Tulare County Grand Jury
2015-2016
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (25)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Various county and city agencies have been proactive in anticipation of an El Nino event.
F2:
RMA "Hot Spot" (historically flood prone areas) identification will aid in: a) timely, adequate placement of personnel and equipment b) identify which water conveyors will be impacted by flood waters and to use their system as pressure relief valves
F3:
Tulare County has placed emphasis on the valley floor (Western region), but did not have any major flood control projects or management plan in the foothill area (Central region).
F4:
Clearing of bridges and channels will help the movement of water, in turn reducing flooding events.
F5:
Preplanning of flood protection of county facilities has the potential to reduce flood damage and increase cost savings for taxpayers.
F6:
Goal statements from various agencies show a greater emphasis on capturing and percolating rainfall and runoff into groundwater than in previous years.
F9:
City of Farmersville
F10:
Tulare County Board of Supervisors Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Section 924.2 and 929). County of Tulare COPY July 26, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Honorable Bret Hillman Presiding Judge Tulare County Superior Court Allen R. Ishida County Civic Center, Room 303 District One 221 South Mooney Boulevard Visalia, CA 93291 Pete Vander Poel RE: Grand Jury Report: "Tulare County, Are We Ready for El Nino?" District Two Dear Judge Hillman: Phillip A. Cox On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, the following are the Board's District Three responses to the findings and recommendations included in the 2015/2016 Tulare County Grand Jury Report titled "Tulare County, Are We Ready for J. Steven Worthley El Nino?" The Board of Supervisors has consulted with the Tulare County District Four Resource Management Agency to assist with these responses. Findings and Board Responses Mike Ennis District Five Finding 1 Various county and city agencies have been proactive in anticipation of an BOARD STAFF El Nino event. Julieta Martinez Response: The Board agrees with this finding. Allison Pierce Finding 2 Carrie Crane Samantha Ferrero RMA "Hot Spot" (historically flood prone areas) identification will aid in: a) timely, adequate placement of personnel and equipment
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Applicable agencies should increase emphasis in water storage projects when the opportunities for water retention are higher.
R2:
Applicable agencies should not ignore the importance of flood control projects due to drought conditions.
R3:
Applicable agencies continue their progress on existing flood control projects
R4:
Tulare County adopt a foothill region flood management plan.
R5:
When rehabilitating public parks, adding water retention and percolation capabilities should be considered. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Resource Management Agency 2. City of Woodlake 3. City of Porterville 4. City of Tulare 5. City of Visalia 6. City of Lindsay 7. City of Exeter 8. City of Dinuba 9. City of Farmersville 10. Tulare County Board of Supervisors
R6:
implementing the Storm Preparedness Plan including signage for Sand Bag stations throughout the City, ATTACHMENT 7 The November 30, 2015 City Council Newsletter highlights on-gong work to clear
R7:
debris from creek-ways and specifically debris collected under bridges in the City, ATTACHMENT 8 The December 22, 2015 City Council Newsletter details on-gong effort to
R8:
maintain storm drains, perform debris removal from creek-ways and emergency repairs of failing ditch/ creek-bank due to improper run off form adjacent property, ATTACHMENT 9 The City prepared and distributed and publicized "Flood Safety Tips" information
R9:
sheet to emphasis hazard mitigation, and El Nino preparedness. ATTACHMENT 10
R10:
Staff used the City Website, Facebook page, and Public literature rack to highlight and disseminate information about Flood Safety, Storm Preparedness, and Sand Bag Filling Stations in both English and Spanish. er er er er .... SECTION 3 Response to Recommendations of the Grand Jury: With respect to the Recommendations of the Grand Jury, the City of Farmersville responds as follows: Recommendation R1. "Applicable Agencies should increase emphasis in water Storage projects when the opportunities for water retention are higher". Response to Recommendation R1: The City of Farmersville agrees with this recommendation insofar as the City is not aware of any contrary information . Recommendation R2. "Applicable agencies should not ignore the importance of flood control projects due to drought conditions." Response to Recommendation R2: The City of Farmersville Agrees with this recommendation insofar as the City is not aware of any contrary information . Recommendation R3: "Applicable agencies continue to progress on existing flood control projects." Response to Recommendation R3: The City of Farmersville Agrees with this recommendation insofar as the City is not aware of any contrary information . Recommendation R4: "Tulare County adopt a foothill region flood management plan." Response to Recommendation R4: The City of Farmersville Agrees with this recommendation insofar as the City is not aware of any contrary information. Recommendation R5: "When rehabilitating public parks, adding water retention and percolation capabilities should be considered." 10: 10 Response to Recommendation R5: The City of Farmersville Agrees with this recommendation insofar as the City is not aware of any contrary information . SECTION 4 Conclusion: The City of Farmersville takes issue with the characterization and identification of the City as non-responsive and requests that the record be changed to reflect that the City did not receive any inquiry from the 2016 Tulare County Grand Jury regarding El Nino preparation. 2. As is seen in the City's Response Document, the City was extremely deliberate, proactive and responsible in preparing for El Nino, of its own volition and without prompting by the Grand Jury. 3. With respect to the Grand Jury's Recommendations, R1 through R5, contained in their report, the City of Farmersville agrees with each of the Grand Jury's recommendations insofar as the City is not aware of any contrary information. Respectfully Submitted on Behalf of the City of Farmersville: 08-03-16 Date Jansons City Manager Lindsay **** City of Lindsay Enterprise All-America Cr one P.O. Box 369 Lindsay, California 93247 251 Honolulu Street 559 • 562 • 7117 559 • 562 • 7139 fax July 12, 2016 The Honorable Judge Bret Hillman County Civic Center, Room 303 221 S. Mooney Blvd. Visalia, CA 93291 SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report, "Tulare County, Are We Ready for El Nino?" Honorable Judge Hillman, The City of Lindsay is in receipt of a portion of the Tulare County Grand Jury Final Report regarding the City of Lindsay, released on May 17, 2016 entitled, "Tulare County, Are We Ready for El Nino?" The Grand Jury report directs the City Council to respond within ninety days to each of its six findings and five recommendations regarding the City, as required by California Penal Code §933 and outlined in the report. In response to the findings and recommendations the following is provided:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
While the County Auditor/Treasurer maintains records pertaining to which special districts are in compliance with the provisions of CGC section 26909 and those which are not, the County Auditor has not made a practice of publicizing noncompliance issues.
F2:
Failure to strictly adhere to the provisions of CGC Section 53952 have created a situation wherein the County Auditor lacks the financial leverage which would otherwise be provided to enter into contracts with independent certified public accountants or public accountants to conduct the audits necessary to bring non-compliant special districts into compliance.
F3:
It appears that there has been no appreciable effort on the part of the Office of the County Auditor with respect to bringing the districts into compliance.
F4:
In many cases, the certified resolutions required by CGC Section 53952 are not on file with the Office of the County Auditor and, again, it is not apparent that effort has been expended on the part of the Office of the County Auditor to remedy this situation.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Office of the County Auditor exercise due diligence in the execution of duties and responsibilities of the office particularly as it pertains to adherence to CGC sections 2700 [sic], 26909, 53952, 53953, 53961, 61052 and 61053. Response: This recommendation will be implemented as it relates to California Government Code § 26909 Subject to appropriate budget review, the County Administrative Officer will make every effort to provide reasonable financial support for the audit program referenced by the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector/Registrar of Voters in their department response as pertaining to California Government Code § 26909 and a potential contract with a Certified Public Accountant to conduct annual audits as required by law. Pertaining to California Government Code sections 27000, 53952, 53953, 53961, 61052, and 61053, the recommendation will require further analysis. Not all of those code sections impose duties on the Auditor; some are district obligations or standards, noncompliance with which may be identified during an audit pursuant to § 26909, but over which the Auditor has no control. The Board will work with the CAO to identify the need for additional accounting staff in the Auditor's office. The Board will continue to work with the Auditor to provide education about compliance. Sincerely, Mike Emus Michael Ennis, Chairman Tulare County Board of Supervisors Tulare County Grand Jury CC: 5963 South Mooney Boulevard Visalia, CA 93277
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury determined the combining of the office of city manager and police chief positions critically weakened the checks-and-balances with regards to personnel issues. This eliminated the division of authority to more than one person and position.
F2:
A number of costly employee settlements resulted from the aforementioned combination of these two positions.
F3:
The Grand Jury determined that the lack of meaningful evidence made allegations of Brown Act violations difficult to substantiate.
F4:
Some City council members were involved in discussions over union issues at private residences and outside the parameters of established procedures.
F5:
The cost of the employee settlements contributed to the city's poor financial condition and the necessity to impose employee furloughs.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Lindsay City Council members should thoroughly familiarize themselves with open meeting laws (Brown Act) and generally acceptable procedures for conducting municipal business.
R2:
The Lindsay City Council should be more deliberative when considering the combining of key managerial positions. REQUIRED RESPONSES: Lindsay City Council 🗸 Lindsay City of Lindsay erprise All-America City one P.O. Box 369 Lindsay, California 93247 251 Honolulu Street 559 • 562 • 7117 559 • 562 • 7139 fax May 10, 2016 The Honorable Judge Bret Hillman Tulare County Grand Jury5963 So. Mooney BlodVodia, Ca 932-77 County Civic Center, Room 303 221 S. Mooney Blvd. Visalia, CA 93291 SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report, RE: Nightmare in Lindsay Honorable Judge Hillman, The City of Lindsay is in receipt of a portion of the Tulare County Grand Jury Final Report regarding the City of Lindsay, released on March 28, 2016 entitled, Nightmare in Lindsay. The Grand Jury report directs the City Council to respond within ninety days to each of its five
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The TLHCD routinely withheld pertinent information and financial data from the Bond Oversight Committee, thus rendering the Committee incapable of performing its oversight function.
F2:
The Bond Oversight Committee failed to exercise due diligence in following up on requests for detailed financial information which was necessary for the independent oversight of the expenditure of bond funds.
F3:
The 2005 voter authorized $85 Million in bonds has been completely expended. At the time this report was drafted, TLHCD had only an uncompleted and non-functional structure to show for it.
