Ventura County 2008-2009 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

View the full annual report (PDF)

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (14)

November 10, 2009 — Did Your Vote Count?

10 pages 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 8

Not linked to specific findings.

R01: "The Grand Jury recommends that the CED should minimize polling places with more than one ballot (e.g., City vs. unincorporated area) by adding polling places. (C-01 through C-05)" We concur in part. This recommendation has already been implemented. The existence of multiple ballot types (the availability of more than one type of ballot to voters at a particular polling place) arises due to two factors: (1) the existence of "portion precincts"; and (2) the need to combine more than one precinct at a single polling place location. First, portion precincts are precincts in which a smaller subset of the voters within that precinct vote on a different ballot than the rest of the voters in that same precinct. For example, some voters in a precinct may live in geographic area in which a water or sewer district office is on the ballot for that election. Other voters in that same precinct do not reside within the geographical boundaries of that water or sewer district and would not vote on that office. As a result, there would be different ballot types for the same election for voters in the same precinct based on where they live within that precinct. The Elections Division will eliminate all portion precincts (by converting portion precincts into separate mail ballot precincts) by the June 2010 Gubernatorial Primary Election. No portion precincts were included on either the May 19, 2009 Statewide Special Election ballot or the November 3, 2009 Consolidated General Election ballot. Second, the number and locations of polling places are determined based on te availability of sites and cost. Ideally, there would be one polling place for every precinct in the County for every election. However, there are not sufficient polling places in all the needed locations available and those available do not always offer the most desirable layout, size, or parking. And the more polling places that are added, the more the costs (Election Officer subsidies, polling place rent, voting system equipment, supplies, transportation, etc.) increase to conduct an election. Also ideally, all polling places would be available to the Elections Division on Election Day free of charge as a public service. The reality is that, although the Elections Division is able to negotiate many polling places at no cost, other polling places we need charge from $25 up to several hundred dollars each. As a result of these two limiting factors (availability and cost), the Elections Division attempts to provide the minimum number of polling places required at the most efficient locations. However, this then creates the occasional situation in which more than one ballot type is being used by voters at the same polling place location. In those cases in which the Elections Division must locate more than one precinct in the same polling place building, the different precincts are separated (each have a separate table and separate voting equipment) and additional Election Officers are assigned to that polling site to direct voters to their correct precinct table.

R02: "The CED should improve procedures to ensure that at multi-precinct polling places, voters are given the correct ballot (e.g., City vs. unincorporated County). (C-01 through C-05)" We concur. This recommendation has already been implemented. Multi-precinct polling places (polling places that contain more than one precinct in the same building) result from the practical need to locate too many voters into too few polling places. As stated earlier, there should ideally be one polling place for every precinct in the County for every election, but due to the lack of availability and costs to operate polling places, this ideal condition does not exist. The Elections Division is required to conduct elections under real world conditions and within existing resource limitations. The vast majority of multi-precinct polling places have only one ballot type. In fact, during the November 4, 2008 election, only 17 polling places Countywide (out of 365 total polling places) had more than one ballot type at the same polling place. The existence of multiple ballot types at polling places has been the exception and not the norm. Multi-precinct polling places that have only one ballot type are known as "Alpha Splits" (in reference to splitting the voters alphabetically). Alpha Split polling places are polling places that draw voters from the same geographic area but may have two or more precincts assigned to it based on voters' last names. For example, there may be an A-L precinct and an M-Z precinct located at the same polling place. These two precincts would have the same single ballot type and share the same geographic boundaries but be divided alphabetically into two groups in order to accommodate more voters at a polling place. A polling place can even have three or more Alpha Split precincts assigned to it. In that situation, an additional Election Officer (known as a "Traffic Director") is assigned to that polling place to direct voters to the correct table. For polling places that house two precincts with different ballot types, the Elections Division will assign additional "Traffic Directors" to those polling places to direct voters to the correct table. It is important to understand that, at these polling places, different ballot types would not be available to voters at the same table. Different ballot types may be available at different tables. Voters would only be directed to one table. The Elections Division will make every effort to limit the number of polling places that have two precincts with different ballot types through increased efforts to recruit additional polling places. However, the reality again is that some areas in the County have limited polling place locations available. As stated earlier, during the November 4, 2008 election, only 17 polling places Countywide (out of 365 total polling places) had more than one ballot type at the same polling place. An issue related to voters being handed an incorrect ballot type, although not widespread, was reported during the November 4, 2008 election. This issue was also referenced in the Grand Jury Report as possibly having had a material effect on the outcome of that particular contest. Imm ediately upon receiving these reports, the Elections Division conducted a thorough review to determine what may have occurred. The issue involved a candidate for the Santa Paula Elementary School District Board of Trustees, who was one of five candidates on the ballot. The voters were instructed to vote for two of the five candidates. This candidate came in third in the contest and lost to the second place candidate by one vote. The incident occurred at the Church of the Nazarene polling place in Santa Paula in the morning on Election Day. Two different ballot types (one with the school district race on it and one without) were provided to voters at that polling place based on the voter's residence within that precinct. Two Grand Jury members who were acting as observers were present at that polling place at the time. The Elections Division, to the best of their knowledge, was able to determine that as many as 14 of the incorrect ballot types may have been provided to voters at that polling place until the time the mistake was discovered. All voters who were entitled to vote for that school district race were provided the correct ballot type; however, as many as 14 voters who were not entitled to vote for that school district race received the incorrect ballot type which allowed them the possibility to vote for a contest in which they were not entitled to vote. As a result, no voters who were entitled to vote for that school district race were disenfranchised; however, as many as 14 additional voters were provided the opportunity to vote for that school district race that should not have been. Since ballots are secret, the Elections Division could not identify which specific voters may have been handed the incorrect ballot type. The only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from this occurrence is that those 14 incorrect ballot types should not have been handed out (that was a human error by a volunteer citizen poll worker) but the outcome of that action on that contest remains unknown and cannot be demonstrated to have had a material effect on this contest. To prevent this incident from recurring in future elections, the Elections Division will eliminate from all polling places the possibility of a voter signing in at a voting table and possibly being given more than one different ballot type. This will be accomplished by creating more mail ballot only precincts for the small portions of precincts that require a separate ballot type (e.g., a small water/sewer district) that is different from the ballot type used by the rest of that precinct that would not contain that small water/sewer district.

