Stanislaus County Grand Jury

2010-2011

13 reports

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: The SCCGJ finds that Stanislaus County CSA and CPS does have policies and procedures in place that directs Social Workers to complete personal contacts with clients on a monthly basis. 2010-2011 STANISLAUS COUNTY CGJ FINAL REPORT
F2: The SCCGJ finds that Stanislaus County CSA is in compliance with their policies. The SCCGJ also finds that Stanislaus County CSA's compliance rate is higher ٠ than the State of California average. A report from SafeMeasures.org which tracks AB 636 Measure 2C for the ٠ month of November 2010, reported Stanislaus County CSA was in compliance with monthly visits 94% of the time. The CWS Outcomes System Summary for Stanislaus County for the fourth ٠ quarter of 2009 reported during October 2009 that Stanislaus County CSA was in compliance with monthly visits 92.8% of the time, during November 2009 94.4% of the time and during December 2009 94.7% of the time. The CWS Outcomes System Summary for California for the fourth quarter of 2009 reported that during October 2009, California was in compliance with monthly visits 93.1% of the time, during November 2009 92.6% of the time and during December 2009 92.9% of the time.
Findings & Recommendations 9 findings
F1: An Unqualified Opinion on the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report was obtained. 1
F2: An Unqualified Opinion on the Health Services Agency Audit was obtained.
F3: An Unqualified Opinion on the Inmate Welfare Audit was obtained.
F4: An Unqualified Opinion on the Regional 911 Audit was obtained.
F5: An Unqualified Opinion on the Redevelopment Agency Audit was obtained.
F6: An Unqualified Opinion on the Insurance Fraud Program was obtained.
F7: An Unqualified Opinion on the North County Corridor Transportation Expressway Authority was obtained.
F8: A Qualified Opinion on Federal Compliance over Major Federal Program and on Internal Control over Federal Compliance was obtained. Two instances of non-compliance were detected and two minor audit findings were reported. All four findings have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury.
F9: In order to maintain the quality of compliance to accounting policies as reported in the 2010 Stanislaus County Audit, the Stanislaus County Auditor-Controller felt that the staffing level of thirty-three full time employees was the minimum number necessary to accomplish this. The staffing level of forty-three full time employees was in place during the last audit time period of July 2009 through June 2010.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: – R8: The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors should publicly recognize the outstanding efforts of the staff within the Stanislaus County Auditor- Controllers office.
R9: The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors should carefully and critically analyze any recommendation to reduce staffing in the Stanislaus County Auditor-Controllers department. REQUESTS FOR RESPONSES: No responses required. This report of case #11-31GJ is issued by the 2010-2011 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury with the following exception: no members of the grand jury volunteered to recuse themselves due to a perceived conflict of interest. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code § 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation 3
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: Council member A failed to disclose a fiduciary conflict of interest with the landlord to other Council members or with the community members. With a history of late payments, arrearages, and funds “written off,” Council member A never recused from a vote involving the landlord and commercial developer. • On 10/26/2009, Council member A (nor any other council member) never reviewed a verification of legal expenses prior to voting to pay attorney fees which is, in the SCCGJ’s opinion, a gift of public funds. Factual and procedural statutes outlining gifts of public funds are located within the California Constitution, Article XVI, Section 6. Besides the lack of knowing/viewing any verified funds, the council cannot give public money without a properly filed lawsuit, verification of funds, court order, contract or statutory authority.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Council member A should be held accountable for the sustaining violations and resign from elected office (Patterson City Council). Community members can evaluate the need and collect signatures for a special recall election if they feel warranted by this report and if Council member A refuses to resign.
F2: Between 2008 and 2010, Council member A was not in compliance with the mandated AB 1234 ethics training required under the Political Reform Act of 1974. Council member A’s vote to reimburse the landlord took place during the time of non-certification.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: All Patterson City Council members shall post their AB 1234 Ethics Training results on the City website to ensure compliance. The City Clerk shall monitor this requirement and place upcoming AB 1234 expiration dates on the public agenda. Members who fail to remain in compliance of AB 1234 shall be mentioned at open meetings until they complete certification.