F4:
It appears that TLHCD either intentionally or unintentionally failed to comprehend the issue of the cost differential between the $85 Million in bond authorization and the total project cost estimated to be well in excess of $100 Million. It further appears that TLHCD attempted to justify their position by unsupported estimates of reserves and projection of future revenues.
F5:
Strict and complex statutes regarding public disclosure of information pertaining to the expenditure of funds proceeding from the issuance of bonds, appear to have been routinely circumvented by the TLHCD Board of Directors.
F6:
Minutes of TLHCD meetings from January 2010 through December of 2015 fail to disclose the dire situation into which the Phase I project had devolved, thus leaving TLHCD taxpayers without direct access to information to which they were entitled.
F7:
The turmoil surrounding the personnel turnover at the top of the TLHCD management structure served to distract Board Members' attention from the Phase I Project, thus leading to additional delays and severance agreements in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
F8:
The court ordered settlement represents 9.29 percent of the $85 Million in proceeds from the sale of bonds and required funds needed to complete Phase I to be allocated to a purpose other than construction. CONCLUSION: The Tulare County Grand Jury undertook investigation of this complaint with the goal of uncovering truths and answering questions which had been withheld from the public for nearly a decade (from commencement of construction of the Phase I Tower in 2005, through the end of 2015). Seven months of intense investigation has brought the Grand Jury to the conclusion that millions of dollars in public funds have not been accounted for by the TLHCD. Moreover, the preponderance of evidence presented to the Grand Jury indicates that over the same period of time, the TLHCD withheld information pertaining to the expenditure of public funds to which the District's constituents were entitled.
F310:
820.8859 www.bakerlaw.com Bruce R. Greene direct dial: 310,442,8834 bgreene@bakerlaw.com May 31, 2016 HAND South Mooney Boulevard Visalia, CA 93277 Re: Tulare Local Healthcare District Final Report Ladies/Gentlemen: Enclosed you will find the Response of Tulare Local Healthcare District to the Final Report of the Grand Jury which was released on March 24, 2016. Very truly yours Bruge R. Greene Encl. Via Hand Delivery (w/encl.) cc: Via Hand Delivery (w/encl.) Hon. Bret Hillman Tulare County Board County Civic Center Room 303 of Supervisors 221 South Mooney Blvd 2800 W. Burrel Ave Visalia, CA 93291 Visalia, CA 93291 Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Costa Mesa Denver Houston Los Angeles New York Orlando Philadelphia Seattle Washington, DC 093734.000004 608922606.1 RESPONSE OF TULARE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER TO 2015-2016 TULARE COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT "SINS OF THE FATHERS" "The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself." Ezekiel 18:20 This Report is long on conclusions but short on facts. It is grossly incomplete, misleading and is based in part upon speculation and opinion. Moreover, the very fact that this grand jury would entitle a report "Tower of Shame," and by its own admission release the Report earlier than the customary time, knowing that this would excite the media and inflame the general public, disappointedly shows unmitigated bias against TRMC. By its own admission, the Grand Jury did not look at the four independent examinations performed and certified by two independent auditing firms covering the entire course of the bond expenditure that found no wrongdoing. Another example is that members of this Grand Jury have publicly commented about their work with a clear bias against the healthcare district. Furthermore, it should be noted that since the release of the Report, the Grand Jury has served additional subpoenas on two of the Current Board members, one of which requires production of a voluminous amount of financial records relating to the bond expenditures. If indeed the Report was "final," then why is the Grand Jury seeking additional information; and if the Grand Jury believes that it did not have sufficient information on the bond expenditures before, then why did it issue such a damning "final" report when its investigation was obviously incomplete? A report issued prematurely is inappropriate at best. More important is the fact that this Report purports to blame the Current Board for the misdeeds of the Prior Boards. This is manifestly unfair by anyone's standards. The current Board, consisting of Sherrie Bell, Parmod Kumar, M.D., Richard Torrez, Linda Wilbourn and Laura Gadke (the "Current Board") has only been seated since May 2015. For 8 of the 10 years during which bond funds were expended, there were at most two, and in some cases one member of the Current Board seated. When the Current Board was seated, there were no undisbursed bond funds. The last bond funds were expended in 2014, and even as of December 2013 (when 3 of the members of the Current Board were seated), less than 5% of the bond funds remained undisbursed. So if there is in fact blame to be imposed on anyone, it should be imposed where it is justly deserved - on the Prior Boards. Even if correct, the Grand Jury is over two years behind in its findings. The Current Board has long since corrected the many deficiencies of Prior Boards. The Current Board took the Hospital from the verge of bankruptcy in late 2013 to its present position of financial strength in only two years. It has already rectified many problems which it inherited, including ridding the District of unfavorable contracts, resolving long standing problems with its dysfunctional and destructive medical executive committee, dramatically progressing with the Tower construction, and developing a viable plan to raise funds to complete the Tower Project. The issuance of this Report, which if nothing else purports to attribute the shortcomings of the Prior Boards to the Current Board, is irresponsible, and is jeopardizing all of the good efforts of the Current Board to make the Hospital one of the best in the nation. It is misleading to the public in that it attributes the problems that have occurred in the past by people and systems that are no longer at the Hospital to the Current Board. The Report completely fails to recognize and acknowledge the dramatic turnaround that has occurred at the Hospital in operations (24 months of consecutive net profits and a return last year which was greater than the returns in the past 12 years and three times the national average) and with the construction project (millions saved in soft costs, exterior of the building enclosed, etc.). RESPONSE TO FINDINGS Finding No. The TLHCD routinely withheld pertinent information and financial data from the Bond Oversight Committee, thus rendering the Committee incapable of performing its oversight function. Response: The Current Board has insufficient information to address the Grand Jury's allegations regarding the actions (or failures to act) of any Prior Boards. There has been no withholding of pertinent information or financial data by the Current Board from the Board Oversight Committee, routinely or otherwise. However, the minutes of the Prior Board meetings do show that copies of reports regarding bond fund expenditures prepared by two independent auditors were approved in open session meetings, and provided to the Bond Oversight Committee. On December 9, 2015, a representative of one of the auditors made a presentation at an open board meeting discussing the final report (see Exhibit A). A copy of the entire final report including every single invoice was set out at that meeting for public viewing. Further, the records show that the Bond Oversight Committee met 48 times, being an average of once every two months, and there is absolutely no indication in its minutes that the Prior Boards were not forthcoming with information (with perhaps the exception of a 4 month period at the end of 2012 when there was some disruption in Hospital management). To the contrary, the minutes show that the bond audit reports were submitted to the Board Oversight Committee, including a full presentation by a representative of the auditor on July 15, 2013 (See Exhibits B1 – B4). If, as the Grand Jury has found, the Committee was incapable of performing its oversight function, that was not the result of any actions or inactions of the Current Board. Finding No. The Bond Oversight Committee failed to exercise due diligence in following up on requests for detailed financial information which was necessary for the independent oversight of the expenditure of bond funds. Response: The Current Board has insufficient information to address the Grand Jury's allegations regarding the actions (or failures to act) of any Prior Boards. If, as the Grand Jury found, the Bond Oversight Committee failed to exercise due diligence, it was due to no act or failure to act of the Current Board. Finding No. The 2005 voter authorized $85 Million in bonds has been completely expended. At the time this report was drafted, TLHCD had only an uncompleted and non-functional structure to show for it. Response: This finding is correct insofar as it states that the $85 million in bonds which was authorized by the voters in 2005 has been completed expended. In fact, the funds were substantially expended by December 2013, which was well before the Current Board was seated, and had been completely expended by September 2014. It is also correct that the Tower Project has not been completed. However, it is misleading to state that TRMC only has a "nonfunctional structure to show for it" [the expenditure of $85 million in bond funds]. In fact, a substantial portion of the Tower Project has been completed, and will be functional if and when additional funds are made available to complete the construction, as was always formally acknowledged in the original bond documents. Has the Grand Jury reviewed those? It does not appear so. Finding No. It appears that TLHCD either intentionally or unintentionally failed to comprehend the issue of the cost differential between the $85 Million in bond authorization and the total project cost estimated to be well in excess of $100 Million. It further appears that TLHCD attempted to justify their position by unsupported estimates of reserves and projection of future revenues. Response: The Current Board has insufficient information to address the Grand Jury's allegations regarding the actions (or failures to act) of any Prior Boards, especially as this related to matters that are nearly 10 years old. However, it is perfectly clear that at the time of the initial bond issuance in 2007, it was known (and fully disclosed in the bond documents) that the cost of the Tower Project would be $120,000,000, and that the shortfall had to be funded by other means, which specifically included the need for additional bond offerings. (See Exhibit C). Further, over the years, the Bond Oversight Committee routinely discussed the cost of the Tower Project and the amount of $120,000,000 was almost always referred to as the estimated cost. (See Exhibits D1 - D5.) The Current Board cannot say one way or another if any Prior Board "attempted to justify their position by unsupported estimates of resources and projection of future revenues." The Current Board certainly made no attempts to justify the position of any Prior Boards. However, it can be noted that one of the most outspoken critics of the handling of the bond funds was actually on Prior Boards (from December 2002 through November 2008), which includes the time when the bonds were authorized and issued. If anyone should be answering to a Grand Jury, or to the community, it is her as well as the other members of the Prior Boards at that time. Finding No. Strict and complex statutes regarding public disclosure of information pertaining to the expenditure of funds proceeding from the issuance of bonds, appear to have been routinely circumvented by the TLHCD Board of Directors. Response: The Current Board has insufficient information to address the Grand Jury's allegations regarding the actions (or failures to act) of any Prior Boards. However, the Current Board unequivocally denies that it has circumvented any statutes regarding public disclosure or otherwise. In fact the Current Board has a strict policy about responding promptly to any requests for information by the Committee or any other legal requests for information. Here again, the Grand Jury is superimposing alleged failures of the past on the Current Board. Finding No. Minutes of TLHCD meetings from January 2010 through December of 2015 fail to disclose the dire situation into which the Phase I project had devolved, thus leaving TLHCD taxpayers without direct access to information to which they were entitled. Response: The Current Board has insufficient information to address the Grand Jury's allegations regarding the actions (or failures to act) of any Prior Boards. By the time that the Current Board was seated in May 2015, the problems with the Tower Project were widely known to the general public and were in fact addressed many times at open Board meetings. Finding No. The turmoil