R03: "The CED should improve procedures to ensure an experienced poll worker is assigned to direct voters to the correct table to receive their ballot and to oversee the overall location at polling places with more than one precinct. (C- 01 and C-05)" We concur. This recommendation has already been implemented. During the November 4, 2008 election, Election Officer staffing was increased from the standard 3- 4 Election Officers at each polling place to 4-6 Election Officers at a single polling place. One of the additional Election Officers was assigned as a "traffic director" to direct voters to their correct precinct table. This strategy will be repeated in all future larger elections in which more than one precinct is located at the same polling site.

R04: "The CED should ensure that at least one worker at each site is able to lift and handle heavy equipment. (C-04)" We concur in part. This recommendation has already been implemented. The Elections Division makes every effort in assigning Election Officers to a polling place to ensure that at least one of those Election Officers is able to lift and handle the voting equipment which can be heavy based on the physical size and strength of the Election Officer. Although this will always be the goal of the Elections Division, on occasion, there may be no Election Officers who are able to lift and handle the voting equipment available or willing to work at a particular polling place. In other cases, an Election Officer who is able to lift and handle the voting equipment may cancel at the last moment leaving that polling place without that capability. In the event of these scenarios, a Roving Inspector (who supervises and serves as a troubleshooter for several polling places within a specific geographic area) is available to be dispatched to that polling place to assist with lifting and handling the voting equipment. Elections Division staff can also be sent to a polling place to assist in resolving any problems that arise.

R05: "The CED should require that all poll workers, especially inspectors, get the proper training so that they understand what needs to be done before, during, and after the election. (C-01 through C-06)" We concur. This recommendation has already been implemented. California Elections Code Section 12309 mandates only Inspectors to attend training. Although training for Clerks is by law optional, the Elections Division strongly encourages Clerks each election to attend training also. Two of the three Clerks assigned to a polling place during an election have typically attended training. Historically, the Elections Division has trained approximately 60-78% of the assigned Election Officers (poll workers) for each election. As an incentive to attend training, all Election Officers receive $20 for completing the training in addition to their regular poll worker stipend for serving on Election Day ($90 for Clerks, $120 for Inspectors, and $140 for Roving Inspectors). Election Officer training is 3½ hours in length consisting of 1½ hours of classroom instruction (the classroom instruction can alternatively be taken online) and two hours of hands-on instruction in the operation of the electronic voting equipment. Election Officer training is scheduled prior to each election at various locations and times throughout the County. During the November 4, 2008 election, approximately 1,800 Election Officers were recruited (and the majority of them trained) to staff 365 polling places Countywide on Election Day. During 2010, the Elections Division will be evaluating all aspects of the Election Officer training program (including classroom, online, and hands-on training, training materials, and training methods) as part of the Elections Division's ongoing Lean Six Sigma (process improvement) program. Volunteer Election Officers who have experience "working the polls" will be invited to participate in this internal review to assist in identifying areas for improvement.

R06: "The CED should explore ways, including State legislation, to streamline the voting process, such as: (C-01 through C-07) Enabling registered voters to swipe their driver's license or ID card through an automated system to process them to vote 100% voting by mail 100% voting by mail with prepaid return postage We concur in part. With the exception of streamlining the voting process, the other components of this recommendation will not be implemented at this time. The Elections Division monitors legislative proposals and changes to State legislation and actively participates on the legislative committees of Statewide professional elections organizations. There is currently no product on the market of which the Elections Division is aware that would allow a voter to swipe his/her driver license or ID card in order to verify his/her eligibility to vote. If a new product of this nature becomes available, the Elections Division will evaluate the cost and effectiveness of any such product for potential implementation in Ventura County. The State legislative climate has been opposed to allowing counties to conduct 100% Vote By Mail elections. The Elections Division was previously part of a proposed pilot program that would have allowed five counties to conduct their elections 100% Vote By Mail. However, this legislation failed to pass. The Elections Division will continue to actively monitor any legislative proposals that would allow counties to conduct 100% Vote By Mail elections. Presently, return postage is prepaid only for "Mail Ballot Precinct Voters" who reside in "mail ballot" precincts. These are precincts with fewer than 250 voters in which no polling places are set up on Election Day due to the small size of the precinct. All voters in these mail ballot precincts vote by mail. Expansion of prepaid return postage to all Vote By Mail (absentee) voters or to all registered voters is primarily a cost issue that would result in significant additional public costs to conduct elections. As an example, for the November 4, 2008 Presidential General Election, there were 425,968 registered voters. Of these total registered voters, 343,690 voters cast ballots. The return postage cost in that election for the two- card ballot was 67 cents ($0.59 + $0.08 for business reply). The estimated total potential cost to pay the return postage for all those 425,968 registered voters would have been $285,399 (425,968 registered voters x $0.67 return postage). The estimated total actual cost to pay the return postage for the 343,690 voters who cast ballots would have been $230,272 (343,690 voters x $0.67 return postage) based on the number of those voters who returned their ballot envelopes. These would have been the estimated return postage costs for this election alone. In 2008, there were three elections so the annual prepaid return postage cost would have been even greater. As previously discussed, expansion of prepaid return postage for voters is a matter of cost and would be a policy issue as to how that additional cost would be paid. In addition, there may be legal issues regarding providing payment (prepaid return postage) for voting by mail as opposed to voting at the polls. The Elections Division's FY 2009-10 Adopted Budget does not include funding for any additional prepaid return postage. The Elections Division is continually exploring ways to streamline the elections process. During the most recent May 19, 2009 Statewide Special Election, the Elections Division provided a survey to all 1,200 Election Officers (including a prepaid return envelope) to solicit their first-hand observations of what went right and what could be improved during that election. Approximately 900 surveys were returned. This extremely high return rate (and the high return rates of prior Election Officer surveys) reflects the interest that Election Officers have in the election process and the interest that the Elections Division has historically demonstrated in listening to the experience of its Election Officers. Practical suggestions derived from this survey are being evaluated by Elections Division staff as part of the Elections Division's Lean Six Sigma (process improvement) program. A similar survey will continue to be provided to all Election Officers in all future elections. Also, the Elections Division is currently redesigning its website. This redesign (which is anticipated to be completed in early 2010) will include enhanced voter information and educational resources for voters and Election Officers and links to Elections Division staff for voters to submit comments and specific suggestions for streamlining the voting process in Ventura County. Further, the Elections Division will offer for the June 2010 Gubernatorial Primary Election a 24/7 secure public drop-off box for voters to return their Vote By Mail ballots at the County Government Center during hours that the Elections Division is not open to the public. A similar drop-off box and other election services are also being evaluated for potential location in the East County as additional services that could be provided to our East County voters to reduce their travel time and costs to the Elections Division. In addition, the Elections Division is actively evaluating available technology and identifying partial funding sources to allow purchase of state-of-the-art equipment for the June 2010 Gubernatorial Primary Election that will automate and expedite the verification of signatures, opening, and sorting of Vote By Mail ballots and reduce the labor costs and time required to certify election results for the public.