F3: Violations of Patterson Municipal code and City Council handbook. • Failure to follow the proper chain of command as it relates to approaching representatives of Keystone Business Park while negotiating terms for the Del Puerto Health Care facility. • Directing a city staffer to author a letter regarding city business without proper permission from the city council or city manager. 6 • Making calls to the Community Development Director in an effort to influence the decision to hire a lower scoring applicant to the position of Assistant Planner. • Sustaining violations of the FPPC. (Conflict of Interest and AB 1234 Ethics Training). • Unprofessional outbursts at City Council meetings and in the public to both colleagues and residents concerning city business. RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Any City Council business correspondence or actions by individual members of the City Council must be approved in advance by the City Manager. (Patterson Municipal Code § 2.16.040). REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Patterson City Council. REFERENCES • California Fair Political Practices Commission http://www.fppc.ca.gov/. • California Government Code. • City of Patterson. (2007). City of Patterson - City Council Handbook. Approved February 20, 2007 by City Council Members of Patterson. • City of Patterson, California. http://ci.patterson.ca.us/. • City of Patterson, Municipal Code. • Correspondence voluntarily submitted by witnesses. • Correspondence acquired from certified letter to commercial developers. • Documents obtained via the Public Records Act. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code § 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. RECUSAL ADVISEMENT This report of cases 11-01C through 11-08C, and 11-18C are issued by the 2010/2011 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury with the following exception: One (1) member of the grand jury volunteered to recuse his/her self due to a perceived conflict of interest. This grand juror was excluded from all phases of the investigation, including interviews, deliberations, voting, and in the writing and approval of this report. None of the information included in this report was obtained from the excluded grand juror as a means of mitigating a potential bias to the integrity of this report. 8
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: The IPM was not an actual resident of the City of Patterson during the 2008-2010 terms as Mayor. The IPM, spouse and family lived in the home, outside the city limits and was occupied in 2007. The IPM made written admissions that establish the IPM ineligible to serve as Mayor of Patterson and misled the community members as to his/her actual place of residency. • On 10/26/2009, the IPM (nor any other council member) never reviewed a verification of legal expenses prior to voting to pay attorney fees, which is a gift of public funds. Factual and procedural statutes outlining gifts of public funds are located within the California Constitution, Article XVI, Section 6. Besides the lack of knowing/viewing any verified funds, the council cannot give public money without a properly filed lawsuit, verification of funds, court order, contract or statutory authority. • Money paid to the developer was absorbed through the City of Patterson’s general fund account.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The IPM shall reimburse the City of Patterson his/her salary of $300.00 per month, from the time of admitting the fact that he/she was not a Patterson resident and was not eligible to run for office ($9,300.00). The IPM knowingly failed to follow established statutory laws and policy by residing outside the city limits of Patterson. The California Government Code stipulates that the position shall become immediately vacant and thereby voided any voting privileges or other powers of the Mayor during the 2008-2010 years of elected service (2.12.020 (b) Patterson City Municipal Code). • The Patterson City Council shall review all votes that the IPM rendered during the term of 2008-2010. Specifically, the votes that were 3-2 (deciding vote(s) that were a common theme during the 2008-2010 time range) which had a direct impact on city business shall be examined. This review of votes cast by the IPM during this term of ineligibility shall be done during a public City Council meeting.
F2: Between 2008 and 2010, the IPM was not in compliance with the mandated AB 1234 ethics training required under the Political Reform Act of 1974. The IPM’s vote to gift the developer took place during the time of non-certification.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: All Patterson City Council members shall post their AB 1234 Ethics Training results on the City website to ensure compliance. The City Clerk shall monitor this requirement and place upcoming AB 1234 expiration dates on the public agenda. Members who fail to remain in compliance of AB 1234 shall be mentioned at open meetings until they complete the certification by the City Clerk.
F3: Violations of Patterson Municipal code and City Council handbook. • Failure to follow the proper chain of command as it relates to approaching city employees to request information, expedite permit processes, manipulate city policy, and request the waiver of fees owed to the city. • The IPM was presented a letter authored by a business owner who was in the process of obtaining a conditional use permit. The letter indicated that all of the requirements had been met. The IPM approved and signed this letter, representing the entire City Council. When the letter reached the Community Development Department, it was found the business had not satisfied all of the requirements to be issued this permit. The letter was brought to the attention of the IPCM and the process was stopped due to non-compliance on behalf of the business owner. (Refer to attachment #1). • The IPM, Council member A, and Council member B were instrumental in the resignation/termination of the IPCM and the CDD. RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Any City Council business correspondence or actions by individual members of the City Council must be approved in advance by the City Manager. (Patterson Municipal Code § 2.16.040). REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Patterson City Council. REFERENCES • California Fair Political Practices Commission http://www.fppc.ca.gov/. • California Government Codes. • California Constitution, Article XVI, Section 6. • City of Patterson. (2007). City of Patterson - City Council Handbook. Approved February 20, 2007 by City Council Members of Patterson. • City of Patterson, California. http://ci.patterson.ca.us/. • City of Patterson, Municipal Code (§ 2.16.040). 9 • Correspondence voluntarily submitted by witnesses. • Documents obtained via the Public Records Act. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code § 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. RECUSAL ADVISEMENT This report of cases 11-01C through 11-08C, and 11-18C are issued by the 2010/2011 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury with the following exception: One (1) member of the grand jury volunteered to recuse his/her self due to a perceived conflict of interest. This grand juror was excluded from all phases of the investigation, including interviews, deliberations, voting, and in the writing and approval of this report. None of the information included in this report was obtained from the excluded grand juror as a means of mitigating a potential bias to the integrity of this report. 10 11 12
Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: The Sheriff’s Department will be a part of the site selection committee for the newly proposed courthouse location in downtown Modesto.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Sheriff’s Department shall be part of the site selection planning authority for the location of the new courthouse and conduct a needs assessment to see if a new men’s jail can be constructed at this location.