surrounding the personnel turnover at the top of the TLHCD management structure served to distract Board Members' attention from the Phase I Project, thus leading to additional delays and severance agreements in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Response: This is nothing but speculation and conjecture and not fact, which is precisely what a Grand Jury should not be doing. (See the Grand Jury's own "Disclaimer" at the end of the Report.) While it is indisputable that there was significant turnover of Prior Board members and administrative personnel over the past 10 years, here again all this occurred prior to the seating of the Current Board. In fact, the Current Board has created an unprecedented environment of stability over the past two years. The Current Board has insufficient information to address the Grand Jury's allegations regarding the actions (or failures to act) of any Prior Boards. However, there is no necessary correlation between the turnover of the Prior Board members and the ability of the Prior Boards to focus on the Tower Project, nor is there any reason to believe that such turnover led to delays in construction of the Tower Project. Moreover, there is no necessary correlation between such turnover and any severance agreements, or the impact, if any, of those severance agreements on the Tower Project. Finding No. The court ordered settlement represents 9.29 percent of the $85 Million in proceeds from the sale of bonds and required funds needed to complete Phase I to be allocated to a purpose other than construction. Response: This finding is likewise wholly inaccurate. First, there was no court-ordered settlement. In fact, the settlement was a voluntary agreement between the District and Harris. Second, none of the settlement amount was allocated for purposes other than construction. In fact, the entire settlement was for work on the Tower Project which had been completed by Harris. Further, part of the settlement involved Harris waiving $9.7 Million of its claims, and the District retained the right to pursue claims against the prior architect and subcontractors. The District has been actively pursuing those claims and has already collected $1.9 Million. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: That the TLHCD Board of Directors, without delay, undergo training in aspects of governmental transparency and disclosure requirements pertaining to the expenditure of public funds. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted and/or is not reasonable. There is no legitimate reason to impute any failings or shortcomings of Prior Boards to the Current Board. The Current Board is well aware of its responsibilities on matters of governmental transparency and disclosure requirements pertaining to the expenditure of public funds. The Current Board undergoes annual training regarding its responsibilities under all relevant statutes. Recommendation 2: That the TLHCD Board of Directors, without delay, release to the general public a full disclosure of the manner in which proceeds from the sale of $85 Million in bonds were expended from September of 2007 through December of 2015. Response: The recommendation has already been implemented. Copies of the bond reports, which were prepared by two independent outside auditing firms, have been provided to the Bond Oversight Committee and to any member of the public who has requested same, and copies of the bond reports will be provided in the future to any member of the public who requests same. The final report was made available for public review at an open meeting of the Board held on December 9, 2015, at which a representative of the auditor made a presentation discussing the report. (See Exhibit A). Recommendation 3: That the current Bond Oversight Committee be disbanded and a new Committee seated, fully enabled to disclose the actual/present financial circumstances surrounding the Phase I Project. Response: The recommendation, insofar as it involves disbanding the current Board Oversight Committee, has not been implemented, but it will be voted on at the next regular Board meeting to be held in June 2016. The recommendation, insofar as it involves seating a new Committee, will not be implemented because it is not warranted and/or is not reasonable. There is no need for a Committee to oversee the disbursement of the original $85 Million bond funds because all of the bond funds were disbursed by September 2014 and four independent examinations of the entire bond disbursement period have already been conducted and certified by two outside professional auditing firms. CONCLUSION It is clear that this Grand Jury acted at best unprofessionally in its approach, and at worst was deliberately biased, and as a result the Report that it issued was a disservice to the community. The issues that it raised in the Report are years old, and have been addressed multiple times by professional independent outside reviewers. Most importantly, in the past 28 months, the Hospital has shown a dramatic and remarkable turnaround in its operations, governance, and the construction project that this Report addresses. The failure here is on the part of this unqualified and overzealous Grand Jury in failing to see the dramatic positive transformational changes that have occurred in the past 28 months under the governance of the Current Board and its management team — changes recognized by several outside professional auditors and national rating agencies. The only thing that has remained the same at the Hospital is the address. Sherrie Bell, Chair of the Board Parmod Kumar, M.D., Board Member May 26, 2016 Laufa Gadke, Board Member Gown Linda Wilbourn, Board Member Richard Torrez Board Member
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the TLHCD Board of Directors, without delay, undergo training in aspects of governmental transparency and disclosure requirements pertaining to the expenditure of public funds.
R2:
That the TLHCD Board of Directors, without delay, release to the general public a full disclosure of the manner in which proceeds from the sale of $85 Million in bonds were expended from September of 2007 through December of 2015.
R3:
That the current Bond Oversight Committee be disbanded and a new Committee seated, fully enabled to disclose the actual/present financial circumstances surrounding the Phase I Project. REQUIRED RESPONSES:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
As a result of the volunteer organizational expert's guidance, attention was focused on preparing an audit for RCSD's 2014-2015 Fiscal Year. Records for previous years were found to be inadequate and incomplete in terms of completion of an audit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the RCSD maintain its recent commitment to adhere to generally accepted accounting principles and transparency. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Richgrove Community Service District Board of Directors
F2:
As of the date of this report, comprehensive practices and procedures encompassing all aspects of RCSD operations have been implemented, with formal adoption pending.
F3:
The services of a Public Accountant were secured and a new accounting system has been implemented by RCSD to assist in reporting the district's financial condition. PARK FINDINGS
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
That the RCSD maintain its recent commitment to adhere to generally accepted accounting principles and transparency. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Richgrove Community Service District Board of Directors
F4:
The RCSD Board has the ultimate responsibility for financial and construction administration of the $2.81 Million grant.
F5:
Documents provided by the RCSD Board were inadequate and failed to fully comply with the subpoena. Many of the documents received by the Grand Jury appear incomplete, unclear and contradictory in explanation of financial and contractual administration for the Park.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the RCSD Board educate themselves to all public codes applicable to the operation, administration and oversight responsibility of a special district.
F6:
The RCSD Board failed to exercise due diligence with respect to executing its oversight responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
That the RCSD Board educate themselves to all public codes applicable to the operation, administration and oversight responsibility of a special district.
R2:
That the RCSD Board give serious consideration to hiring a professional administrator.
F7:
The RCSD Board failed to exercise due diligence with respect to executing fiduciary responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
That the RCSD Board educate themselves to all public codes applicable to the operation, administration and oversight responsibility of a special district.
R2:
That the RCSD Board give serious consideration to hiring a professional administrator.
F8:
The RCSD failed to adhere to appropriate public codes in requiring the necessary bids for construction (PCC Section 20680-20683). (see Attachment "B")
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
That the RCSD Board educate themselves to all public codes applicable to the operation, administration and oversight responsibility of a special district.
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury determined the combining of the office of city manager and police chief positions critically weakened the checks-and-balances with regards to personnel issues. This eliminated the division of authority to more than one person and position.
F2:
A number of costly employee settlements resulted from the aforementioned combination of these two positions.
F3:
The Grand Jury determined that the lack of meaningful evidence made allegations of Brown Act violations difficult to substantiate.
F4:
Some City council members were involved in discussions over union issues at private residences and outside the parameters of established procedures.
F5:
The cost of the employee settlements contributed to the city’s poor financial condition and the necessity to impose employee furloughs.
F6:
A resigned board member had not been replaced at time of this report.
F7:
An off-site staff development meeting cost in excess of $4,000.
F8:
The Bond/Citizen’s Oversight Committee meets approximately every other month.
F9:
Most of the applications are lengthy and somewhat complicated, but county employees assist with completing the forms, if necessary. FINDINGS: F1. The Tulare County Grand Jury found Cal-Works employees to be helpful and knowledgeable about the resources that are available to homeless individuals in Tulare County. F2. Individuals who are not mentally ill or chemically dependent, and without children, are not eligible for any available housing programs.
F10:
Two mobile chicken coops were designed and built for the TCSO. They provide approximately one thousand eggs per day. This accounts for half of the eggs consumed by the inmates.
F11:
The initial savings in the cost of eggs was $1,530 per week. Annual savings is estimated at $53,000.
F12:
The TCSO is in the process of acquiring two additional mobile chicken coops.
F13:
All beef and pork consumed by the inmates is completely produced by the TCSO farming program. About 4,000 lbs. of hanging meat (beef and/or pork) is provided weekly.
F14:
By not purchasing outside-sourced beef and pork, there is an approximate $320,000 annual savings.
F15:
Approximately 120,000 pounds per year of tomatoes, bell peppers, squash, eggplant, okra, sweet corn, potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, lettuce, onions, cabbage, Fresno chilies, Jalapenos, watermelon, and cantaloupe are grown by the farming program. This results in significant annual cost savings.
F16:
Excess fruits and vegetables are traded to packing houses and gleaning organizations for other produce not grown by the TCSO farming program.
F17:
The farming program also has benefits by teaching agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates. Some of the County’s programs provide competency certificates to participating inmates.
F18:
The TCSO operates six (6) inmate work crews. There are two (2) litter removal crews, one (1) tire abatement crew, one (1) gleaning crew, one (1) garden and farming crew and one (1) beef and hog crew. FINDINGS: F1. The detention facilities within Tulare County appear to be adequately maintained. F2. The farming program is innovative and is a significant cost-savings measure. F3. To realize greater self-sufficiency and provide greater cost savings, the TCSO is proposing to acquire two more mobile chicken coops. This would essentially double the savings in egg supply costs. F4. The detention facility beef and pork production has multiple advantages, especially in cost savings and providing work experience for inmates. F5. The farming program training for agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates provide valuable skills and, in some cases, certificates to increase the chance of employment of inmates after release. Stable jobs aide in decreasing recidivism.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Lindsay City Council members should thoroughly familiarize themselves with open meeting laws (Brown Act) and generally acceptable procedures for conducting municipal business.