R07: "The CED should educate the public on how to delete deceased voters from the voter rolls by putting information in the pre-election voter pamphlet and in the sample ballot. (C-07)" We concur in part. This recommendation will be implemented in June 2010. The pre- election voter pamphlet (officially known as the "Voter Information Guide") is published by the Secretary of State who controls its format and content. However, the "Sample Ballot" is produced locally by the Elections Division. Beginning with the June 2010 Gubernatorial Primary Election, the Elections Division will include a brief explanation in the Sample Ballot for each election to educate voters how to contact the Elections Division regarding voters who are deceased who may still be on the voter rolls. In addition, the Elections Division is currently redesigning its website. This redesign (which is anticipated to be completed in early 2010) will include information as to contacting the Elections Division regarding potentially deceased voters.

R08: "The CED should ensure that policies and procedures, such as verification of federal, State, and County data bases, are in place to purge all deceased voters from the ballot process before each election. (C-05 through C-07)" We concur. This recommendation has already been implemented. Such policies and procedures are in place. California Elections Code Section 2205 governs the cancellation of the voter registration of deceased persons. The Elections Division is required to cancel the affidavit of registration of each deceased voter upon notification of the State Registrar of Vital Statistics. In Ventura County, deceased persons are removed from the voter registration rolls by the Elections Division in three ways. First, the Secretary of State sends the Elections Division an electronic file quarterly (soon this will be monthly) listing all deceased voters. The Elections Division then compares this electronic file with their voter registration records and cancels the affidavit of registration of any deceased Ventura County registered voters. Second, the Public Health Department of the Ventura County Health Care Agency sends the Elections Division quarterly a paper copy of all deceased persons in Ventura County age 18 and over. The Elections Division then compares this hard copy list with their voter registration records and cancels the affidavit of registration of any deceased Ventura County registered voters. Third, the Elections Division is occasionally notified by family members or others that a voter has become deceased. If a person provides written notification to the Elections Division of a voter's death, the deceased voter's affidavit of registration is made inactive by the Elections Division. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this report. The Elections Division and I welcome the Grand Jury's involvement and participation in the November 4 election and in all elections. It is through concerned independent observers like yourselves that the public is reminded and assured of the openness and integrity of the elections process that we conduct in Ventura County. When you and other concerned voters identify potential issues and ask questions and the Elections Division is provided the opportunity to respond and make changes, as necessary, we all benefit. Thank you again for getting involved in the elections process and for your astute and detailed observations and recommendations that we will continue to evaluate seriously. Please call me at (805) 654-2293 if you have any questions or if our office can provide you with additional information. c: Marty Robinson, County Executive Officer Matt Carroll, Assistant County Executive Officer Robert Orellana, Assistant County Counsel Tracy Saucedo, Assistant Registrar of Voters

June 24, 2009 — Land Use Permitting Process “Get to Excellence Plan”

12 pages 11 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F01: In 2007, members of the BOS and the CEO concluded that something needed to be done to address the increasing number of complaints regarding the discretionary land use permitting process.

F02: In 2007, the County issued a contract to consultant Thomas Berg to evaluate the discretionary land use permitting process which resulted in the Berg Report released in early 2008.

F03: In April of 2008, the County assigned an Assistant CEO to head a committee of County executives to oversee the development and implementation of new procedures, protocols, and other changes to address the permitting problems. This resulted in a program known as the “Get to Excellence Plan.”

F04: According to an article published in the Ventura County Star, dated September 4, 2008, there were 352 discretionary planning applications processed by the RMA between January 2006 and December 2007. The average time to process from customer application to approval was: [Ref-02] • projects approved by the BOS 340 days • projects approved by the Planning Commission 366 days • conditional use permits 184 days • major modifications 325 days • minor modifications 251 days • parcel maps 405 days • planned developments 285 days • parcel map waiver lot line adjustments 191 days • large lot subdivisions 487 days ______________________________________________________________________________ 2 Land Use Permitting Process

F05: Applicants are charged an hourly fee for processing requests.

F06: The “Get to Excellence Plan” identifies 23 projects, nine of which were completed as of May 6, 2009. (Att-01)

F07: Periodic stakeholder meetings are being held to provide status and feedback on the proposed changes, as well as any other permit related problems.

F08: The CEO provides periodic briefings to the BOS on the progress of the “Get to Excellence Plan.”

F09: The County anticipates full implementation of the “Get to Excellence Plan” in the Fall of 2009. However, the current budgetary crisis may cause some Berg Report recommendations and some plan action items to be delayed or not implemented.

F10: A high level “Intake Coordinator” position has been created and filled to implement one-stop application submittals. County officials state this is having positive results. (Att-01) [Ref-03]

F11: To date, there has been little change in the RMA Planning Division personnel that were in place at the time that public complaints were received. Conclusions C-01. The BOS and CEO recognize the existing land use permitting problems and are committed to resolving these issues and implementing solutions. (F-01 through F-03) C-02. As long as the current land use permitting departments and personnel remain substantially unchanged, successful implementation of the “Get to Excellence Plan” will require continuous oversight. (F-01 through F-03, F-11) C-03. Ongoing face-to-face interaction between the public and the County at stakeholder meetings is highly beneficial to understanding and resolving land use permitting problems. (F-07) C-04. The “Get to Excellence Plan” will require procedural and attitudinal changes before the various departments operate fully in the spirit and intent of the planned reforms. (F-04, F-06, F-09 through F-11) Recommendations

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R01: Both the BOS and CEO should continue frequent and in-depth reviews of the progress and metrics of the Berg Report recommendations and the “Get to Excellence Plan” related to the land use permitting process. (C-01, C-02)

R02: The CEO should continue to hold stakeholder meetings until all parties agree they are no longer needed. (C-03) ___________________________________________________________________________ Land Use Permitting Process 3

R03: After implementation of the “Get to Excellence Plan,” the CEO should establish and maintain a committee of qualified County executives to oversee the performance of departments involved in the land use permitting process and monitor complaints from users. (C-02 through C-04)