F2: The men’s jail is within compliance of CSA and Stanislaus County Health Services Agency requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Increase staffing level to ensure the safety of the staff, inmates and the public. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department. The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors. The Honor Farm - 8224 West Grayson Road Modesto. The Honor Farm is a minimum-security facility for sentenced and qualifying un- sentenced adult male inmates. The facility is remote and staffing levels are considered low. The Honor Farm has outside exercise yards with recreational basketball, volleyball, and handball courts. On June 26, 2010, (after the last inspection by the SCCGJ), a fire burned and completely destroyed two of the four barracks. Each barrack had capacity for 86 beds and 172 total beds were lost due to the damage and the fire. After a thorough inspection, the fire was determined to be accidental. There were no injuries during the fire and one prisoner did escape the facility and turned himself in the next day at the men’s jail. During 2010, 13 escapes were reported but records could not conclusively provide details on how many of those were captured. The Honor Farm has monitored security cameras but like the other facilities, they need to be technologically enhanced. CSA is due to inspect the Honor Farm in April of 2011 while the Stanislaus County Health Services Agency inspected the facility on January 21, 2011. Early released prisoners are determined by a classification team within the Sheriff’s Department. Medical services had been provided on a daily 24-hour basis but that service has been cut to a one and one-half hour daily visit by CCS staff. During 2010, there were no reported in-custody deaths or suicides at the facility. The Alternative Work Program (AWP) is still operational and used. FINDINGS The SCCGJ finds that:
F3: Due to cutbacks and the federal consent decree, sheriff officials indicated that in the past three (3) years, 424 prisoners were forced to be released early. That averages out to 141.3 inmates released annually back into the neighborhoods of Stanislaus County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Staffing level updates need to be upgraded to ensure public safety.
F4: Not all camera monitoring systems have the ability to record.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Enhance the monitoring/video technology for safety/security.
F5: All three facilities have implemented a new automated calling software package designed to notify off-duty personnel of emergencies and overtime coverage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: No improvement needed at this time.
F6: Medical/mental health and dental service appears to be satisfactory. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: CCS shall be closely monitored by county health care officials to ensure compliance, accreditation, and satisfactory service.
F7: Significant amounts of standing water are located in the secure portion of the jail’s basement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: Water leaks immediately be corrected.
F8: The men’s jail is due for their next CSA inspection in April of 2011. RECOMMENDATIONS The SCCGJ recommends that:
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: No recommendation at this time. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department. The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors. Public Safety Center (PSC) - 200 East Hackett Road Modesto. Constructed in 1992, the PSC is the most modern correctional facility in the county. Maximum capacity is listed at 726 inmates although two constructed housing units have been shut down due to staffing layoffs. These units hold a total of 150 inmates but are currently not in use due to staffing shortages. PSC holds both male and female inmates separately and the PSC has the same classification and segregation standards as the men’s county jail. All female prisoners are booked and processed into the PSC. Laundry and food production services for the men’s jail, PSC, and the Honor Farm are conducted at this location. The kitchen area was clean and well supervised. Staff members were supportive while giving the SCCGJ an extensive tour of the jail. During 2010, there were no in-custody deaths or suicides. A special room was added in an effort to streamline transportation of inmates for criminal arraignments. The in-camera 5 room is used daily to hold arraignments and this can assist with the lowering of inmate population with releases authorized in accordance to law. The PSC is designed with the intention of additional construction when funds are available to cover the costs associated with such a venture. PSC faces a staffing dilemma due to reduced budgeting in the Sheriff’s Department. PSC has a chaplain and the CCS medical staff are located in this facility. All county facilities (with the exception of the Honor Farm and temporary detention facilities) have access to a Medical Doctor, RN, and LVN 24-hours per day, seven days a week. All CSA, Health Services, and fire inspection reports were current and presented upon our request. Staff at this facility receive annual mental health training in addition to other required updates. The next CSA inspection is due in April of 2011. During 2010, there were no in-custody deaths or suicides at this facility. The 2009/2010 SCCGJ recommended upgrading the video and monitoring system. Since the last SCCGJ report, $25,000.00 in upgrades were made to modify the monitoring and recording system at PSC. FINDINGS The SCCGJ finds that:
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: There are thirty-six special districts within Stanislaus County that the Stanislaus County Grand Jury has authority to conduct audit reviews. • www.stancounty.com/board/cob
F2: Of the thirty-six special districts, seven are not in compliance with their audit requirement. The following special districts are in the process of completing their audit. • West Port Fire • Woodland Fire • Riverdale Park Community Service The following are not compliance and do not have a plan of correction in place as of March 31, 2011: • Knights Ferry Community Service. • Monterey Park Community Service. • East Stanislaus Resource Conservation. • Sand Creek Flood Control.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Stanislaus County Auditor-Controller contact the following Special Districts and develop a timeline to ensure the completion of the required audits. • Knights Ferry Community Service • East Stanislaus Resource Conservation • Sand Creek Flood Control
F3: There has not been an audit conducted of the Monterey Park Community Service district since 1995.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Stanislaus County Auditor-Controller hire a qualified forensic accounting firm to complete an audit of the Monterey Park Community District. REQUESTS FOR RESPONSES: Stanislaus County Auditor-Controller. This report of case #11-32GJ is issued by the 2010-2011 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury with the following exception: no members of the grand jury volunteered to recuse themselves due to a perceived conflict of interest. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code § 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation 3
F4: The lack of proper record keeping within the Monterey Park Community Service district would prevent the district from obtaining a qualified opinion from a Certified Public Accountant regarding the financial statements.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: The current Coroner’s Facility is approximately 32 years old. The current facility is meeting current mandated requirements. Recent upgrades to heating, cooling and ventilation systems are limited “stop gap” measures at controlling odor. Based on the size and construction of the current facility, there are no available solutions for reducing noise levels or improving sound insulation. Future operational mandates, as determined by the Department of Justice, and projected workloads are undetermined at this time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Coroner’s Division/Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department continue with the proposed renovation of the Medical Arts Building in an effort to re-locate the Coroner’s Division. The proposed move would allow the Coroner’s Office to operate in a more up to date facility, improve and enlarge available work spaces and upgrade and/or add essential equipment. These improvements would improve the efficiency of the Coroner’s Office and subsequently benefit the current and future needs of Stanislaus County residents.