R2:
The Lindsay City Council should be more deliberative when considering the combining of key managerial positions. REQUIRED RESPONSES: Lindsay City Council
R3:
Teleconferences and/or webinars should be utilized whenever available. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Farmersville Unified School District 2. Tulare County Office of Education
R4:
Warnings of cell door operations to be printed in the Inmate Orientation Handbook. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. The Tulare County Sheriff
R5:
When rehabilitating public parks, adding water retention and percolation capabilities should be considered. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Resource Management Agency 2. City of Woodlake 3. City of Porterville 4. City of Tulare 5. City of Visalia 6. City of Lindsay 7. City of Exeter 8. City of Dinuba 9. City of Farmersville 10. Tulare County Board of Supervisors
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury determined the combining of the office of city manager and police chief positions critically weakened the checks-and-balances with regards to personnel issues. This eliminated the division of authority to more than one person and position.
F2:
A number of costly employee settlements resulted from the aforementioned combination of these two positions.
F3:
The Grand Jury determined that the lack of meaningful evidence made allegations of Brown Act violations difficult to substantiate.
F4:
Some City council members were involved in discussions over union issues at private residences and outside the parameters of established procedures.
F5:
The cost of the employee settlements contributed to the city’s poor financial condition and the necessity to impose employee furloughs.
F6:
A resigned board member had not been replaced at time of this report.
F7:
An off-site staff development meeting cost in excess of $4,000.
F8:
The Bond/Citizen’s Oversight Committee meets approximately every other month.
F9:
Most of the applications are lengthy and somewhat complicated, but county employees assist with completing the forms, if necessary. FINDINGS: F1. The Tulare County Grand Jury found Cal-Works employees to be helpful and knowledgeable about the resources that are available to homeless individuals in Tulare County. F2. Individuals who are not mentally ill or chemically dependent, and without children, are not eligible for any available housing programs.
F10:
Two mobile chicken coops were designed and built for the TCSO. They provide approximately one thousand eggs per day. This accounts for half of the eggs consumed by the inmates.
F11:
The initial savings in the cost of eggs was $1,530 per week. Annual savings is estimated at $53,000.
F12:
The TCSO is in the process of acquiring two additional mobile chicken coops.
F13:
All beef and pork consumed by the inmates is completely produced by the TCSO farming program. About 4,000 lbs. of hanging meat (beef and/or pork) is provided weekly.
F14:
By not purchasing outside-sourced beef and pork, there is an approximate $320,000 annual savings.
F15:
Approximately 120,000 pounds per year of tomatoes, bell peppers, squash, eggplant, okra, sweet corn, potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, lettuce, onions, cabbage, Fresno chilies, Jalapenos, watermelon, and cantaloupe are grown by the farming program. This results in significant annual cost savings.
F16:
Excess fruits and vegetables are traded to packing houses and gleaning organizations for other produce not grown by the TCSO farming program.
F17:
The farming program also has benefits by teaching agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates. Some of the County’s programs provide competency certificates to participating inmates.
F18:
The TCSO operates six (6) inmate work crews. There are two (2) litter removal crews, one (1) tire abatement crew, one (1) gleaning crew, one (1) garden and farming crew and one (1) beef and hog crew. FINDINGS: F1. The detention facilities within Tulare County appear to be adequately maintained. F2. The farming program is innovative and is a significant cost-savings measure. F3. To realize greater self-sufficiency and provide greater cost savings, the TCSO is proposing to acquire two more mobile chicken coops. This would essentially double the savings in egg supply costs. F4. The detention facility beef and pork production has multiple advantages, especially in cost savings and providing work experience for inmates. F5. The farming program training for agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates provide valuable skills and, in some cases, certificates to increase the chance of employment of inmates after release. Stable jobs aide in decreasing recidivism.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Lindsay City Council members should thoroughly familiarize themselves with open meeting laws (Brown Act) and generally acceptable procedures for conducting municipal business.
R2:
The Lindsay City Council should be more deliberative when considering the combining of key managerial positions. REQUIRED RESPONSES: Lindsay City Council
R3:
Teleconferences and/or webinars should be utilized whenever available. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Farmersville Unified School District 2. Tulare County Office of Education
R4:
Warnings of cell door operations to be printed in the Inmate Orientation Handbook. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. The Tulare County Sheriff
R5:
When rehabilitating public parks, adding water retention and percolation capabilities should be considered. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Resource Management Agency 2. City of Woodlake 3. City of Porterville 4. City of Tulare 5. City of Visalia 6. City of Lindsay 7. City of Exeter 8. City of Dinuba 9. City of Farmersville 10. Tulare County Board of Supervisors
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury determined the combining of the office of city manager and police chief positions critically weakened the checks-and-balances with regards to personnel issues. This eliminated the division of authority to more than one person and position.
F2:
A number of costly employee settlements resulted from the aforementioned combination of these two positions.
F3:
The Grand Jury determined that the lack of meaningful evidence made allegations of Brown Act violations difficult to substantiate.
F4:
Some City council members were involved in discussions over union issues at private residences and outside the parameters of established procedures.
F5:
The cost of the employee settlements contributed to the city’s poor financial condition and the necessity to impose employee furloughs.
F6:
A resigned board member had not been replaced at time of this report.
F7:
An off-site staff development meeting cost in excess of $4,000.
F8:
The Bond/Citizen’s Oversight Committee meets approximately every other month.
F9:
Most of the applications are lengthy and somewhat complicated, but county employees assist with completing the forms, if necessary. FINDINGS: F1. The Tulare County Grand Jury found Cal-Works employees to be helpful and knowledgeable about the resources that are available to homeless individuals in Tulare County. F2. Individuals who are not mentally ill or chemically dependent, and without children, are not eligible for any available housing programs.
F10:
Two mobile chicken coops were designed and built for the TCSO. They provide approximately one thousand eggs per day. This accounts for half of the eggs consumed by the inmates.
F11:
The initial savings in the cost of eggs was $1,530 per week. Annual savings is estimated at $53,000.
F12:
The TCSO is in the process of acquiring two additional mobile chicken coops.
F13:
All beef and pork consumed by the inmates is completely produced by the TCSO farming program. About 4,000 lbs. of hanging meat (beef and/or pork) is provided weekly.
F14:
By not purchasing outside-sourced beef and pork, there is an approximate $320,000 annual savings.
F15:
Approximately 120,000 pounds per year of tomatoes, bell peppers, squash, eggplant, okra, sweet corn, potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, lettuce, onions, cabbage, Fresno chilies, Jalapenos, watermelon, and cantaloupe are grown by the farming program. This results in significant annual cost savings.
F16:
Excess fruits and vegetables are traded to packing houses and gleaning organizations for other produce not grown by the TCSO farming program.
F17:
The farming program also has benefits by teaching agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates. Some of the County’s programs provide competency certificates to participating inmates.
F18:
The TCSO operates six (6) inmate work crews. There are two (2) litter removal crews, one (1) tire abatement crew, one (1) gleaning crew, one (1) garden and farming crew and one (1) beef and hog crew. FINDINGS: F1. The detention facilities within Tulare County appear to be adequately maintained. F2. The farming program is innovative and is a significant cost-savings measure. F3. To realize greater self-sufficiency and provide greater cost savings, the TCSO is proposing to acquire two more mobile chicken coops. This would essentially double the savings in egg supply costs. F4. The detention facility beef and pork production has multiple advantages, especially in cost savings and providing work experience for inmates. F5. The farming program training for agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates provide valuable skills and, in some cases, certificates to increase the chance of employment of inmates after release. Stable jobs aide in decreasing recidivism.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Lindsay City Council members should thoroughly familiarize themselves with open meeting laws (Brown Act) and generally acceptable procedures for conducting municipal business.
R2:
The Lindsay City Council should be more deliberative when considering the combining of key managerial positions. REQUIRED RESPONSES: Lindsay City Council
R3:
Teleconferences and/or webinars should be utilized whenever available. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Farmersville Unified School District 2. Tulare County Office of Education
R4:
Warnings of cell door operations to be printed in the Inmate Orientation Handbook. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. The Tulare County Sheriff
R5:
When rehabilitating public parks, adding water retention and percolation capabilities should be considered. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Resource Management Agency 2. City of Woodlake 3. City of Porterville 4. City of Tulare 5. City of Visalia 6. City of Lindsay 7. City of Exeter 8. City of Dinuba 9. City of Farmersville 10. Tulare County Board of Supervisors
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury determined the combining of the office of city manager and police chief positions critically weakened the checks-and-balances with regards to personnel issues. This eliminated the division of authority to more than one person and position.
F2:
A number of costly employee settlements resulted from the aforementioned combination of these two positions.
F3:
The Grand Jury determined that the lack of meaningful evidence made allegations of Brown Act violations difficult to substantiate.
F4:
Some City council members were involved in discussions over union issues at private residences and outside the parameters of established procedures.
F5:
The cost of the employee settlements contributed to the city’s poor financial condition and the necessity to impose employee furloughs.
F6:
A resigned board member had not been replaced at time of this report.
F7:
An off-site staff development meeting cost in excess of $4,000.
F8:
The Bond/Citizen’s Oversight Committee meets approximately every other month.
F9:
Most of the applications are lengthy and somewhat complicated, but county employees assist with completing the forms, if necessary. FINDINGS: F1. The Tulare County Grand Jury found Cal-Works employees to be helpful and knowledgeable about the resources that are available to homeless individuals in Tulare County. F2. Individuals who are not mentally ill or chemically dependent, and without children, are not eligible for any available housing programs.
F10:
Two mobile chicken coops were designed and built for the TCSO. They provide approximately one thousand eggs per day. This accounts for half of the eggs consumed by the inmates.
F11:
The initial savings in the cost of eggs was $1,530 per week. Annual savings is estimated at $53,000.
F12:
The TCSO is in the process of acquiring two additional mobile chicken coops.
F13:
All beef and pork consumed by the inmates is completely produced by the TCSO farming program. About 4,000 lbs. of hanging meat (beef and/or pork) is provided weekly.
F14:
By not purchasing outside-sourced beef and pork, there is an approximate $320,000 annual savings.
