction: Prices change rapidly which is costly. c. Responsiveness: The Purchasing Department has not been responsive in the past. d. Employee time: Follow-up is redundant, time consuming and non- productive.
F14:
The County has eleven (11) satellite libraries. With the exception of Denair, each has a non-interest bearing checking account at a local bank. a. Funds collected from book sales and fines are deposited in these accounts. b. Checks are written on these accounts and deposited in the County treasury. c. Denair delivers their funds directly to the County treasury. d. A delay of up to six (6) months has occurred before library funds were transferred to the County=s interest bearing account. e. An estimated $40,000 was being held in these non-interest bearing accounts.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R12:
Satellite library funds and any other funds held in departmental bank accounts must be transferred into the County treasury on a monthly basis.
F15:
Of the five (5) Library employees interviewed, only one (1) uses the Purchasing Department services.
F16:
The internal purchase card audit discovered two (2) transactions for meals that were charged by a Library employee on a purchase card. These same transactions were also reimbursed through the payroll system in the same amounts.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R6:
Travel and expense forms be consistent within all County departments. The Sheriff=s Department has established an excellent model for expense reports that could be used.
R8:
Receipts for all meals showing date, place and amount must be attached to time cards when requesting reimbursement. An explanation of the business activity should be included along with names of others in attendance.
R15:
Timecards that request expense reimbursement should be reviewed by internal auditors to insure proper documentation. RESPONSE REQUIRED per Section 933[c] and 933.05 of the California Penal Code: Stanislaus County Chief Executive Officer Auditor-Controller Stanislaus County Librarian This Final Report will be available for public review on the Civil Grand Jury website located at: http://www.co.stanislaus.ca.us/COURTS/courts/grandjury/index.html and at the Stanislaus County Main Library, 1500 I Street, Modesto, California 95354. '933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury Recommendations [c] No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on 10 file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. '933.05 Response to Grand Jury Recommendations--Content Requirements A. Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code requires that a responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding(s); or (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding(s). If this response is chosen, the respondent will specify that portion of the
F17:
Library supply inventories are locked in a room, however, any Library employee is allowed access for convenience. The computer equipment is also under lock and key, and three (3) employees have keys to access the room.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R13:
The Library supplies inventory be locked at all times with one person made responsible to disburse items as needed.
F18:
A 2002 internal audit discovered that seventy-three (73) receipts were missing out of 6 2,155 transactions. Of those departments with missing receipts, thirty-one (31) were from the office of the CEO. The majority of all receipts were found at a later date and given to the proper individual, but they were not available at the time of audit. CONCLUSIONS The Civil Grand Jury concluded that:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
The County maintain internal audit staffing at the present level and add additional personnel as growth dictates.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
24 hallazgos
F1:
According to the California Health and Safety Code Section 1441, the County may establish a county hospital; however, it is not required to do so.
F2:
For financial reasons, the County closed Stanislaus Medical Center and sub- contracted all hospital services to Tenet through the Omnibus Agreement.
F3:
The Omnibus Agreement, signed November 30, 1997 by the CEO of Stanislaus County and the CEO of DMC, outlines each party=s responsibilities and duties pertaining to health care in Stanislaus County as outlined below: a. This is a twenty (20) year agreement with automatic renewals each year thereafter. b. Tenet can cancel the agreement if the County fails to pay any amount due DMC. c. ADMC shall be the exclusive supplier to the County of all inpatient services required by County for the patients of the Clinics mostly at MediCal rates, emergency care and certain other free support functions for law enforcement and the coroner.@ d. DMC paid $12,000,000.00 to the County for this exclusive right as stipulated in this agreement. e. DMC and the County shall jointly publicize that DMC now provides the health care services the County once provided. f. For those patients at DMC who become qualified as eligible indigents, the County will pay for inpatient care (subject to free patient days) retroactive to the date of the inpatient admission at DMC. The County does not pay for emergency care or related transportation.
F4:
If patients are found to be ineligible for any County program and have no insurance, they shall be considered part of DMC=s normal charity care.
F5:
Because DMC operates as a hospital, it cannot refuse to see any patient based on ability to pay as required in the Emergency Medical and Treatment Active Labor Act (EMTALA).
F6:
The Omnibus Agreement does not address the issue of payment of emergency room physicians= fees.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
CERP seek restitution from DMC for unreimbursed expenses and/or uncollectable fees.
R6:
Routine meetings be re-established to discuss ongoing patient issues and improve the level of communication between DMC and the County. CERP should be included in these discussions.