F2: The Coroner’s Office pathologists are performing an estimated 450-500 autopsies per year. According to N.A.M.E., Board Certified Pathologists should be performing no more than 250 autopsies per year. Based on N.A.M.E. standards, caseloads exceeding 350 autopsies per year increase the risk of errors and the quality of the autopsies can be sacrificed. In addition, more than 400 autopsies, performed by one pathologist, is considered a “phase 1” deficiency if accreditation is sought through N.A.M.E. 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Increase current staffing levels in an effort to conform to the performance standards as recommended by N.A.M.E.
F3: The Stanislaus County Coroner’s Division is not prepared/equipped to respond to a large-scale multi-casualty disaster. At current capacity, the Coroner’s Office facility is only capable of adequately holding approximately 15-20 human remains.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Dedicate use of increased space to an area prepared/equipped to adequately respond to a multi-casualty incident.
Findings & Recommendations 11 findings
F1: The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury finds the Oak Valley Hospital District violated the Ralph M. Brown Act in the following areas: Public meeting agendas: The meeting agendas were lacking information; the format did not provide a clear understanding of the items to be discussed at the meeting. In addition, the agendas did not consistently appear to be provided a minimum of 72 hours in advance of the public meeting as required. How public meetings were conducted: Decisions were made and/or action was taken on items not listed on agendas. In addition, agenda items were acted on without soliciting and/or allowing for public comment or questions as required. Release of confidential information: A District Board member disclosed, to a non board member physician, confidential information discussed during a closed-door meeting. Serial Meetings: District Board members discussed board related information, via e-mail messages, without an agenda or in a public setting. Release of public information: Public Information Act requests were not met and meeting agendas were not made available as required by law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends OVHD comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act in the following areas: Revise the format and language of meeting agendas and provide that information in a timely fashion. Restructure the format for public meetings to allow for better public comment or questions. Increase the level of legal counsel involvement ie: physically attending more public meetings or be available, via conference call, for the duration of the public meeting. This will improve communication between OVHD and legal counsel, provide interpretation with legal issues, and will allow for consistent compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Board members refrain from discussing board related subjects, outside the public meeting arena, so as not to constitute a “serial” meeting as defined in the Ralph M. Brown Act.
F2: OVHD prematurely awarded contract design work, pursuant to a Medi-Cal grant, prior to soliciting bids from qualified contract bidders. Based on OSHPD requirements, the scope of the original design project changed from “design only” work to “construction/remodeling” work, which the design company was not qualified to perform. The design project was then put out to bid and the original design firm was subsequently employed, as a sub contractor, to the construction firm awarded the construction contract.
F3: The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury finds no evidence of legal counsel physically attending OVHD public meetings. It also appears there was no legal counsel involvement with the preparation of meeting agendas or immediate assistance with legal issues. Although not a requirement, this lack of legal counsel presence appears to be a contributing factor in the referenced Brown Act violations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends OVHD comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act in the following areas: Revise the format and language of meeting agendas and provide that information in a timely fashion. Restructure the format for public meetings to allow for better public comment or questions. Increase the level of legal counsel involvement ie: physically attending more public meetings or be available, via conference call, for the duration of the public meeting. This will improve communication between OVHD and legal counsel, provide interpretation with legal issues, and will allow for consistent compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Board members refrain from discussing board related subjects, outside the public meeting arena, so as not to constitute a “serial” meeting as defined in the Ralph M. Brown Act.
F4: Based on the review of OVHD Board meeting and OVHD Governing Body agendas and meeting minutes, dated January 2011, the agendas implemented by the newly elected board, appear to be in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
F5: There appears to have been inadequate notice made to the public concerning the change from the “original” Replacement Hospital Construction Project to the Revised Hospital Construction Project. The revision plan was instituted as a result of defeated bond measures “O” and “Q.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends OVHD improve the dissemination of public information. OVHD reportedly mailed out approximately 8,000 Public Information Letters regarding the “Revised” hospital construction plan. This amount of information does not appear adequate for a service area of 75,000 residents.