F15:
Approximately 120,000 pounds per year of tomatoes, bell peppers, squash, eggplant, okra, sweet corn, potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, lettuce, onions, cabbage, Fresno chilies, Jalapenos, watermelon, and cantaloupe are grown by the farming program. This results in significant annual cost savings.
F16:
Excess fruits and vegetables are traded to packing houses and gleaning organizations for other produce not grown by the TCSO farming program.
F17:
The farming program also has benefits by teaching agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates. Some of the County’s programs provide competency certificates to participating inmates.
F18:
The TCSO operates six (6) inmate work crews. There are two (2) litter removal crews, one (1) tire abatement crew, one (1) gleaning crew, one (1) garden and farming crew and one (1) beef and hog crew. FINDINGS: F1. The detention facilities within Tulare County appear to be adequately maintained. F2. The farming program is innovative and is a significant cost-savings measure. F3. To realize greater self-sufficiency and provide greater cost savings, the TCSO is proposing to acquire two more mobile chicken coops. This would essentially double the savings in egg supply costs. F4. The detention facility beef and pork production has multiple advantages, especially in cost savings and providing work experience for inmates. F5. The farming program training for agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates provide valuable skills and, in some cases, certificates to increase the chance of employment of inmates after release. Stable jobs aide in decreasing recidivism.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Lindsay City Council members should thoroughly familiarize themselves with open meeting laws (Brown Act) and generally acceptable procedures for conducting municipal business.
R2:
The Lindsay City Council should be more deliberative when considering the combining of key managerial positions. REQUIRED RESPONSES: Lindsay City Council
R3:
Teleconferences and/or webinars should be utilized whenever available. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Farmersville Unified School District 2. Tulare County Office of Education
R4:
Warnings of cell door operations to be printed in the Inmate Orientation Handbook. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. The Tulare County Sheriff
R5:
When rehabilitating public parks, adding water retention and percolation capabilities should be considered. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Resource Management Agency 2. City of Woodlake 3. City of Porterville 4. City of Tulare 5. City of Visalia 6. City of Lindsay 7. City of Exeter 8. City of Dinuba 9. City of Farmersville 10. Tulare County Board of Supervisors
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury determined the combining of the office of city manager and police chief positions critically weakened the checks-and-balances with regards to personnel issues. This eliminated the division of authority to more than one person and position.
F2:
A number of costly employee settlements resulted from the aforementioned combination of these two positions.
F3:
The Grand Jury determined that the lack of meaningful evidence made allegations of Brown Act violations difficult to substantiate.
F4:
Some City council members were involved in discussions over union issues at private residences and outside the parameters of established procedures.
F5:
The cost of the employee settlements contributed to the city’s poor financial condition and the necessity to impose employee furloughs.
F6:
A resigned board member had not been replaced at time of this report.
F7:
An off-site staff development meeting cost in excess of $4,000.
F8:
The Bond/Citizen’s Oversight Committee meets approximately every other month.
F9:
Most of the applications are lengthy and somewhat complicated, but county employees assist with completing the forms, if necessary. FINDINGS: F1. The Tulare County Grand Jury found Cal-Works employees to be helpful and knowledgeable about the resources that are available to homeless individuals in Tulare County. F2. Individuals who are not mentally ill or chemically dependent, and without children, are not eligible for any available housing programs.
F10:
Two mobile chicken coops were designed and built for the TCSO. They provide approximately one thousand eggs per day. This accounts for half of the eggs consumed by the inmates.
F11:
The initial savings in the cost of eggs was $1,530 per week. Annual savings is estimated at $53,000.
F12:
The TCSO is in the process of acquiring two additional mobile chicken coops.
F13:
All beef and pork consumed by the inmates is completely produced by the TCSO farming program. About 4,000 lbs. of hanging meat (beef and/or pork) is provided weekly.
F14:
By not purchasing outside-sourced beef and pork, there is an approximate $320,000 annual savings.
F15:
Approximately 120,000 pounds per year of tomatoes, bell peppers, squash, eggplant, okra, sweet corn, potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, lettuce, onions, cabbage, Fresno chilies, Jalapenos, watermelon, and cantaloupe are grown by the farming program. This results in significant annual cost savings.
F16:
Excess fruits and vegetables are traded to packing houses and gleaning organizations for other produce not grown by the TCSO farming program.
F17:
The farming program also has benefits by teaching agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates. Some of the County’s programs provide competency certificates to participating inmates.
F18:
The TCSO operates six (6) inmate work crews. There are two (2) litter removal crews, one (1) tire abatement crew, one (1) gleaning crew, one (1) garden and farming crew and one (1) beef and hog crew. FINDINGS: F1. The detention facilities within Tulare County appear to be adequately maintained. F2. The farming program is innovative and is a significant cost-savings measure. F3. To realize greater self-sufficiency and provide greater cost savings, the TCSO is proposing to acquire two more mobile chicken coops. This would essentially double the savings in egg supply costs. F4. The detention facility beef and pork production has multiple advantages, especially in cost savings and providing work experience for inmates. F5. The farming program training for agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates provide valuable skills and, in some cases, certificates to increase the chance of employment of inmates after release. Stable jobs aide in decreasing recidivism.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Lindsay City Council members should thoroughly familiarize themselves with open meeting laws (Brown Act) and generally acceptable procedures for conducting municipal business.
R2:
The Lindsay City Council should be more deliberative when considering the combining of key managerial positions. REQUIRED RESPONSES: Lindsay City Council
R3:
Teleconferences and/or webinars should be utilized whenever available. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Farmersville Unified School District 2. Tulare County Office of Education
R4:
Warnings of cell door operations to be printed in the Inmate Orientation Handbook. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. The Tulare County Sheriff
R5:
When rehabilitating public parks, adding water retention and percolation capabilities should be considered. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Resource Management Agency 2. City of Woodlake 3. City of Porterville 4. City of Tulare 5. City of Visalia 6. City of Lindsay 7. City of Exeter 8. City of Dinuba 9. City of Farmersville 10. Tulare County Board of Supervisors
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury determined the combining of the office of city manager and police chief positions critically weakened the checks-and-balances with regards to personnel issues. This eliminated the division of authority to more than one person and position.
F2:
A number of costly employee settlements resulted from the aforementioned combination of these two positions.
F3:
The Grand Jury determined that the lack of meaningful evidence made allegations of Brown Act violations difficult to substantiate.
F4:
Some City council members were involved in discussions over union issues at private residences and outside the parameters of established procedures.
F5:
The cost of the employee settlements contributed to the city’s poor financial condition and the necessity to impose employee furloughs.
F6:
A resigned board member had not been replaced at time of this report.
F7:
An off-site staff development meeting cost in excess of $4,000.
F8:
The Bond/Citizen’s Oversight Committee meets approximately every other month.
F9:
Most of the applications are lengthy and somewhat complicated, but county employees assist with completing the forms, if necessary. FINDINGS: F1. The Tulare County Grand Jury found Cal-Works employees to be helpful and knowledgeable about the resources that are available to homeless individuals in Tulare County. F2. Individuals who are not mentally ill or chemically dependent, and without children, are not eligible for any available housing programs.
F10:
Two mobile chicken coops were designed and built for the TCSO. They provide approximately one thousand eggs per day. This accounts for half of the eggs consumed by the inmates.
F11:
The initial savings in the cost of eggs was $1,530 per week. Annual savings is estimated at $53,000.
F12:
The TCSO is in the process of acquiring two additional mobile chicken coops.
F13:
All beef and pork consumed by the inmates is completely produced by the TCSO farming program. About 4,000 lbs. of hanging meat (beef and/or pork) is provided weekly.
F14:
By not purchasing outside-sourced beef and pork, there is an approximate $320,000 annual savings.
F15:
Approximately 120,000 pounds per year of tomatoes, bell peppers, squash, eggplant, okra, sweet corn, potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, lettuce, onions, cabbage, Fresno chilies, Jalapenos, watermelon, and cantaloupe are grown by the farming program. This results in significant annual cost savings.
F16:
Excess fruits and vegetables are traded to packing houses and gleaning organizations for other produce not grown by the TCSO farming program.
F17:
The farming program also has benefits by teaching agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates. Some of the County’s programs provide competency certificates to participating inmates.
F18:
The TCSO operates six (6) inmate work crews. There are two (2) litter removal crews, one (1) tire abatement crew, one (1) gleaning crew, one (1) garden and farming crew and one (1) beef and hog crew. FINDINGS: F1. The detention facilities within Tulare County appear to be adequately maintained. F2. The farming program is innovative and is a significant cost-savings measure. F3. To realize greater self-sufficiency and provide greater cost savings, the TCSO is proposing to acquire two more mobile chicken coops. This would essentially double the savings in egg supply costs. F4. The detention facility beef and pork production has multiple advantages, especially in cost savings and providing work experience for inmates. F5. The farming program training for agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates provide valuable skills and, in some cases, certificates to increase the chance of employment of inmates after release. Stable jobs aide in decreasing recidivism.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Lindsay City Council members should thoroughly familiarize themselves with open meeting laws (Brown Act) and generally acceptable procedures for conducting municipal business.
R2:
The Lindsay City Council should be more deliberative when considering the combining of key managerial positions. REQUIRED RESPONSES: Lindsay City Council
R3:
Teleconferences and/or webinars should be utilized whenever available. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Farmersville Unified School District 2. Tulare County Office of Education
R4:
Warnings of cell door operations to be printed in the Inmate Orientation Handbook. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. The Tulare County Sheriff
R5:
When rehabilitating public parks, adding water retention and percolation capabilities should be considered. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Resource Management Agency 2. City of Woodlake 3. City of Porterville 4. City of Tulare 5. City of Visalia 6. City of Lindsay 7. City of Exeter 8. City of Dinuba 9. City of Farmersville 10. Tulare County Board of Supervisors
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury determined the combining of the office of city manager and police chief positions critically weakened the checks-and-balances with regards to personnel issues. This eliminated the division of authority to more than one person and position.
F2:
A number of costly employee settlements resulted from the aforementioned combination of these two positions.