F7:
There is no written agreement between the County and CERP.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
CERP seek restitution from DMC for unreimbursed expenses and/or uncollectable fees.
R6:
Routine meetings be re-established to discuss ongoing patient issues and improve the level of communication between DMC and the County. CERP should be included in these discussions.
F8:
Prior to the signing of the Omnibus Agreement, the CEO of DMC stated publicly at a Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors meeting that DMC would cover all costs related to ER services. 3
F9:
The California Healthcare for Indigents Program and Rural Health Services Program (Proposition 99) allocates funds to participating counties. These funds are collected from a tobacco tax imposed on cigarettes.
F10:
Senate Bill 2132 (SB2132) and Assembly Bill 75 (AB75) define how funds collected by Proposition 99 can be used.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
CERP continue to seek reimbursement from Stanislaus Foundation for Medical Care for monies provided by state legislation.
F11:
The State of California Maddy Fund, created by Senate Bill 612 (SB612), has available funding for emergency medical services including emergency room physicians= fees.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
CERP continue to seek reimbursement from Stanislaus Foundation for Medical Care for monies provided by state legislation.
F12:
Funds from these legislative actions are distributed by the Stanislaus Foundation for Medical Care.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
CERP continue to seek reimbursement from Stanislaus Foundation for Medical Care for monies provided by state legislation.
F13:
In California, hospitals cannot employ physicians; therefore, all ER physicians must contract with the hospital to use the facilities. DMC contracted with CERP to fulfill this obligation.
F14:
The services provided by the ER physicians are billed separately by CERP.
F15:
DMC bills patients separately for rooms, equipment and supplies.
F16:
It is the responsibility of DMC to insure that the emergency room is staffed.
F17:
The County has never paid for, nor is it obligated to pay for, emergency services for MIA patients.
F18:
From the documents produced by the complainant, the $659,352.00 in billing fees were for CERP services only.
F19:
The County=s eleven (11) health care clinics are designed to handle non-emergency health care issues.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R3:
County clinic referrals to DMC ER should only be given to patients who warrant emergency treatment.
R4:
The County extend the hours at the health care clinics to enhance patient services and to lessen the non-emergency patient load in the emergency rooms throughout the county.
F20:
The County health care clinics, as well as the urgent care(s), are not required to treat patients before checking their ability to pay.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R5:
The County actively publicize and promote the clinic locations, types of services available, and fees. This information should be available in all clinic locations.
R7:
SCHSA aggressively identify and enroll eligible MIA residents.
R8:
The County=s internal auditors provide annual oversight in the MIA eligibility process. RESPONSE REQUIRED per Section 933 [c] and 933.05 of the California Penal Code: Stanislaus County Health Services Agency (SCHSA). This final report will be available for public review on the Civil Grand Jury website located at: http://www.co.stanislaus.ca.us/COURTS/courts/grandjury/index.html and at the Stanislaus County Main Library, 1500 I Street, Modesto, California 95354. '933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury Recommendations [c] No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to 6 matters under the control of the governing body, and every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. '933.05 Response to Grand Jury Recommendations--Content Requirements A. Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code requires that a responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding(s); or (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding(s). If this response is chosen, the respondent will specify that portion of the
F21:
The County health care clinics charge a fee for MIA patients determined by their ability to pay. There is a sliding scale fee based on the number of family members, asset limits and income.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R5:
The County actively publicize and promote the clinic locations, types of services available, and fees. This information should be available in all clinic locations.
R7:
SCHSA aggressively identify and enroll eligible MIA residents.
R8:
The County=s internal auditors provide annual oversight in the MIA eligibility process. RESPONSE REQUIRED per Section 933 [c] and 933.05 of the California Penal Code: Stanislaus County Health Services Agency (SCHSA). This final report will be available for public review on the Civil Grand Jury website located at: http://www.co.stanislaus.ca.us/COURTS/courts/grandjury/index.html and at the Stanislaus County Main Library, 1500 I Street, Modesto, California 95354. '933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury Recommendations [c] No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to 6 matters under the control of the governing body, and every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. '933.05 Response to Grand Jury Recommendations--Content Requirements A. Section 933.05 of the California Penal Code requires that a responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding(s); or (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or in part with the finding(s). If this response is chosen, the respondent will specify that portion of the
F22:
All non-MIA patients are required to make a $40.00 (originally $50.00) co-payment before they are seen at the county health care clinics.
F23:
Two of these clinics receive federal funds which allow non-MIA patients to be seen 4 without a co-payment.