F6: No evidence was found to support the allegation of financial misappropriation or misconduct.
F7: No evidence was found to support the allegation of conflict of interest issues.
F8: No evidence was found to support the allegation of contract bid manipulation concerning the OVHD Replacement Hospital Construction Project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury recommends OVHD consistently adhere to their own established bid proposal guidelines so as to prevent the public perception of favoritism and/or conflicts of interest.
F9: No discrepancies were found in the area of OVHD financial reports.
F10: CEO personal expenditures were made on the CHW/Oak Valley Hospital credit card and were in compliance with the CHW Employee Travel Business Entertainment Expense Reimbursement Policy.
F11: No evidence of arbitrary or unauthorized wage or bonus distribution on the part of the CEO was found. CEO bonuses are based on set criteria as defined in the CEO contract.
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury finds that the Sheriff did participate in two separate political activities while in uniform. Therefore, the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury finds the Stanislaus County Sheriff violated Government Code section 3206.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: It is the recommendation of the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury that the Sheriff and successors, refrain from wearing a uniform while participating in any political activity. Regardless of the intent, or the interpretation of the request to participate in any activity potentially political in nature, the Sheriff and successors should refrain from participating in the event(s) while in uniform, which is a direct violation of Government Code section 3206. 4
F2: Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury finds no evidence to support the allegation that the Sheriff ignored the Cease and Desist letter because no evidence could be found to confirm he physically received the letter.
F3: The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury finds that the Hatch Act does not apply in this matter. The Stanislaus County Sheriff is a state constitutionally elected official. The position of Sheriff is neither wholly nor partially funded by the federal government.
F4: The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury finds the Stanislaus County Sheriff did not violate California Labor Code section 1101. Our investigation found no evidence to support the allegation that the Sheriff attempted to forbid or prevent any employee from engaging in political activities. Nor did he attempt to control or direct the political activities of any employee of the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department.
F5: The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury finds the Stanislaus County Sheriff did not violate California Government Code section 3506. Our investigation found no evidence to support the allegation that the Sheriff attempted to interfere with, intimidate, restrain, coerce or discriminate against any Sheriff's Department employee for their exercising of a right to participate in any political activities.
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: The landlord/developer had a fiduciary relationship for 13 years with Council member A.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The landlord/developer shall recuse from voting as a member of the City of Patterson Budget Advisory Committee when there is a perceived conflict(s) of interest.
F2: There is no evidence that either the landlord/developer or Council member A ever recused themselves from any vote where a potential or perceived conflict of interest existed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The actual amount of funds were non-verified and unknown at the time of this vote (emphasis added). The special session vote of October 26, 2009, is groundless. The SCCGJ recommends that the landlord/developer return the funds in the amount of $27,790.94 to the City of Patterson’s general fund. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Patterson City Council. REFERENCES • California Fair Political Practices Commission http://www.fppc.ca.gov/. • California Government Code. • City of Patterson, California. http://ci.patterson.ca.us/. • City of Patterson, Municipal Code. • Correspondence voluntarily submitted by witnesses. • Correspondence acquired from certified letter to commercial developers. • Documents obtained via the Public Records Act. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal 5 Code § 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. RECUSAL ADVISEMENT This report of cases 11-01C through 11-08C and 11-18C are issued by the 2010/2011 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury with the following exception: One (1) member of the grand jury volunteered to recuse his/her self due to a perceived conflict of interest. This grand juror was excluded from all phases of the investigation, including interviews, deliberations, voting, and in the writing and approval of this report. None of the information included in this report was obtained from the excluded grand juror as a means of mitigating a potential bias to the integrity of this report. 6
F3: In the SCCGJ’s opinion, the vote to give the landlord/developer funds amounted to a gift of public funds from the City of Patterson’s general fund. 4
F4: In the SCCGJ’s opinion, the vote by the City of Patterson’s City Council to provide the gift of public funds to the landlord/developer was invalid. • The IPCA was not in the closed session portion of the vote for anticipated litigation. • The IPM was not a resident of the city and his/her position became immediately vacant on or before May 14, 2008, when he/she admitted to a constituent that he/she was not eligible to be the Mayor. Therefore, his/her vote is null and void. • Council member A neglected to recuse his/her vote due to a fiduciary conflict of interest with the landlord/developer. RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: The IPM was not a resident of the City of Patterson during the 2008-2010 term as Mayor. The IPM, spouse and family lived in the home outside the city limits that was occupied in 2007. The IPM made a written admission indicating he/she was ineligible to serve as Mayor of Patterson and misled the community members to the actual place of residency. The California Government Code states that the position of Mayor shall become immediately vacant upon moving from within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The IPM knowingly failed to follow established statutory laws and policy by residing outside the city limits of Patterson. The California Government Code stipulates that the position shall become immediately vacant and thereby forfeit any voting privileges or other powers of the Mayor during the 2008-2010 years of elected service. The IPM shall reimburse the City of Patterson his/her salary of $300.00 per month, ($9,300.00) from the time of admitting the fact that he/she was not a Patterson resident and was not eligible to run for office (2.12.020 (b) Patterson City Municipal Code). (California Government Code §§ 34882, 34904, and 36502 (a)). The Patterson City Council shall review all votes that the IPM rendered during the term of 2008-2010. Specifically, the votes that were 3-2, which had a direct impact on city business shall be examined. This review of votes cast by the IPM during this term of ineligibility shall be done during a public City Council meeting.