F3:
The Grand Jury determined that the lack of meaningful evidence made allegations of Brown Act violations difficult to substantiate.
F4:
Some City council members were involved in discussions over union issues at private residences and outside the parameters of established procedures.
F5:
The cost of the employee settlements contributed to the city’s poor financial condition and the necessity to impose employee furloughs.
F6:
A resigned board member had not been replaced at time of this report.
F7:
An off-site staff development meeting cost in excess of $4,000.
F8:
The Bond/Citizen’s Oversight Committee meets approximately every other month.
F9:
Most of the applications are lengthy and somewhat complicated, but county employees assist with completing the forms, if necessary. FINDINGS: F1. The Tulare County Grand Jury found Cal-Works employees to be helpful and knowledgeable about the resources that are available to homeless individuals in Tulare County. F2. Individuals who are not mentally ill or chemically dependent, and without children, are not eligible for any available housing programs.
F10:
Two mobile chicken coops were designed and built for the TCSO. They provide approximately one thousand eggs per day. This accounts for half of the eggs consumed by the inmates.
F11:
The initial savings in the cost of eggs was $1,530 per week. Annual savings is estimated at $53,000.
F12:
The TCSO is in the process of acquiring two additional mobile chicken coops.
F13:
All beef and pork consumed by the inmates is completely produced by the TCSO farming program. About 4,000 lbs. of hanging meat (beef and/or pork) is provided weekly.
F14:
By not purchasing outside-sourced beef and pork, there is an approximate $320,000 annual savings.
F15:
Approximately 120,000 pounds per year of tomatoes, bell peppers, squash, eggplant, okra, sweet corn, potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, lettuce, onions, cabbage, Fresno chilies, Jalapenos, watermelon, and cantaloupe are grown by the farming program. This results in significant annual cost savings.
F16:
Excess fruits and vegetables are traded to packing houses and gleaning organizations for other produce not grown by the TCSO farming program.
F17:
The farming program also has benefits by teaching agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates. Some of the County’s programs provide competency certificates to participating inmates.
F18:
The TCSO operates six (6) inmate work crews. There are two (2) litter removal crews, one (1) tire abatement crew, one (1) gleaning crew, one (1) garden and farming crew and one (1) beef and hog crew. FINDINGS: F1. The detention facilities within Tulare County appear to be adequately maintained. F2. The farming program is innovative and is a significant cost-savings measure. F3. To realize greater self-sufficiency and provide greater cost savings, the TCSO is proposing to acquire two more mobile chicken coops. This would essentially double the savings in egg supply costs. F4. The detention facility beef and pork production has multiple advantages, especially in cost savings and providing work experience for inmates. F5. The farming program training for agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates provide valuable skills and, in some cases, certificates to increase the chance of employment of inmates after release. Stable jobs aide in decreasing recidivism.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Lindsay City Council members should thoroughly familiarize themselves with open meeting laws (Brown Act) and generally acceptable procedures for conducting municipal business.
R2:
The Lindsay City Council should be more deliberative when considering the combining of key managerial positions. REQUIRED RESPONSES: Lindsay City Council
R3:
Teleconferences and/or webinars should be utilized whenever available. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Farmersville Unified School District 2. Tulare County Office of Education
R4:
Warnings of cell door operations to be printed in the Inmate Orientation Handbook. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. The Tulare County Sheriff
R5:
When rehabilitating public parks, adding water retention and percolation capabilities should be considered. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Resource Management Agency 2. City of Woodlake 3. City of Porterville 4. City of Tulare 5. City of Visalia 6. City of Lindsay 7. City of Exeter 8. City of Dinuba 9. City of Farmersville 10. Tulare County Board of Supervisors
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury determined the combining of the office of city manager and police chief positions critically weakened the checks-and-balances with regards to personnel issues. This eliminated the division of authority to more than one person and position.
F2:
A number of costly employee settlements resulted from the aforementioned combination of these two positions.
F3:
The Grand Jury determined that the lack of meaningful evidence made allegations of Brown Act violations difficult to substantiate.
F4:
Some City council members were involved in discussions over union issues at private residences and outside the parameters of established procedures.
F5:
The cost of the employee settlements contributed to the city’s poor financial condition and the necessity to impose employee furloughs.
F6:
A resigned board member had not been replaced at time of this report.
F7:
An off-site staff development meeting cost in excess of $4,000.
F8:
The Bond/Citizen’s Oversight Committee meets approximately every other month.
F9:
Most of the applications are lengthy and somewhat complicated, but county employees assist with completing the forms, if necessary. FINDINGS: F1. The Tulare County Grand Jury found Cal-Works employees to be helpful and knowledgeable about the resources that are available to homeless individuals in Tulare County. F2. Individuals who are not mentally ill or chemically dependent, and without children, are not eligible for any available housing programs.
F10:
Two mobile chicken coops were designed and built for the TCSO. They provide approximately one thousand eggs per day. This accounts for half of the eggs consumed by the inmates.
F11:
The initial savings in the cost of eggs was $1,530 per week. Annual savings is estimated at $53,000.
F12:
The TCSO is in the process of acquiring two additional mobile chicken coops.
F13:
All beef and pork consumed by the inmates is completely produced by the TCSO farming program. About 4,000 lbs. of hanging meat (beef and/or pork) is provided weekly.
F14:
By not purchasing outside-sourced beef and pork, there is an approximate $320,000 annual savings.
F15:
Approximately 120,000 pounds per year of tomatoes, bell peppers, squash, eggplant, okra, sweet corn, potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, lettuce, onions, cabbage, Fresno chilies, Jalapenos, watermelon, and cantaloupe are grown by the farming program. This results in significant annual cost savings.
F16:
Excess fruits and vegetables are traded to packing houses and gleaning organizations for other produce not grown by the TCSO farming program.
F17:
The farming program also has benefits by teaching agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates. Some of the County’s programs provide competency certificates to participating inmates.
F18:
The TCSO operates six (6) inmate work crews. There are two (2) litter removal crews, one (1) tire abatement crew, one (1) gleaning crew, one (1) garden and farming crew and one (1) beef and hog crew. FINDINGS: F1. The detention facilities within Tulare County appear to be adequately maintained. F2. The farming program is innovative and is a significant cost-savings measure. F3. To realize greater self-sufficiency and provide greater cost savings, the TCSO is proposing to acquire two more mobile chicken coops. This would essentially double the savings in egg supply costs. F4. The detention facility beef and pork production has multiple advantages, especially in cost savings and providing work experience for inmates. F5. The farming program training for agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates provide valuable skills and, in some cases, certificates to increase the chance of employment of inmates after release. Stable jobs aide in decreasing recidivism.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Lindsay City Council members should thoroughly familiarize themselves with open meeting laws (Brown Act) and generally acceptable procedures for conducting municipal business.
R2:
The Lindsay City Council should be more deliberative when considering the combining of key managerial positions. REQUIRED RESPONSES: Lindsay City Council
R3:
Teleconferences and/or webinars should be utilized whenever available. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Farmersville Unified School District 2. Tulare County Office of Education
R4:
Warnings of cell door operations to be printed in the Inmate Orientation Handbook. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. The Tulare County Sheriff
R5:
When rehabilitating public parks, adding water retention and percolation capabilities should be considered. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Resource Management Agency 2. City of Woodlake 3. City of Porterville 4. City of Tulare 5. City of Visalia 6. City of Lindsay 7. City of Exeter 8. City of Dinuba 9. City of Farmersville 10. Tulare County Board of Supervisors
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
The complainant was on PRCS at the time of the incident.
F2:
The complainant was classified as a high-risk, chronic drug user and was not drug tested when taken into custody.
F3:
Reasonable cause was present when complainant was stopped, searched and detained by law enforcement.
F4:
For individuals on PRCS and homeless, a new policy was implemented by the Tulare County Probation Office requiring GPS monitoring.
F5:
The Officer used the TASER within the guidelines of the Tulare Police Department policy.
F6:
The complainant’s allegations against the Tulare Police Department were not substantiated.
F7:
The Grand Jury was not advised by the Office of the District Attorney as to the rationale for declining prosecution of this case.
F8:
The Office of the District Attorney has the prosecutorial discretion to determine which cases will be prosecuted and those which will not. FINDINGS: F1. The Tulare County Sheriff’s staff did not follow established use of force policies and procedures. F2. The Tulare County Grand Jury found inconsistencies between written reports and video footage. F3. Evidence reviewed by the Grand Jury did not indicate if additional training and/or discipline had been administered to all participants in the incident. F4. Subsequent to the Grand Jury’s receipt of this complaint, the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department has instituted: a) comprehensive correctional officer training; b) reforms in hiring practices; c) review of disciplinary processes; and, d) upgraded technology. F5. The Tulare County Grand Jury found misconceptions to exist on the part of the staff of the Office of the District Attorney with respect to the investigative role, jurisdiction, and responsibilities of the Grand Jury. F6. After review of all evidence presented, the Grand Jury determined that physical abuse occurred and unwarranted force was used. F7. The Grand Jury was not advised by the Office of the District Attorney as to the rationale for declining prosecution of this case.
F9:
The cost per inmate, per meal dropped from $1.48 in FY 2007-2008, to $1.36 in FY 2014-2015.
F10:
Two mobile chicken coops were designed and built for the TCSO. They provide approximately one thousand eggs per day. This accounts for half of the eggs consumed by the inmates.
F11:
The initial savings in the cost of eggs was $1,530 per week. Annual savings is estimated at $53,000.
F12:
The TCSO is in the process of acquiring two additional mobile chicken coops.
F13:
All beef and pork consumed by the inmates is completely produced by the TCSO farming program. About 4,000 lbs. of hanging meat (beef and/or pork) is provided weekly.
F14:
By not purchasing outside-sourced beef and pork, there is an approximate $320,000 annual savings.
F15:
Approximately 120,000 pounds per year of tomatoes, bell peppers, squash, eggplant, okra, sweet corn, potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, lettuce, onions, cabbage, Fresno chilies, Jalapenos, watermelon, and cantaloupe are grown by the farming program. This results in significant annual cost savings.