F24:
SCHSA has recently established a pilot program at DMC to help enroll eligible patients into the MIA program. CONCLUSIONS The Civil Grand Jury concluded that:
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
14 hallazgos
F1:
In May 1969, the City of Modesto and the ESD entered into an agreement for the treatment of sewage from the ESD. This agreement had an expiration period of thirty (30) years, expiring in May 1999. In that agreement, the City of Modesto agreed to accept sewage from the ESD.
F2:
In February 1999, the City of Modesto prepared an amendment to the agreement. This amendment stated the City of Modesto would agree to accept sewage from the ESD for another thirty (30) years. The agreement set the sewer charges in accordance with Modesto City Council Resolution #97-94.
F3:
In August 2001, the City of Modesto and the ESD renegotiated the agreement and entered into a new agreement. The new agreement terminated the original contract dated 1969 and also terminated all subsequent amendments to the original contract.
F4:
In the new agreement, the ESD agreed to pay rates corresponding to the amounts listed in Modesto City Council Resolution # 2000-581. Those amounts may be increased or decreased by the City of Modesto in accordance with future revisions made by Council resolution. The rate would be reduced by $0.92 per unit due to the fact that the ESD maintains its own system, and the City of Modesto does not perform maintenance on the system. In addition, the City of Modesto agreed to reduce the rate charged to ESD by $2.50 per unit for a period of twenty-four (24) months. The City of Modesto currently charges a billing fee of $0.30 per unit.
F5:
Prior to 1999, the City of Modesto charged the ESD $6.99 plus an additional billing fee of $0.39 for a single family residence. In February 1999, the amount was raised to $11.29. Commencing with the new agreement, in August 2001, the City of Modesto charged the ESD $12.19 per single family dwelling (minus $0.92 per dwelling).
F6:
On February 11, 1999, the ESDBOD increased the sewer rate for a single family dwelling from $6.67 per month to $11.29 per month.
F7:
On June 1, 1999, the ESDBOD increased the sewer rate for a single family dwelling from $11.29 per month to $17.16 per month. 4
F8:
On May 9, 2001, there was a proposal by the ESDBOD to increase the sewer rate for a single family dwelling from $17.16 per month to $23.17 per month.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
The ESDBOD should engage in a public awareness program to educate the residents of Empire of anticipated sewer rate increases and the reasons why such increases are necessary. COMPLAINT #2: 6 The ESDBOD raised the rates for sewer service and did not notify residents of the proposed increase.
F9:
A review of the budget and prior year=s actual income/expense statements indicated that the ESD budget shortfalls consisted of $11,224 in 1998, $9,317 in 1999, and $38,395 in 2000. Due to the $2.50 per unit refund from the City of Modesto, the budget does not expect shortfalls in the year 2001 and 2002.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The ESDBOD should employ a CPA or accounting firm that will inform the ESDBOD of budget restrictions, implications, and long-term impact of any proposed actions.
F10:
The budget indicated the ESD had increased maintenance fees in 1999.
F11:
Prior to 1999, the ESD had approximately $22,000-$25,000 in 90-day delinquent accounts that had not been collected. Due to collection efforts by the office manager, that figure was reduced to approximately $13,000-$14,000. These figures were reported in a letter from the City of Modesto to the office manager.
F12:
Testimony received indicated that, prior to 1999, delinquent accounts were not being tracked or collected.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
A procedure for collecting delinquent accounts should be formulated, adopted, and implemented as soon as possible. All customers should receive a written copy of this policy.
F13:
Board meeting minutes, dated July 11, 2001, indicate the ESDBOD unanimously approved the contract with the City of Modesto dated August 2001. Because of this contract, and the $5,000 anticipated monthly refund from the City of Modesto, the ESDBOD decided unanimously to cancel its proposed sewer rate increase of May 2001.
F14:
The City of Modesto indicated the ESD=s system was substandard based upon Modesto=s benchmarks. CONCLUSIONS The Civil Grand Jury concluded that:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R1:
The ESDBOD should have the City of Modesto perform a thorough examination of the sewer lines. This examination would determine what upgrades would be necessary to bring the system in compliance with the City of Modesto standards for comparable lines.
R2:
The ESDBOD should consult with an expert regarding the possibility of obtaining a grant for funds to upgrade the infrastructure as indicated by the City of Modesto report. The City of Modesto has indicated a willingness to assist in this endeavor.
R3:
If a grant is obtained, and the lines are upgraded, the ESD should consider contracting with the City of Modesto to take over all operations. This should result in a decrease of sewer rates to the residents of Empire.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
48 hallazgos
F1:
The Modesto City School Administration Staff and the Director of Special Education cooperated fully during the investigation of these complaints.