F2: Council member A failed to disclose a fiduciary conflict of interest with the landlord/developer to other Council members or with the community members. With a history of late payments, arrearages, and funds “written off,” Council member A never recused from a vote involving the landlord/developer. Council member A never reviewed a verification of legal expenses prior to voting to pay attorney fees, which is a gift of public funds in the SCCGJ’s opinion. The money paid to the landlord/developer was absorbed through the City of Patterson’s general fund account while this individual was still the landlord of Council member A.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Council member A should be held accountable for the sustaining violations and resign from elected office (Patterson City Council). Community members can evaluate the need and collect signatures for a special recall election if they feel warranted by this report and if Council member A refuses to resign. Council member A had a fiduciary conflict of interest with the landlord/developer.
F3: On October 26, 2009, the IPM (nor any other council member) never reviewed a verification of legal expenses prior to voting to pay attorney fees to the landlord/developer, which is a gift of public funds in the SCCGJ’s opinion. Factual and procedural statutes outlining gifts of public funds are located within the California Constitution, Article XVI, Section 6. Besides the lack of knowing/viewing any verified funds, the council cannot give public monies without a properly filed lawsuit, verification of funds, court order, contract or statutory authority. • Council members C and D voted not to provide the landlord/developer with a gift of public funds due to the lack of verified itemization and further legal opinion(s).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: All Patterson City Council members shall have established criteria and authenticated documentation for the disbursement of public funds on any claim, litigation, or payments prior to voting.
F4: Between 2008 and 2010, the IPM and Council member A were not in compliance with the mandated AB 1234 ethics training required under the Political Reform Act of 1974. The IPM and Council member A’s vote to gift the landlord/developer took place during the time of non-compliance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: All Patterson City Council members shall post their AB 1234 Ethics Training results on the City website to ensure compliance. The City Clerk shall monitor this requirement and place upcoming AB 1234 expiration dates on the public agenda. Members who fail to remain in compliance of AB 1234 shall be mentioned at open meetings until they complete the certification.
F5: The IPM, Council member A, and Council member B were involved in the resignations of the IPCM and the CDD. 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: On April 20, 2010, Council members A, B and the IPM voted to terminate the IPCM during a closed session of a City Council special meeting. The Patterson City Municipal Code mandates that this action shall be done during a regular City Council meeting. (Patterson Municipal Code § 2.16.120). FINDINGS Council member C Council member D
F6: The SCCGJ could find no evidence of a code of ethics and a requirement to complete AB1234 Ethics Training for members appointed to boards and commissions. RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: The IPCA neglected to advise the City Council of Brown Act violations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Based on this report, the City Council of Patterson file a complaint with the California State Bar Association. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Patterson City Council. REFERENCES • California Fair Political Practices Commission http://www.fppc.ca.gov/. • California Government Code. • California Penal Code. 7 • City of Patterson. (2007). City of Patterson - City Council Handbook. Approved February 20, 2007 by City Council Members of Patterson. • City of Patterson, California. http://ci.patterson.ca.us/. • City of Patterson, Municipal Code. • Correspondence voluntarily submitted by witnesses. • Correspondence acquired from certified letter to commercial developers. • Documents obtained via the Public Records Act. • Farnow v. Superior Court (San Mateo County Grand Jury)(1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 481; 276 Cal.Rptr. 275. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code § 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. RECUSAL ADVISEMENT This report of cases 11-01C through 11-08C and 11-18C are issued by the 2010/2011 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury with the following exception: One (1) member of the grand jury volunteered to recuse his/her self due to a perceived conflict of interest. This grand juror was excluded from all phases of the investigation, including interviews, deliberations, voting, and in the writing and approval of this report. None of the information included in this report was obtained from the excluded grand juror as a means of mitigating a potential bias to the integrity of this report. ATTACHMENT #1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson will be held on Monday, October 26, 2009, commencing at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 1 Plaza, Patterson, California. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of holding a Closed Session: · City Manager Evaluation/Potential Action (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957). · Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to Litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: (1 case). The special closed session meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson was called to order in the City Council Chambers, Closed Session Room at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Campo. PRESENT: Councilmember Smith, Councilmember Farinha, Councilmember Cuellar, Councilmember Shelton and Mayor Campo (5) STAFF: City Attorney Logan and City Manager Morris (2) At 8:25 p.m. after Closed Session, Mayor Campo announced the following: In regards to the Item of City Manager Evaluation/Potential Action (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957). There was no action taken by Council. In regards to the Item of Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to Litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: (1 case). The City Council voted 3-2 to reimburse John Ramos $27,101.74 for legal fees incurred in his appeal of the Health Care District zoning issue, subject to verification of cost. Councilmembers Smith, Farinha and Mayor Campo voted yes. Councilmembers Cuellar and Shelton voted no. There being no further business, the special closed session meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson of October 26, 2009 was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Approved by the Patterson City Council on November 3, 2009. 9 10