R04: The CEO and/or RMA should make personnel changes, if required to achieve the goals of the “Get to Excellence Plan” in a timely manner. (C-04) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-01, R-03, R-04) Responses Requested From: County Executive Officer, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-04) References Ref-01. Berg, Thomas, Ventura County Discretionary Land Use Regulatory System, April 2008 http://gsa-docushare.countyofventura.org/dscqi/ds.py/File- 19643/000024BA.pdf Ref-02. Officials concede land use problems, Ventura County Star, September 4, 2008 http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/sep/04/officials- concede-land-use-problems/?printer=1/ Ref-03. Planning process will be put to the test, Ventura County Star, April 20, 2009 http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/apr/20/planning- process-will-be-put-to-the-test/?printer=1/ Attachments Att-01. “Get to Excellence Plan,” for the Land Use Permitting Process ______________________________________________________________________________ 4 Land Use Permitting Process Attachment 1 “Get to Excellence Plan,” for the Land Use Permitting Process ___________________________________________________________________________ Land Use Permitting Process 5 (This page intentionally blank) ______________________________________________________________________________ 6 Land Use Permitting Process ___________________________________________________________________________ Land Use Permitting Process 7 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8 Land Use Permitting Process ___________________________________________________________________________ Land Use Permitting Process 9 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10 Land Use Permitting Process

June 23, 2009 — Is Your Favorite Restaurant Clean?

20 pages 41 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 41 findings

F01: The County has about 4,700 food providers of which about 1,900 are restaurants. The others consist of grocery stores and retail outlets selling pre-packaged foods, for example.

F02: The EHD restaurant inspection program is funded by the County General Fund; however, these are “revenue offset operations,” in that the fees generated from licensing are adequate to cover all costs of the inspection program. Fees are set annually by the County of Ventura Board of Supervisors (BOS), based on recommendations from the EHD.

F03: The EHD maintains a website (www.ventura.org/rma/envhealth) on which it posts summary inspection data. Restaurant closures and re- openings are also posted. Some Grand Jurors found this site difficult to navigate. Is Your Favorite Restaurant Clean?

F04: There are from between 5 and 90 visits to the above website daily with the normal range between 30 and 40.

F05: There are 18 authorized EHS positions, four of which were filled in 2008; placing the division at full staff. In early 2009, one of the EHSs was promoted, creating a vacancy.

F06: All EHS positions require a college degree in the appropriate sciences and are California State Registered Environmental Health Specialists.

F07: The primary function of the EHS is to ensure that restaurants and other food providers meet the requirements of the Cal Code. [Ref-01]

F08: The average inspection takes one to two hours and only reflects the condition at the time of the inspection.

F09: The BOS has defined a goal of three routine inspections per year for each restaurant. During the last several years, with only 14 EHSs, the EHD has been achieving about one inspection per year per restaurant.

F10: The EHD has not determined whether 18 EHSs are sufficient to achieve three routine restaurant inspections per year. The EHD stated that it will re-evaluate its staffing needs after a year of experience with full staff.

F11: Each EHS has a defined region to cover, typically working a two-week 80-hour schedule, nine out of ten days.

F12: EHSs start their day at the Government Center to complete various office activities prior to picking up their County car and proceeding to their region for inspections. The car is returned at the end of each day.

F13: EHSs are also responsible for enforcement of the California Sherman Act. This law requires menu accuracy and other similar items. The EHD stated that this is a low priority activity and enforcement is usually reactive in response to citizen complaints or a blatant violation.

F14: Cal Code requires that food served in public establishments must be obtained from approved sources. Ensuring compliance with this law is also part of the EHS’s responsibilities.

F15: EHSs are also responsible for public swimming pool inspections.

F16: In 2008, there were 2,551 routine restaurant inspections, 1,354 restaurant re-inspections, and approximately 100 closures.

F17: Quarterly data on restaurant inspections from the last five years shows a consistent pattern of about 40% re-inspections and 4% closures.

F18: Inspection frequencies are variable and unannounced.

F19: The County uses a pass/fail system for restaurant inspections and, except for closures, issues a “passed” placard that identifies the date of inspection, and the name of the inspector. The placard also shows the EHD website where inspection results are available and the EHD phone number. (Att-01) Is Your Favorite Restaurant Clean? 3

F20: Placards must be posted in public view within the establishment and inspection results must be made available, if requested.

F21: The County’s re-inspection procedures and protocol are: • restaurants subject to closure will be re-inspected as soon as the problem is corrected; most closures last less than two days • when there are a number of violations, but not enough to warrant immediate closure, a re-inspection is scheduled with instructions of what must be done to bring the restaurant back into compliance • a “passed” placard is issued with no indication that a re-inspection is required • if a second re-inspection is still unsatisfactory, a letter is sent strongly delineating what must be done • non-compliance after a third re-inspection results in a hearing and possible closure • a “passed” placard remains in place throughout this process

F22: The EHD does not currently assign numeric values (points) to the various elements of the inspection process.

F23: The EHD uses the Envision System from Decade Software for restaurant inspections. This software will support a point value system.

F24: The EHD is in the process of assigning numeric scores for specific violations. This is planned to be completed by September 2009.

F25: Each EHS uses a laptop computer to input observations during inspections and print out the results on site for review with the owner or manager. This information is later uploaded to the Envision System on the EHD server.

F26: The EHD plans major Envision System upgrades, estimated by June 2009. This will give EHSs wireless capability to connect to the EHD server from the field.

F27: Public complaints regarding a restaurant’s sanitary condition result in an immediate investigation by EHD.

F28: During a Grand Jury inspection observation, it was noted that a number of adjacent restaurants were in different inspection districts.

F29: Cal Code requires that each food establishment have one employee or the owner be certified in food handling and sanitation. [Ref-01]

F30: The County may impose more stringent standards than Cal Code requires; each city in the County may accept or reject the more stringent requirements.

F31: Fifteen cities in Los Angeles County (L.A. County) did not initially adopt the “A B C” grading system when instituted in 1998. Currently, all of these cities have adopted this grading system. Is Your Favorite Restaurant Clean?

F32: After the initiation of the grading system, the L.A. County Department of Public Health (DPH) reported a 13% decrease in hospital admissions for food-borne illness. State-wide levels remained constant during the same time frame (1993-2000). [Ref-02]

F33: The most common causes of food-borne illness in restaurants are: [Ref-03] • poor personal hygiene (hand washing, etc.) • contaminated equipment (utensils, prep surfaces, etc.) • inadequate cooking • improper holding temperature • food from unsafe sources

F34: Many counties in California and other parts of the country have adopted rating systems using numerical scoring on the basic elements of the inspection requirements. [Ref-03 through Ref-05]

F35: While L.A. County’s grading system has been used as a model for many jurisdictions, other variations and approaches are used to establish ratings or awards of excellence. [Ref-03]

F36: In the last few years, numerous studies have been conducted about the effect of rating systems on restaurant sanitation. A recent study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) was issued in August 2008. All of these studies concluded that restaurants are cleaner and that there are health benefits to the public attributable to restaurant grading systems. [Ref-03, Ref-05]

F37: In January 2008, the DPH issued a ten-year status review of its grading system to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. This report concluded that public health had improved, public information on restaurant conditions was improved, and most importantly, restaurants were cleaner. [Ref-02]

F38: The DPH has also noted that, as a result of the grading system, restaurants shifted from a reactive approach to violations to a proactive approach in order to achieve higher grades. [Ref-02]

F39: Economists Leslie and Jin reported in 2003, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, that incentives work. Grading systems forced restaurants to improve because lower-graded establishments lost business while the highest-graded places gained customers.