F2:
The Modesto City Schools(cid:31) Special Education employees interviewed were found to be conscientious, dedicated, knowledgeable and professional.
F3:
Prior to 2000, the Special Education staff members of the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) team, were required to prepare a three (3) year assessment on certain Special Education students.
F4:
The federal law was changed in the 1999-2000 school year to allow staff to waive the three (3) year assessment if they felt it was not necessary and the parent agreed with that decision.
F5:
To facilitate this change in the law, the MCS developed and implemented a form (MCS/SELPA 2-B: June 2000) where staff and parents could indicate by signature their agreement or disagreement to waive the full three (3) year assessment.
F6:
In May 2000 the California Department of Education (DOE) did a Correction Action Plan (CAP) Review on three (3) year assessments.
F7:
MCS was notified by the DOE that, as of December 1, 1999, two-hundred and 5 eighty (280) students had not received reevaluation (assessment) within the prescribed timelines. MCS was given until June 30, 2000 to rectify this.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The MCS/SELPA establish and follow a procedure to ensure that a backlog of students requiring reevaluation does not occur in the future.
F8:
The Director of Special Education met with program specialists in early June 2000 and asked them to help correct the problem of tardy reevaluations. This was requested because summer vacation was at hand and school site staff would not be available to complete the reevaluations.
F9:
Some of the program specialists thought this request was inappropriate. They felt this was the sole responsibility of the IEP team members.
F10:
Some program specialists did complete and/or instructed on-site staff to complete 2-B forms without required input from school psychologists.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
When new or revised MCS forms are introduced, specific in-service training is conducted on the forms.
F11:
The Director of Special Education mailed letters to the parents of seventy-two (72) students on June 20, 2000 asking them to sign an enclosed 2-B form and return it to MCS as soon as possible.
F12:
The 2-B forms mailed to the parents failed to have any input from staff with knowledge of the students(cid:31) needs. The boxes on the form were checked indicating staff had reviewed the students(cid:31) needs. This was not the case. The signature blocks for staff were blank.
F13:
Twenty-seven (27) of the 2-B forms were signed by the parents and returned to MCS; forty-five (45) were not returned.
F14:
The Director of Special Education sent another letter to the seventy-two (72) parents on September 22, 2000 apologizing and explaining that the letter of June 20, 2000 was sent in error because it failed to have the required input from staff. He stated that this was his error. Testimony was taken that he had instructed a secretary and a clerk to send the letters.
F15:
The 2-B forms, printed in English only, mailed to parents on June 20th have what appears to be a signature block below the typed phrase (cid:31)Staff with Knowledge of Students Needs.(cid:31) The Director testified that this was not intended to be a signature block.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
When practical MCS/SELPA correspondence to parents should be written in a language familiar to them.
F16:
The 2-B form was revised in September 2000 to read above the signature block (cid:31)Staff with Knowledge of Students Needs/ Signature.(cid:31) According to the Director, this change was made at the insistence of two school psychologists. When the revised form was reprinted, it still included the old form number MCS/SELPA: 2-B June 2000.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
All MCS forms, when revised, should have printed on them (cid:31)revision(cid:31) and the date revised.
F17:
When the twenty-seven (27) 2-B forms signed by parents were returned to MCS, 6 a clerk in the Director(cid:31)s office entered the data into the computer and forwarded it electronically to the DOE.
F18:
The clerk attempted to match the names of IEP team members at the students(cid:31) school site to the Form 2-B(cid:31)s.
F19:
The clerk printed the names of these staff members in the signature block of the returned 2-B forms. She could not recall if that was done on her own initiative or she was instructed to do so.
F20:
Many of these staff, whose names appeared on the 2-B forms, had no association whatsoever with the student. In fact, several of the staff whose names appeared on the forms had retired prior to the forms being filled out.
F21:
When school began in September, some of the 2-B forms, with names of staff printed on them, were discovered at school sites by staff members.
F22:
Several staff members expressed concern that their names appeared on the 2-B forms giving the impression that they had reevaluated the student. They were also concerned that, while the files indicated the students had been reevaluated, they may not have been.
F23:
The Director addressed this concern with a letter to staff dated September 28,
F24:
The Director also stated in his letter that the staff names were put on the 2-B forms by a clerk in his office and routed to the school sites without his knowledge.
F25:
The clerk testified that she did not print the names onto the 2-B forms to facilitate the routing to school sites.