F2: The IPCA should have recused himself/herself from providing legal advice to Council member B after having previously testified about evidence contained within this report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Based on this report, the City Council of Patterson file a complaint with the California State Bar Association. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Patterson City Council. REFERENCES • California Fair Political Practices Commission http://www.fppc.ca.gov/. • California Government Code. • California Penal Code. 7 • City of Patterson. (2007). City of Patterson - City Council Handbook. Approved February 20, 2007 by City Council Members of Patterson. • City of Patterson, California. http://ci.patterson.ca.us/. • City of Patterson, Municipal Code. • Correspondence voluntarily submitted by witnesses. • Correspondence acquired from certified letter to commercial developers. • Documents obtained via the Public Records Act. • Farnow v. Superior Court (San Mateo County Grand Jury)(1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 481; 276 Cal.Rptr. 275. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code § 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. RECUSAL ADVISEMENT This report of cases 11-01C through 11-08C and 11-18C are issued by the 2010/2011 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury with the following exception: One (1) member of the grand jury volunteered to recuse his/her self due to a perceived conflict of interest. This grand juror was excluded from all phases of the investigation, including interviews, deliberations, voting, and in the writing and approval of this report. None of the information included in this report was obtained from the excluded grand juror as a means of mitigating a potential bias to the integrity of this report. ATTACHMENT #1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson will be held on Monday, October 26, 2009, commencing at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 1 Plaza, Patterson, California. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of holding a Closed Session: · City Manager Evaluation/Potential Action (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957). · Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to Litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: (1 case). The special closed session meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson was called to order in the City Council Chambers, Closed Session Room at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Campo. PRESENT: Councilmember Smith, Councilmember Farinha, Councilmember Cuellar, Councilmember Shelton and Mayor Campo (5) STAFF: City Attorney Logan and City Manager Morris (2) At 8:25 p.m. after Closed Session, Mayor Campo announced the following: In regards to the Item of City Manager Evaluation/Potential Action (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957). There was no action taken by Council. In regards to the Item of Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to Litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: (1 case). The City Council voted 3-2 to reimburse John Ramos $27,101.74 for legal fees incurred in his appeal of the Health Care District zoning issue, subject to verification of cost. Councilmembers Smith, Farinha and Mayor Campo voted yes. Councilmembers Cuellar and Shelton voted no. There being no further business, the special closed session meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson of October 26, 2009 was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Approved by the Patterson City Council on November 3, 2009. 9 10
F3: The IPCA violated the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury Oath and Admonition when he/she informed Council member B of his/her exposure to this case.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Based on this report, the City Council of Patterson file a complaint with the California State Bar Association. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Patterson City Council. REFERENCES • California Fair Political Practices Commission http://www.fppc.ca.gov/. • California Government Code. • California Penal Code. 7 • City of Patterson. (2007). City of Patterson - City Council Handbook. Approved February 20, 2007 by City Council Members of Patterson. • City of Patterson, California. http://ci.patterson.ca.us/. • City of Patterson, Municipal Code. • Correspondence voluntarily submitted by witnesses. • Correspondence acquired from certified letter to commercial developers. • Documents obtained via the Public Records Act. • Farnow v. Superior Court (San Mateo County Grand Jury)(1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 481; 276 Cal.Rptr. 275. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code § 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. RECUSAL ADVISEMENT This report of cases 11-01C through 11-08C and 11-18C are issued by the 2010/2011 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury with the following exception: One (1) member of the grand jury volunteered to recuse his/her self due to a perceived conflict of interest. This grand juror was excluded from all phases of the investigation, including interviews, deliberations, voting, and in the writing and approval of this report. None of the information included in this report was obtained from the excluded grand juror as a means of mitigating a potential bias to the integrity of this report. ATTACHMENT #1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson will be held on Monday, October 26, 2009, commencing at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 1 Plaza, Patterson, California. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of holding a Closed Session: · City Manager Evaluation/Potential Action (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957). · Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to Litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: (1 case). The special closed session meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson was called to order in the City Council Chambers, Closed Session Room at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Campo. PRESENT: Councilmember Smith, Councilmember Farinha, Councilmember Cuellar, Councilmember Shelton and Mayor Campo (5) STAFF: City Attorney Logan and City Manager Morris (2) At 8:25 p.m. after Closed Session, Mayor Campo announced the following: In regards to the Item of City Manager Evaluation/Potential Action (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957). There was no action taken by Council. In regards to the Item of Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to Litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: (1 case). The City Council voted 3-2 to reimburse John Ramos $27,101.74 for legal fees incurred in his appeal of the Health Care District zoning issue, subject to verification of cost. Councilmembers Smith, Farinha and Mayor Campo voted yes. Councilmembers Cuellar and Shelton voted no. There being no further business, the special closed session meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson of October 26, 2009 was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Approved by the Patterson City Council on November 3, 2009. 9 10
F4: The IPCA admitted that the IPCM and CDD most likely lost their jobs due to the zoning issues surrounding the HCD.