F40: In San Diego County, EHSs issue a Self-inspection Checklist to each restaurant as part of the routine inspection procedure. (Att-02)

F41: A random survey conducted by the DPH in 2001 showed that over 91% of the 2,000 respondents liked and used the grading system. A follow up survey of 8,600 respondents in 2005 showed similar results. A national survey in 2007 conducted by the CSPI showed comparable results. [Ref-02, Ref-03] Is Your Favorite Restaurant Clean? 5 Conclusions C-01. No system of restaurant inspections is of any value unless it is properly staffed with EHSs who are competent, properly educated, and motivated. The Grand Jury concludes that the Ventura County EHD meets these criteria. (F-05, F-06) C-02. The ultimate responsibility for restaurant food safety rests with the management of the establishment; they must ensure employees are properly trained and follow the highest food safety standards at all times. (F-08, F-29) C-03. The first priority of the EHD is to ensure that restaurants and other food providers throughout the County are sanitary and safe for the dining public. (F-07) C-04. The pass/fail system used by the EHD ensures an acceptable level of sanitation is achieved to meet State requirements. Meeting State minimum requirements, by definition, means the restaurant is safe for the dining public. (F-07, F-13, F-14) C-05. Grading systems provide incentives for a restaurant to maintain more than the minimum level of sanitation; the pass/fail system does not. (F-19, F-39) C-06. The Grand Jury agrees with most professionals in this field, that a cleaner more hygienic environment benefits the public. (F-36) C-07. The Grand Jury concludes that the EHD’s second priority should be consumer notification of actual restaurant sanitary conditions. The EHD needs to improve in this area. (F-19 through F-21) C-08. The EHD website does not provide a sufficiently clear, easy, and direct path to restaurant inspection information. (F-03, F-04) C-09. The placard is the consumer’s primary source of information concerning a restaurant’s most recent inspection. (F-19, F-20) C-10. The dining public would be better served if the County had a system that incentivizes restaurants to shift to a proactive stance on sanitation. (F-37 through F-39) C-11. Adding numerical scoring to the EHDs basic inspection procedures for restaurants will provide the department metrics with which it can determine trends and track past performance. The Envision software program used by the EHD fully supports adding numerical scoring. (F-34) C-12. The planned upgrade to a wireless connection of the laptop computer can reduce the number of required visits to the County Government Center. It is inefficient to have all EHSs report daily to the Government Center for their assignments and to pick up their County vehicles. (F-26) C-13. A review of the recently redrawn inspection district boundaries may yield additional efficiencies. (F-28) 6 Is Your Favorite Restaurant Clean? C-14. The dining public will be better served if, prior to entering a restaurant, they could see a placard that gives them more definitive information on the sanitary condition as of the last inspection. ( F-37 through F-39) C-15. The EHD has the tools to develop an incentive/performance/graded rating system. (F-23) C-16. It would be beneficial for EHSs to issue self-inspection checklists to restaurants, similar to the ones used in San Diego County. (F-40) Recommendations

Additional Recommendations 8

Not linked to specific findings.

R01: The Grand Jury recommends that the BOS direct the EHD to require and enforce placard placement at the main entrance of the restaurant and that the placard be visible from the outside. (C-07, C-09, C-14)

R02: A “conditional” placard should be issued when a re-inspection is required. (C-07, C-09, C-14)

R03: The EHD should add numerical scoring to their inspection process. (C-11)

R04: The EHD should develop and issue a self-inspection checklist to all restaurants as part of the inspection process. (C-16)

R05: The EHD should thoroughly review its operating procedures and inspection districts to determine whether greater efficiencies could be achieved. (C-12, C-13)

R06: The EHD should reduce the requirement to have the EHSs report daily to the Government Center. (C-12)

R07: The EHD should revise its website to make it easier for the public to find restaurant inspection information. (C-08)

R08: The Grand Jury recommends that the BOS direct the EHD to develop and implement a performance/incentive/graded system, such as the “A B C” system, tailored specifically for County restaurants. The BOS should draft a sample ordinance, for the 10 cities, to facilitate adoption of the new system. (C-03, C-04, C-10) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-01, R-02, R-08) Responses Requested From: Resource Management Agency, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-08) Responses Accepted From: City Council, City of Thousand Oaks (R-08) City Council, City of Simi Valley (R-08) City Council, City of Moorpark (R-08) Is Your Favorite Restaurant Clean? 7 City Council, City of Camarillo (R-08) City Council, City of Port Hueneme (R-08) City Council, City of Oxnard (R-08) City Council, City of Ventura (R-08) City Council, City of Fillmore (R-08) City Council, City of Santa Paula (R-08) City Council, City of Ojai (R-08)

June 22, 2009 — Cars on Camera: Red Light Camera Enforcement

32 pages 40 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 40 findings

F01: Oxnard began its RLC enforcement program in 1997.

F02: Oxnard currently utilizes RLCs at eight intersections.

F03: Oxnard Police Department (OPD) officials state that the sole intent of RLC enforcement is to increase public safety by reducing traffic collisions due to the running of red lights.

F04: Oxnard contracts with Redflex to install and maintain RLC systems and to review images and data which identify violations. A five-year contract was approved in September 2008.

F05: In 2001, the San Diego Superior Court ruled that fees paid on a contingent basis, that is, by each citation issued, were not compliant with the law. (CASE NO. 579275D People v. John Allen, et al.)

F06: The contract between Oxnard and Redflex requires a fixed-fee payment for RLC services at designated intersections, regardless of the number of individual violations. Oxnard pays Redflex a flat rate for installation, maintenance, and processing on a per-camera basis, depending on the intersection served. (Att-01)

F07: The contract between Oxnard and Redflex contains a cost neutrality clause intended to ensure that the City will never be required to pay Redflex more than actual receipts from traffic fines.