F16:
Excess fruits and vegetables are traded to packing houses and gleaning organizations for other produce not grown by the TCSO farming program.
F17:
The farming program also has benefits by teaching agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates. Some of the County’s programs provide competency certificates to participating inmates.
F18:
The TCSO operates six (6) inmate work crews. There are two (2) litter removal crews, one (1) tire abatement crew, one (1) gleaning crew, one (1) garden and farming crew and one (1) beef and hog crew. TULARE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 2015-2016 FINDINGS: F1. The detention facilities within Tulare County appear to be adequately maintained. F2. The farming program is innovative and is a significant cost-savings measure. F3. To realize greater self-sufficiency and provide greater cost savings, the TCSO is proposing to acquire two more mobile chicken coops. This would essentially double the savings in egg supply costs. F4. The detention facility beef and pork production has multiple advantages, especially in cost savings and providing work experience for inmates. F5. The farming program training for agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates provide valuable skills and, in some cases, certificates to increase the chance of employment of inmates after release. Stable jobs aide in decreasing recidivism.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Tulare County Probation Office complies with the court mandated order for drug testing and the use of drugs.
R2:
The Tulare County Probation Office not deviate from its drug testing policy. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Probation Office
R3:
Include audio as part of video footage monitoring system. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Sheriff’s Department 28 TULARE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 2015-2016 2. Office of the Tulare County District Attorney
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The number of credit cards has been significantly reduced.
F2:
Credit cards have been used without an approved purchase order.
F3:
Staff and board conferences were frequent and expensive. Their preferred method of travel included numerous commercial airline flights.
F4:
Contrary to established policy, food was purchased for local meetings.
F5:
Two Superintendents are being paid at the same time.
F6:
A resigned board member had not been replaced at time of this report.
F7:
An off-site staff development meeting cost in excess of $4,000.
F8:
The Bond/Citizen's Oversight Committee meets approximately every other month.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the District follow the Tulare County Office of Education purchase order process.
R2:
District Policies regarding travel expenses should be followed.
R3:
Teleconferences and/or webinars should be utilized whenever available. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Farmersville Unified School District 2. Tulare County Office of Education £
R4:
Fact: District policy for food purchased must be outside of the 50 mile radius of the District.
R5:
Fact: The current superintendent has been placed on paid administrative leave, pending investigation. A previous superintendent has been hired as acting superintendent.
R6:
Fact: A longstanding board member resigned during his term.
R7:
Fact: A staff development meeting was held off site.
R8:
Fact: The Bond/Citizen's Oversight Committee meets to oversee the expenditures of the $4.8 million dollar General Obligation Bond.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
While the County Auditor/Treasurer maintains records pertaining to which special districts are in compliance with the provisions of CGC section 26909 and those which are not, the County Auditor has not made a practice of publicizing noncompliance issues.
F2:
Failure to strictly adhere to the provisions of CGC Section 53952 have created a situation wherein the County Auditor lacks the financial leverage which would otherwise be provided to enter into contracts with independent certified public accountants or public accountants to conduct the audits necessary to bring non-compliant special districts into compliance.
F3:
It appears that there has been no appreciable effort on the part of the Office of the County Auditor with respect to bringing the districts into compliance.
F4:
In many cases, the certified resolutions required by CGC Section 53952 are not on file with the Office of the County Auditor and, again, it is not apparent that effort has been expended on the part of the Office of the County Auditor to remedy this situation.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
A ten year increase of approximately 3.25% annually in operational costs is well within reasonable expectation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Aggressive efforts be implemented and monitored to recruit Extra Help (volunteer) Firefighters.
F2:
Increased training requirements for current Extra Help (volunteer) firefighters have served to discourage volunteerism.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Continue and increase efforts with respect to staffing the fire stations. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Fire Chief 2. Tulare County Board of Supervisors County of Tulare July 19, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Honorable Bret Hillman Presiding Judge Tulare County Superior Court County Civic Center, Room 303 Allen R. Ishida District One 221 South Mooney Boulevard Visalia, CA 93291 Pete Vander Poel RE: Grand Jury Report: "Smoke But No Fire Tulare County Fire Department" District Two Dear Judge Hillman: Phillip A. Cox On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, the following are the Board's responses District Three to the findings and recommendations included in the 2015/2016 Tulare County Grand Jury Report titled "Smoke But No Fire Tulare County Fire Department". The Board of Supervisors has consulted with the Tulare County Fire J. Steven Worthley Department to assist with these responses. District Four
F3:
The Tulare County Fire Department has demonstrated concern for the decrease in volunteerism by implementing a pilot program to increase regular staffing at specific stations.
F4:
The decrease in the number of Extra Help (volunteer) firefighters responding to incidents has not had an appreciable effect on services rendered.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Due to increased longevity of the elderly, the chronic lack of housing for the elderly is only expected to rise.
F2:
The current policy for the wait list does not prioritize the need of housing for the elderly.
F3:
As life spans continue to increase, there will be a greater need for additional housing for the elderly.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Reconsider current policy criteria to give priority to meeting the needs of elderly in crisis.
R2:
The HACT advise the public of the current housing shortage and lack of availability for the elderly.
R3:
The HACT develop a recruitment process with property owners to secure additional elderly housing. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Housing Authority of the County of S Mooney Boulevard Visalia, CA 93277 PHONE: (559) 624-7295 (559) 733-6078 FAX: E-MAIL: grnd_jury@co.tulare.ca.us http://tularecounty.ca.gov/grandjury/ WEB: ATTENTION: Ken Kugler AGENCY: Housing Authority of Tulare County ADDRESS: 5104 W. Cypress, Visalia, CA 93277 California Penal Code §933.05 (f) mandates that the Tulare County Grand Jury provide a copy of the portion of the final Report that affects that agency or person of that agency two working days prior to its public release. Advance release or disclosure of a Grand Jury Report is prohibited prior to its public release. Attached is a copy of your portion of the 2015-2016 Tulare County Grand Jury Final Report. California Penal Code §933(c) requires a response to said document. Depending on the type of respondent you are, a written response is required as follows: B PUBLIC AGENCY: The governing body of any public agency that is required to respond must do so within NINETY (90) DAYS from the date this report was approved as final by the Presiding Judge. R ELECTIVE OFFICER OR AGENCY HEAD: All elected officers or heads of agencies that are required to respond must do so within SIXTY (60) DAYS from the date this report was approved as final by the Presiding Judge. Please be advised, this portion of the final report was approved as final by the Presiding Judge on April 27, 2016 YOU MUST SEND YOUR RESPONSE TO EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: The Honorable _____Judge Bret Hillman Tulare County Board of Supervisors Tulare County Grand Jury County Civic Center, Room 303 2800 W. Burrel Ave 5963 S Mooney Blvd Visalia, CA 93277 221 S Mooney Blvd Visalia, CA 93291 Visalia, CA 93291 (For County Agencies Only) Received by: ( Date: he Aging Wait for Elderly Housing July 27, 2016 Report Name: Response Due Delivered by: Date and Tir (8/25/2016) Grand Jury - Grand Jury report Findings and Recommendations Ken Kugler From: "Grand Jury" To: "Julia Lew" , Cindy Fernandez CC: 8/25/2016 10:06 AM Date: Grand Jury report Findings and Recommendations Subject: Ms. Reba Grissom Foreman Tulare County Grand Jury Good Morning Ms. Grissom and members of the Tulare County Grand Jury. We received a copy of your letter dated August 11, 2016 and request for our responses to the above referenced report. I apologize for the timing of this but we have only received this letter as of Monday the 22nd. I think it may have been delayed due to the address listed on the letter being incorrect. The letter references 5104 West Cypress Ave and our address is 5140 West Cypress Ave? I hope that this e-mail can serve as an appropriate vehicle to respond. As for the Report Issues please see the information below.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
operation. Incorrect statement of fact, the cell doors are partially visible to staff during cell door operations. The grievance process was followed as required.
F2:
Correct statement of fact.
F3:
Complainant was seen by medical staff in a timely manner Correct statement of fact. An Inmate Orientation Handbook is issued to each inmate at booking and
F4:
additional copies may be requested as needed. Correct statement of fact.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
On duty custody staff to announce the closing and opening of cell doors prior to activation. The recommendation has been implemented. This recommendation was implemented on 4-4-16 at the Tulare County Main Jail. Staff now announce in a loud voice the opening and closing of cell doors prior to activation. This gives the inmates an opportunity to remove their body parts or other objects out of the way of moving cell doors.
R2:
Safety mirrors be placed in each cell block corridor to improve visualization of the cell doors. The recommendation will not be implemented. Staff brought safety mirrors into the Main Jail in an experiment to see where they should be placed. The mirrors were taken up to all three housing floors. They could not identify a specific placement of the mirrors on the tier that would allow staff to actually see the doors opening and closing. It was also noted during this experiment that the mirrors posed a security issue for staff. The mirrors could be used by inmates to see and monitor our staff's movements around the floor which creates a security risk to staffs wellbeing. It would also allow the inmates to know when staff was or wasn't on the floor which causes a security issue for the inmates.
R3:
Warning signs regarding cell door operations to be posted in clear view of all inmates. This recommendation is in the process of being implemented. The signs will be in clear view of all inmates. They will be in English and Spanish warning to "KEEP HANDS AND OBJECTS AWAY FROM ALL DOORS WHEN IN MOTION."
R4:
Warnings of cell door operations to be printed in the Inmate Orientation Handbook. This recommendation is in the process of being implemented. The Warning of cell door operations will be added to the Inmate Orientation Handbook. The Inmate Orientation Handbook is available in English or Spanish. Sincerely, Mil Boudung MIKE BOUDREAUX Sheriff-Coroner
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The complainant was on PRCS at the time of the incident.
F2:
The complainant was classified as a high-risk, chronic drug user and was not drug tested when taken into custody.
F3:
Reasonable cause was present when complainant was stopped, searched and detained by law enforcement.
F4:
For individuals on PRCS and homeless, a new policy was implemented by the Tulare County Probation Office requiring GPS monitoring.
F5:
The Officer used the TASER within the guidelines of the Tulare Police Department policy.