F5: Based upon investigative functions, it is clear that the IPCA should have recused himself/herself from any discussions, legal advice, or guidance concerning the landlord/developer situation. This is based upon the testimony that the IPCA had declared himself a hostile witness to his client, the City of Patterson. RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Based on this report, the City Council of Patterson file a complaint with the California State Bar Association. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Patterson City Council. REFERENCES • California Fair Political Practices Commission http://www.fppc.ca.gov/. • California Government Code. • California Penal Code. 7 • City of Patterson. (2007). City of Patterson - City Council Handbook. Approved February 20, 2007 by City Council Members of Patterson. • City of Patterson, California. http://ci.patterson.ca.us/. • City of Patterson, Municipal Code. • Correspondence voluntarily submitted by witnesses. • Correspondence acquired from certified letter to commercial developers. • Documents obtained via the Public Records Act. • Farnow v. Superior Court (San Mateo County Grand Jury)(1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 481; 276 Cal.Rptr. 275. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code § 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. RECUSAL ADVISEMENT This report of cases 11-01C through 11-08C and 11-18C are issued by the 2010/2011 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury with the following exception: One (1) member of the grand jury volunteered to recuse his/her self due to a perceived conflict of interest. This grand juror was excluded from all phases of the investigation, including interviews, deliberations, voting, and in the writing and approval of this report. None of the information included in this report was obtained from the excluded grand juror as a means of mitigating a potential bias to the integrity of this report. ATTACHMENT #1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson will be held on Monday, October 26, 2009, commencing at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 1 Plaza, Patterson, California. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of holding a Closed Session: · City Manager Evaluation/Potential Action (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957). · Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to Litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: (1 case). The special closed session meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson was called to order in the City Council Chambers, Closed Session Room at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Campo. PRESENT: Councilmember Smith, Councilmember Farinha, Councilmember Cuellar, Councilmember Shelton and Mayor Campo (5) STAFF: City Attorney Logan and City Manager Morris (2) At 8:25 p.m. after Closed Session, Mayor Campo announced the following: In regards to the Item of City Manager Evaluation/Potential Action (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957). There was no action taken by Council. In regards to the Item of Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to Litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: (1 case). The City Council voted 3-2 to reimburse John Ramos $27,101.74 for legal fees incurred in his appeal of the Health Care District zoning issue, subject to verification of cost. Councilmembers Smith, Farinha and Mayor Campo voted yes. Councilmembers Cuellar and Shelton voted no. There being no further business, the special closed session meeting of the City Council of the City of Patterson of October 26, 2009 was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Approved by the Patterson City Council on November 3, 2009. 9 10
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: On 10/26/2009, Council member B (nor any other council member) never reviewed a verification of legal expenses prior to voting to pay attorney fees which is, in the SCCGJ’s opinion, a gift of public funds. Factual and procedural statutes outlining gifts of public funds are located within the California Constitution, Article XVI, Section 6. Besides the lack of knowing/viewing any verified funds, the council cannot give public money without a properly filed lawsuit, verification of funds, court order, contract or statutory authority.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Brown Act requirements, city policies, and City of Patterson - City Council Handbook (2007 edition) shall be reviewed by City Council members to ensure they are in accordance with open meeting laws and proper protocol during closed session hearings. • All Patterson City Council members shall have established criteria and authenticated documentation for the return of public funds on any litigation, or payments prior to voting on issues of this nature.
F2: Violation of Patterson Municipal code and City Council handbook. • Failure to follow the proper chain of command as it relates to city business.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Any City Council business correspondence or actions by individual members of the City Council must be approved in advance by the City Manager. (Patterson Municipal Code § 2.16.040).
F3: Council member B attempted to use his/her position of authority in an attempt to influence decisions in his/her favor. RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: City Council member B shall refrain from using his/her positional power to circumvent city policy, or use his/her position to influence others for special favors or consideration. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Patterson City Council. REFERENCES • California Fair Political Practices Commission http://www.fppc.ca.gov/. • California Penal Code (§ 939). • Farnow v. Superior Court (San Mateo County Grand Jury)(1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 481; 276 Cal.Rptr. 275. 6 • California Constitution , Article XVI, Section 6. • City of Patterson. (2007). City of Patterson - City Council Handbook. Approved February 20, 2007 by City Council Members of Patterson. • City of Patterson, California. http://ci.patterson.ca.us/. • City of Patterson, Municipal Code (§ 2.16.040). • Correspondence voluntarily submitted by witnesses. • Correspondence acquired from certified letter to commercial developers. • Documents obtained via the Public Records Act. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code § 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. RECUSAL ADVISEMENT This report of cases 11-01C through 11-08C, and 11-18C are issued by the 2010/2011 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury with the following exception: One (1) member of the grand jury volunteered to recuse his/her self due to a perceived conflict of interest. This grand juror was excluded from all phases of the investigation, including interviews, deliberations, voting, and in the writing and approval of this report. None of the information included in this report was obtained from the excluded grand juror as a means of mitigating a potential bias to the integrity of this report. 7

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