F08: Schedule D from the RLC contract defines the flow of citation receipts. (Att-01) • initial receipts generated from citations are paid to cover the City’s program operating costs • receipts above City cost then flow to cover the fixed-fee, Redflex invoice (in months with low citation receipts, Redflex does not receive its full invoice amount) • receipts above Redflex invoice amounts are retained by the City or are used to pay outstanding payments to Redflex held over from low receipt months

F09: In Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008, OPD reported net income to the City from RLCs of $91,284. OPD was unsure whether this amount was before or after the deduction for internal program administration costs, and whether other citation revenue from traditional traffic enforcement was a portion of the amount. This represents 0.2% of the OPD budget in FY 2007-2008, which was $47,016,336. [Ref-01]

F10: As of May 2009, OPD officials reported an accumulated balance owed to Redflex of $13,938 due to months with low citation receipts. Cars on Camera

F11: Potential violations are reviewed and verified by an OPD officer who has the sole discretion to either reject the violation or pass it forward for the issuance of a citation.

F12: OPD reported that from January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2009, 1,494 red light violations were detected by RLCs. After verification by OPD officers, 1,019 citations were issued, 68% of the total detected.

F13: Yellow light intervals are established by the State of California in compliance with the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, California Supplement, 2003 (MUTCD). Intervals are based on approach speed toward an intersection. [Ref-02] MUTCD Yellow Light Interval Recommendations

F14: OPD officials state that yellow light intervals in Oxnard are determined using 85th percentile speed surveys. An 85th percentile speed survey reflects actual use of roads and tends to result in recorded speeds that exceed the posted maximum speed limit.

F15: Yellow light intervals at nine selected Oxnard intersections controlled by traffic signals were recorded by the Grand Jury to be 0.02 seconds below to 0.35 seconds above the suggested interval as found in the MUTCD for the posted speed limit on each street. (Att-02)

F16: OPD does not approve RLC citations when drivers enter an intersection within 0.03 seconds after the traffic signal turns red.

F17: In 2001, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety issued a report detailing the results of a study on the effectiveness of RLCs in Oxnard. Significant findings were: [Ref-03] • 29% overall decrease in traffic collisions • 32% reduction in front-into-side traffic collisions at RLC-enforced intersections • 68% reduction in front-into-side collisions involving injuries at RLC-enforced intersections • 32% reduction in red light violations citywide indicating collateral compliance of traffic laws at non-camera intersections ___________________________________________________________________________ Cars on Camera 5

F18: In 2008, Oxnard evaluated 230 accidents over the prior three years at RLC-enforced intersections. A total of 56 accidents (24%) were given a primary collision factor of a rear-end impact with a portion of these possibly due to RLCs. City of Oxnard: Red Light Collisions 2005-2008 City of Ventura

Related Recommendations (1)

R04: The Cities of Oxnard and Ventura should continue to address public safety concerns with the use of RLCs as an enhancement to traditional enforcement of red light violations by uniformed police officers. (C-01, C-02)

F19: Ventura contracts with Redflex to install and maintain RLC systems and to review images and data which identify violations. A five-year contract was approved in November 2008. (Att-03)

F20: As of 2009, Ventura employs RLCs at 18 intersections.

F21: Ventura Police Department (VPD) officials state that the sole intent of RLC enforcement is to increase public safety by reducing traffic collisions due to the running of red lights.

F22: The contract between Ventura and Redflex requires fixed-fee payment for RLC services at designated intersections, regardless of the number of individual violations. Ventura pays Redflex a flat rate for installation, maintenance, and processing on a per camera basis, depending on the intersection served. (Att-03)

F23: The contract between Ventura and Redflex contains a cost neutrality clause intended to ensure that the City will never be required to pay Redflex more than actual receipts from traffic fines.

F24: Schedule D from the RLC contract defines the flow of citation income (Att-03) • initial receipts generated from citations are paid to cover the City’s program operating costs • receipts above city costs then flow to cover the fixed-fee Redflex invoice (in months with low citation receipts, Redflex does not receive its full invoice amount) 6 Cars on Camera • receipts above fixed Redflex invoice amounts are retained by the City or are used to pay outstanding payments to Redflex held over from low receipt months

F25: In FY 2007-2008, VPD reported no net income to the City from RLC enforcement above cost recovery.

F26: Potential violations are reviewed and verified by a VPD officer who has the sole discretion to either reject the violation or pass it forward for the issuance of a citation.

F27: In a City Administrative Report dated March 4, 2009, Ventura reported: • a decrease in traffic collisions at intersections citywide; in 2000, there were 132 collisions at intersections and in 2007 there were a total of 40 • Ventura’s RLC-enforced intersections saw a decrease in collisions from ten incidents to one in the same time period • 14,459 red light citations were issued in 2002; in 2007, there were 9,816 citations, a 32% decrease in the number of ticketed red light violations citywide

F28: VPD stated that the intersection at California and Thompson was equipped with RLCs in 2007 in response to accident and violation studies at the intersection. Intersection at California and Thompson, City of Ventura

F29: Ventura city officials state that current vehicle volume at north-bound California and Thompson is 10,000 vehicles per day. Vehicle volume at west-bound Main Street at Mills Road is 62,000 vehicles per day. ___________________________________________________________________________ Cars on Camera 7

F30: In the period from December 1, 2008 until February 28, 2009, VPD reported: • 4,328 violations detected by RLCs; after verification by VPD officers, 2,148 citations were issued, amounting to 49% of the total detected • RLC enforcement at California and Thompson detected 1,391 violations; after verification by VPD officers, 825 citations (59%) were issued • RLC enforcement at Main Street and Mills Road detected 64 violations; after verification by VPD officers, 49 citations (77%) were issued • the average number of citations issued at all RLC-enforced intersections in Ventura was 78, exclusive of California and Thompson Detected Citations Traffic Tickets/100 Intersection Violations Issued % Volume Cars California and Thompson 1,391 825 59.3% 10,000 8.25 Mills and Main 64 49 76.6% 62,000 0.079

F31: Ventura policy states that yellow light intervals in Ventura are determined using 85th percentile speed surveys. An 85th percentile speed survey reflects actual speeds used on roads and tends to result in recorded speeds that exceed the posted maximum speed limit.