F26:
A secretary testified that the Director told her and a clerk to put staff names on the 2-B forms. A program specialist testified that the clerk had told her that the Director had instructed her to put the names on the forms.
F27:
The Director testified that he does not remember telling the clerk to put staff names on the 2-B forms. He thinks she did it on her own initiative.
F28:
Program specialists were initially instructed by the Director to review the files of 7 the twenty-seven (27) students and remove the 2-B forms completed by the clerk in his office.
F29:
Program specialists were then re-directed by the Director not to remove the 2-B forms. However, some files had already been reviewed by the program specialists.
F30:
The Director testified that (cid:31)We do not remove forms from student files.(cid:31) (cid:31)No one has the authority to remove it unless it goes through the process.(cid:31)
F31:
The Director denied telling program specialists to pull 2-B forms from student files. After discovering they were pulling 2-B forms, he told them to put them back.
F32:
The Director recanted his previous testimony and testified he had told the program specialists (cid:31)to replace(cid:31) the improper 2-B forms with newly completed ones.
F33:
The Grand Jury reviewed twenty-one (21) of the twenty-seven (27) files in question and found only seven (7) contained the 2-B forms with the printed staff names on them.
F34:
The Grand Jury reviewed the list of seventy-two (72) students who had letters mailed to their parents on June 20, 2000. Their schools of attendance were identified and forty-nine (49) of the seventy-two (72) students(cid:31) files were reviewed. This included twenty-one (21) of the twenty-seven (27) files of those students whose parents returned the 2-B forms of June 20, 2000.
F35:
Of the forty-nine (49) student files reviewed, six (6) were found not to have been reevaluated as required.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The MCS Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, as the Director(cid:31)s immediate supervisors, verify and assure that the seventy two (72) students whose parents received letters and reevaluation forms on June 20, 2000 have, in fact, been reevaluated, and their files contain the proper documentation of the reevaluation.
F36:
During the review, fifteen (15) 2-B forms with names printed on them were found.
F37:
The complaining employees contacted the Executive Director of the Modesto Teachers Association (MTA) about the questionable 2-B forms.
F38:
The MTA filed an application and request for group legal services (September 14, 2000) with the law firm of Tuttle and McClosky. MTA wanted an opinion of any liability for Special Education staff whose names had been falsified on the 2-B forms and if they were legally obligated to report these falsifications.
F39:
The law firm replied (September 18, 2000) and suggested that MTA contact MCS 8 and demand that the student reevaluation be properly done immediately on the questioned students.
F40:
The Executive Director of MTA requested that the Director of Special Education send him a list of the Special Education staff whose names had been printed on the (cid:31)forged(cid:31) 2-B forms. There was a cc to the Superintendent of MCS.
F41:
The Director of Special Education provided a list of the names of Special Education staff whose names had been (cid:31)forged(cid:31) on the 2-B forms to the Executive Director of MTA.
F42:
The Director of Special Education sent a fax to the MCS Superintendent summarizing how he had corrected the 2-B problem by having the program specialists take the twenty-seven (27) students back through the reevaluation process. There was no mention of the other forty-five (45) students whose parents received letters and incomplete 2-B forms to sign and did not return them.
F43:
The Executive Director of MTA contacted the DOE by telephone and discussed the 2-B matter with a representative. The Director also faxed the DOE a copy of a questionable 2-B form, but never received a return call or any correspondence from the DOE.
F44:
One of the complainants contacted the DOE by telephone and spoke to a Special Education consultant who handled the MCS/SELPA review. The consultant said she accepted the Director of Special Education(cid:31)s explanation of the 2-B incident and how he had corrected the problem. She was satisfied that the matter was corrected.
F45:
The Special Education consultant does not recall the complainant(cid:31)s phone call. She testified no written report was ever made by DOE of the allegation of falsified Special Education documents.
F46:
The Special Education consultant called the MCS Director of Special Education after a call from the MTA Executive Director. She accepted the Special Education Director(cid:31)s explanation that he had a secretary in his office write the names of IEP members on the 2-B form rather than have it typed. The consultant suggested he not do that again.
F47:
The Director testified that no one from DOE ever contacted him regarding the 2-B form issue.
F48:
The MCS Superintendent of Schools did not assign anyone to investigate the complaint of the MTA or the complainants. CONCLUSIONS 9 The Civil Grand Jury concluded that:
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
Accusations of misconduct or illegal acts should not be investigated by the accused party. Investigations should be undertaken by the supervisor of the accused or a disinterested third party. COMPLAINT: 11