F6:
The complainant's allegations against the Tulare Police Department were not substantiated.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Tulare County Probation Office complies with the court mandated order for drug testing and the use of drugs.
R2:
The Tulare County Probation Office not deviate from its drug testing policy. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Probation Office
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Tulare County Sheriff's staff did not follow established use of force policies and procedures.
F2:
The Tulare County Grand Jury found inconsistencies between written reports and video footage.
F3:
Evidence reviewed by the Grand Jury did not indicate if additional training and/or discipline had been administered to all participants in the incident.
F4:
Subsequent to the Grand Jury's receipt of this complaint, the Tulare County Sheriff's Department has instituted: a) comprehensive correctional officer training; b) reforms in hiring practices; c) review of disciplinary processes; and, d) upgraded technology.
F5:
The Tulare County Grand Jury found misconceptions to exist on the part of the staff of the Office of the District Attorney with respect to the investigative role, jurisdiction, and responsibilities of the Grand Jury.
F6:
After review of all evidence presented, the Grand Jury determined that physical abuse occurred and unwarranted force was used.
F7:
The Grand Jury was not advised by the Office of the District Attorney as to the rationale for declining prosecution of this case.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Consider the expansion of sensitivity and stress reduction training.
R2:
Expand the implementation of body cameras for custody personnel.
R3:
Include audio as part of video footage monitoring system. ĺ . REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Sheriff's Department 2. Office of the Tulare County District Attorney OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF TULARE Tim Ward, District Attorney March 31, 2016 The Hon. Bret Hillman Presiding Judge Tulare County Superior Court County Civic Center, Room 303 221 S. Mooney Blvd. Visalia, CA 93291 Re: Grand Jury Report entitled "Justice for All" Dear Judge Hillman: On March 29, 2016, the Office of the District Attorney received a copy of a portion of the 2015/2016 Tulare County Grand Jury Final Report related to the Department for review and response. The report had no recommendations for the Department. It did contained seven
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The TLHCD routinely withheld pertinent information and financial data from the Bond Oversight Committee, thus rendering the Committee incapable of performing its oversight function.
F2:
The Bond Oversight Committee failed to exercise due diligence in following up on requests for detailed financial information which was necessary for the independent oversight of the expenditure of bond funds.
F3:
The 2005 voter authorized $85 Million in bonds has been completely expended. At the time this report was drafted, TLHCD had only an uncompleted and non-functional structure to show for it.
F4:
It appears that TLHCD either intentionally or unintentionally failed to comprehend the issue of the cost differential between the $85 Million in bond authorization and the total project cost estimated to be well in excess of $100 Million. It further appears that TLHCD attempted to justify their position by unsupported estimates of reserves and projection of future revenues.
F5:
Strict and complex statutes regarding public disclosure of information pertaining to the expenditure of funds proceeding from the issuance of bonds, appear to have been routinely circumvented by the TLHCD Board of Directors.
F6:
Minutes of TLHCD meetings from January 2010 through December of 2015 fail to disclose the TULARE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 2015-2016 5 6 dire situation into which the Phase I project had devolved, thus leaving TLHCD taxpayers without direaccess to information to which they were entitled.
F7:
The turmoil surrounding the personnel turnover at the top of the TLHCD management structure served to distract Board Members’ attention from the Phase I Project, thus leading to additional delays and severance agreements in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
F8:
The court ordered settlement represents 9.29 percent of the $85 Million in proceeds from the sale of bonds and required funds needed to complete Phase I to be allocated to a purpose other than construction. CONCLUSION: The Tulare County Grand Jury undertook investigation of this complaint with the goal of uncovering truths and answering questions which had been withheld from the public for nearly a decade (from commencement of construction of the Phase I Tower in 2005, through the end of 2015). Seven months of intense investigation has brought the Grand Jury to the conclusion that millions of dollars in public funds have not been accounted for by the TLHCD. Moreover, the preponderance of evidence presented to the Grand Jury indicates that over the same period of time, the TLHCD withheld information pertaining to the expenditure of public funds to which the District’s constituents were entitled.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the TLHCD Board of Directors, without delay, undergo training in aspects of governmental transparency and disclosure requirements pertaining to the expenditure of public funds.
R2:
That the TLHCD Board of Directors, without delay, release to the general public a full disclosure of the manner in which proceeds from the sale of $85 Million in bonds were expended from September of 2007 through December of 2015.
R3:
That the current Bond Oversight Committee be disbanded and a new Committee seated, fully enabled to disclose the actual/present financial circumstances surrounding the Phase I Project. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare Local Health Care District Board of Directors
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The number of credit cards has been significantly reduced.
F2:
Credit cards have been used without an approved purchase order.
F3:
Staff and board conferences were frequent and expensive. Their preferred method of travel included numerous commercial airline flights.
F4:
Contrary to established policy, food was purchased for local meetings.
F5:
Two Superintendents are being paid at the same time.
F6:
A resigned board member had not been replaced at time of this report.
F7:
An off-site staff development meeting cost in excess of $4,000.
F8:
The Bond/Citizen’s Oversight Committee meets approximately every other month.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the District follow the Tulare County Office of Education purchase order process.
R2:
District Policies regarding travel expenses should be followed.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury determined the combining of the office of city manager and police chief positions critically weakened the checks-and-balances with regards to personnel issues. This eliminated the division of authority to more than one person and position.
F2:
A number of costly employee settlements resulted from the aforementioned combination of these two positions.
F3:
The Grand Jury determined that the lack of meaningful evidence made allegations of Brown Act violations difficult to substantiate.
F4:
Some City council members were involved in discussions over union issues at private residences and outside the parameters of established procedures.
F5:
The cost of the employee settlements contributed to the city’s poor financial condition and the necessity to impose employee furloughs.
F6:
The city reached high-cost employment severance settlements (in excess of $400,000) with a number of employees over the issue of termination.
F7:
The city council imposed employee furloughs, claiming financial constraints. FINDINGS: F1. The Grand Jury determined the combining of the office of city manager and police chief positions critically weakened the checks-and-balances with regards to personnel issues. This eliminated the division of authority to more than one person and position. F2. A number of costly employee settlements resulted from the aforementioned combination of these two positions. F3. The Grand Jury determined that the lack of meaningful evidence made allegations of Brown Act violations difficult to substantiate. F4. Some City council members were involved in discussions over union issues at private residences and outside the parameters of established procedures. F5. The cost of the employee settlements contributed to the city’s poor financial condition and the necessity to impose employee furloughs.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Lindsay City Council members should thoroughly familiarize themselves with open meeting laws (Brown Act) and generally acceptable procedures for conducting municipal business.
R2:
The Lindsay City Council should be more deliberative when considering the combining of key managerial positions.
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
The complainant was on PRCS at the time of the incident.
F2:
The complainant was classified as a high-risk, chronic drug user and was not drug tested when taken into custody.
F3:
Reasonable cause was present when complainant was stopped, searched and detained by law enforcement.
F4:
For individuals on PRCS and homeless, a new policy was implemented by the Tulare County Probation Office requiring GPS monitoring.
F5:
The Officer used the TASER within the guidelines of the Tulare Police Department policy.
F6:
The complainant’s allegations against the Tulare Police Department were not substantiated.
F7:
The Grand Jury was not advised by the Office of the District Attorney as to the rationale for declining prosecution of this case.
F8:
The Office of the District Attorney has the prosecutorial discretion to determine which cases will be prosecuted and those which will not. FINDINGS: F1. The Tulare County Sheriff’s staff did not follow established use of force policies and procedures. F2. The Tulare County Grand Jury found inconsistencies between written reports and video footage. F3. Evidence reviewed by the Grand Jury did not indicate if additional training and/or discipline had been administered to all participants in the incident. F4. Subsequent to the Grand Jury’s receipt of this complaint, the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department has instituted: a) comprehensive correctional officer training; b) reforms in hiring practices; c) review of disciplinary processes; and, d) upgraded technology. F5. The Tulare County Grand Jury found misconceptions to exist on the part of the staff of the Office of the District Attorney with respect to the investigative role, jurisdiction, and responsibilities of the Grand Jury. F6. After review of all evidence presented, the Grand Jury determined that physical abuse occurred and unwarranted force was used. F7. The Grand Jury was not advised by the Office of the District Attorney as to the rationale for declining prosecution of this case.
F9:
The cost per inmate, per meal dropped from $1.48 in FY 2007-2008, to $1.36 in FY 2014-2015.
F10:
Two mobile chicken coops were designed and built for the TCSO. They provide approximately one thousand eggs per day. This accounts for half of the eggs consumed by the inmates.
F11:
The initial savings in the cost of eggs was $1,530 per week. Annual savings is estimated at $53,000.
F12:
The TCSO is in the process of acquiring two additional mobile chicken coops.
F13:
All beef and pork consumed by the inmates is completely produced by the TCSO farming program. About 4,000 lbs. of hanging meat (beef and/or pork) is provided weekly.
F14:
By not purchasing outside-sourced beef and pork, there is an approximate $320,000 annual savings.
F15:
Approximately 120,000 pounds per year of tomatoes, bell peppers, squash, eggplant, okra, sweet corn, potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, lettuce, onions, cabbage, Fresno chilies, Jalapenos, watermelon, and cantaloupe are grown by the farming program. This results in significant annual cost savings.
F16:
Excess fruits and vegetables are traded to packing houses and gleaning organizations for other produce not grown by the TCSO farming program.
F17:
The farming program also has benefits by teaching agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates. Some of the County’s programs provide competency certificates to participating inmates.
F18:
The TCSO operates six (6) inmate work crews. There are two (2) litter removal crews, one (1) tire abatement crew, one (1) gleaning crew, one (1) garden and farming crew and one (1) beef and hog crew.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Tulare County Probation Office complies with the court mandated order for drug testing and the use of drugs.
R2:
The Tulare County Probation Office not deviate from its drug testing policy. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Probation Office
R3:
Include audio as part of video footage monitoring system. REQUIRED RESPONSES: 1. Tulare County Sheriff’s Department TULARE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 2015-2016 2 9 2. Office of the Tulare County District Attorney
* 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.