F32: Ventura officials state that yellow light intervals are set using the suggested interval found in the MUTCD table 4D-102 based on the 85th percentile speed of the street. (See also F-13) [Ref-02]

F33: Exclusive of California and Thompson, yellow light intervals at twelve selected Ventura intersections controlled by traffic signals were observed by the Grand Jury to be at least 0.13 seconds higher than the MUTCD minimum for the posted speed limit on each street. (Att-04)

F34: The yellow light phasing at California and Thompson was found by the Grand Jury to be 3.00 seconds, the MUTCD minimum for streets posted at 25 MPH speed limit. (Att-04)

F35: California Street has three traffic signal-controlled intersections. The Grand Jury observed that the yellow light interval at the north and south approaches to California and Thompson had the shortest duration, one full second shorter than other yellow light intervals at intersections on the same street having the same posted speed limit. (Att-04)

Related Recommendations (2)

R01: The City of Ventura should increase the yellow light interval at California and Thompson to be at least equal to that of the surrounding intersections. (C-07)

R02: The City of Ventura should re-engineer the intersection at California and Thompson addressing public safety concerns and the disproportionate number of RLC citations issued at that location. (C-07)

F36: When traveling east or west bound on Thompson Boulevard, the surrounding traffic signals have recorded yellow light intervals of at least 0.38 seconds higher than the MUTCD minimum for the posted speed limit. Cars on Camera

F37: The Federal Highway Administration states, “Therefore, the likelihood of a motorist running a red light increases as the yellow interval is shortened. Lengthening the yellow interval, within appropriate guidelines, has been shown to significantly reduce the number of inadvertent red light violations.” [Ref-03]

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: The Cities of Oxnard and Ventura should emphasize traffic engineering as a means to mitigate the public safety concerns of red light violations, in addition to the installation of automated RLC enforcement. (C-07, C-08)

F38: The Federal Highway Administration and the Institute of Transportation Engineers also state that the solution to the red light running problem requires a combination of measures including education, enforcement, and engineering. [Ref-04]

Related Recommendations (1)

F39: The City of Santa Clarita has posted signs which alert the public near RLC-enforced intersections containing the dollar amount of the fine for red light violations. Minimum Fine signage in the City of Santa Clarita

Related Recommendations (1)

R05: The Cities of Oxnard and Ventura should add the minimum dollar amount of the fine to signage alerting the public at RLC-enforced intersections. (C-08) Responses Responses Required From: City Council, City of Ventura (R-01 through R-05) City Council, City of Oxnard (R-03 through R-05) 10 Cars on Camera References Ref-01. City of Oxnard Website: General Fund Expenditures http://citymanager.cityofoxnard.org Ref-02. Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, California Supplement, 2003 Ref-03. Federal Highway Administration, Guidance for Using Red Light Cameras, 2003 Ref-04. Federal Highway Administration and Institute of Transportation Engineers, Making Intersections Safer: a Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce Red-Light Running, 2003 Attachments Att-01 “Exhibit D” Compensation & Pricing, Contract between City of Oxnard and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., pages 25, 26 Att-02 Grand Jury-Observed Yellow Light Intervals: Oxnard and Ventura Att-03 “Exhibit D” Compensation & Pricing, Contract between City of Ventura and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., pages 4 through 6 Att-04 Grand Jury-Observed Yellow Light Intervals: City of Ventura, Intersection at California and Thompson ___________________________________________________________________________ Cars on Camera 11 (This page intentionally blank) 12 Cars on Camera Attachment-01 “Exhibit D” Compensation & Pricing, Contract between City of Oxnard and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., pages 25, 26 ___________________________________________________________________________ Cars on Camera 13 (This page intentionally blank) 14 Cars on Camera ___________________________________________________________________________ Cars on Camera 15 16 Cars on Camera Attachment-02 Grand Jury-Observed Yellow Light Intervals: Oxnard and Ventura ___________________________________________________________________________ Cars on Camera 17 (This page intentionally blank) 18 Cars on Camera Watch Watch Watch Approach to #1 #2 #3 Time MUTCD Notes Group #1 Rose at Gonzales South Bound 4.47 4.35 4.34 4.39 4.3 45 MPH Posted South Left Arrow 4.25 4.35 4.20 4.27 South Right Arrow 2.87 3.00 3.03 2.97 Lockwood 1st Traffic Light at Rose South Bound 4.56 4.63 4.55 4.58 4.3 North 2.90 3.10 3.64 Chavez at 1st Traffic Light Rose North 4.31 4.29 4.25 4.28 4.3 South Group #2 Gonzales at Ventura Bl East Bound 4.68 4.60 4.66 4.65 4.3 45 MPH Posted East Left Arrow 3.00 3.03 3.00 3.01 Lantana at Gonzales West Bound 4.56 4.54 4.48 4.53 4.3 1st Traffic Light East Gallatin at 1st Traffic Light Gonzales East Bound 4.40 4.56 4.40 4.45 4.3 West Group #3 Gonzales at Snow West Bound 4.62 4.63 4.53 4.59 4.3 45 MPH Posted West Left Arrow 2.87 3.00 2.94 2.94 Gonzales 1st Traffic Light at Entrada East Bound 4.56 4.50 4.58 4.55 4.3 West East Left Arrow 2.66 3.86 3.19 3.53 #1 not counted Snow at Gonzales South Bound 3.06 2.91 2.99 3.0 25 MPH Posted Group #4 Mills At Telegraph North Bound 3.85 3.71 3.88 3.81 3.6 35 MPH Posted North Left Arrow 3.50 3.47 3.52 3.50 North Right Arrow 3.41 3.47 3.47 3.45 ___________________________________________________________________________ Cars on Camera 19 Watch Watch Watch Approach to #1 #2 #3 Time MUTCD Notes Mills at Costal 1st Traffic Light View North Bound 4.00 3.97 3.97 3.98 3.6 South Loma Vista At Mills West Left Arrow 2.99 3.06 2.98 3.01 N/A 35 MPH Posted Group #5 Victoria at Moon South Bound 4.31 4.19 4.15 4.22 3.9 40 MPH N of Moon South Left Arrow 3.54 3.50 4.00 3.68 3.6 35 MPH S of Moon Victoria at 1st Traffic Light Cirvocet South Bound 4.06 4.07 3.96 4.03 3.9 North South Left Arrow 2.97 3.00 3.00 2.99 Victoria at 1st Traffic Light Ventura South Bound 4.75 4.88 4.56 4.73 3.6 South South Left Arrow 3.87 4.03 4.05 3.98 Group #6 Telegraph at Victoria East Bound 5.03 5.00 5.17 5.07 3.9 40 MPH Posted East Left Arrow 3.34 3.53 3.10 3.32 Telegraph 1st Traffic Light at Saratoga East Bound 4.87 4.72 4.69 4.76 3.9 West Telegraph at Lark West Bound 5.01 4.91 4.80 4.91 3.9 1st Traffic Light East West Let Arrow 2.87 3.03 2.90 2.93 Group #7 California at Thompson North Bound 2.97 3.07 2.94 2.99 3.0 25 MPH Posted North Left Arrow 3.03 2.97 2.95 2.98 California at Santa 1st Traffic Light Clara South Bound 4.00 3.94 4.03 3.99 3.0 North California 2nd Traffic Light at Main South Bound 3.90 3.85 3.84 3.86 3.0 North 20 Cars on Camera Attachment-03 “Exhibit D” Compensation & Pricing, Contract between City of Ventura and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., pages 4 through 6 ___________________________________________________________________________ Cars on Camera 21 (This page intentionally blank) 22 Cars on Camera ___________________________________________________________________________ Cars on Camera 23 24 Cars on Camera ___________________________________________________________________________ Cars on Camera 25 (This page intentionally blank) 26 Cars on Camera Attachment-04 Grand Jury-Observed Yellow Light Intervals: City of Ventura Intersection at California and Thompson ___________________________________________________________________________ Cars on Camera 27 (This page intentionally blank) 28 Cars on Camera Watch Watch Watch Location Approach to #1 #2 #3 Time MUTCD Notes 10:45 AM 4-24-09 Observation Intersection #1 Thompson at Chestnut West Bound #1 3.97 3.97 3.97 3.97 3.6 35 MPH Posted 1st Traffic Light West Bound #2 4.12 4.16 4.20 4.16 East Intersection #2 Thompson at 2nd Traffic Light Kalorama West Bound #1 3.85 4.03 3.84 3.91 3.6 East West Bound #2 3.97 4.06 4.03 4.02 35 MPH Posted Intersection #3 Thompson at 1st Traffic Light Oak East Bound #1 4.00 3.97 3.87 3.95 3.2 West East Bound #2 4.06 3.94 3.96 3.99 30 MPH posted Intersection #4 Thompson at 2nd Traffic Light Figueroa East Bound #1 4.10 3.90 3.97 3.99 3.2 West East Bound #2 4.03 3.93 3.91 3.96 30 MPH posted Intersection #5 California at 1st Traffic Light Santa Clara South Bound #1 3.87 4.00 3.91 3.93 3.0 North South Bound #2 4.03 3.94 3.90 3.96 25 MPH Intersection #6 California at 2nd Traffic Light Main South Bound #1 4.09 3.91 4.06 4.02 3.0 North South Bound #2 4.19 4.00 3.85 4.01 25 MPH Intersection #7 California at Thompson North Bound #1 3.00 3.00 3.03 3.01 3.0 25 MPH North Bound #2 3.09 2.97 2.93 3.00 North Left Arrow #1 2.97 3.07 3.05 3.03 North Left Arrow #2 3.09 3.04 3.07 3.07 California at Thompson South Bound #1 3.03 2.96 3.06 3.02 3.0 25 MPH South Bound #2 3.02 3.00 2.94 2.99 South Left Arrow #1 3.12 2.94 3.00 3.02 South Left Arrow #2 3.07 3.07 2.84 2.99 ___________________________________________________________________________ Cars on Camera 29 (This page intentionally blank) 30 Cars on Camera

F40: Signage alerting drivers of RLC enforcement in Oxnard and Ventura complies with the minimum signage required as found in the MUTCD. The signage, however, does not indicate the amount of the fines imposed for red light violations. Conclusions C-01. RLCs are effective in enforcing traffic laws related to the running of red lights at intersections and in reducing the number of red light violations in Oxnard and Ventura. (F-12, F-17, F-27) C-02. RLC enforcement has been effective in reducing the total number of traffic collisions at RLC-enforced intersections, even considering a possible increase in rear-end accidents. (F-03, F-17, F-18, F-21, F-27) C-03. Although there is a possibility of net income from RLC-enforced intersections, the revenue to Oxnard and Ventura has been, at best, a very minor percentage of total police budgets. (F-06 through F-10, F-23 through F-25) C-04. Oxnard and Ventura have contract provisions which require cost neutrality and fixed fee payments to Redflex regardless of the number of tickets issued. These provisions reduce the incentive on the part of ___________________________________________________________________________ Cars on Camera 9 the Cities to artificially increase citations beyond covering initial City cost to administer the program. (F-06 through F-08, F-22 through F-24) C-05. Redflex has an interest in the number of citations issued at an intersection, since it receives proceeds only after intersections have produced sufficient violation receipts to cover city costs. (F-06 through F-08, F-22 through F-24) C-06. Redflex’s control of receipts is limited, since both cities’ police departments retain sole discretion on the number of violations which are reviewed and approved prior to a citation being issued. (F-11, F-12, F-26, F-30) C-07. Shorter yellow light intervals and intersection traffic design play a role in the increase in red light violations at RLC-enforced intersections. At least one intersection in Ventura, California and Thompson, disadvantages drivers by using yellow light intervals that are shorter than adjacent intersections. (F-28 through F-38) C-08. The addition of the current minimum dollar amount of a violation on signs alerting the public of RLC-enforced intersections would help educate the public on the penalties for violations and further increase safety at intersections. (F-38 through F-40) Recommendations

Related Recommendations (1)

June 15, 2009 — Mentally Ill Housed in Ventura County Jails

20 pages 33 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 33 findings

F01: Recidivism (also commonly known as the revolving door or recycling) is defined as the tendency to relapse into a former pattern of behavior; specifically, returning to criminal habits.

F02: The Camarillo State Mental Hospital phased out its services and eventually closed in 1997.

F03: In a National Public Radio broadcast, Renee Montagne stated, “The largest mental institution in the country is actually a wing of a county jail. Known as Twin Towers, because of the design, the facility houses 1,400 mentally ill patients in one of its two identical hulking structures in downtown Los Angeles.” [Ref-03]

F04: In the August 14, 2008 edition of the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca stated: "They're here, and they're going to be cared for, but is this what we want in the way of a policy? Are we saying the legal system is the solution for the mentally ill in L.A. County? I don't think so. I'm saying criminals belong in jail, not the mentally ill." ___________________________________________________________________________ Mentally Ill Housed in Jails 3

F05: Collaborative justice courts, also known as problem-solving courts, attempt to promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rehabilitation services that are rigorously monitored and focused on recovery. [Ref-04]

F06: Collaborative justice courts are distinguished by the following elements: a problem-solving focus, a team approach to decision making, integration of social and treatment services, judicial supervision of the treatment process, community outreach, direct interaction between defendant and judge, and a proactive role for the judge inside and outside the courtroom. [Ref-04]

F07: MHCs, a type of collaborative justice court, focus on treatment to restore health and reduce criminal activity. They strive to provide mentally ill offenders with better access to treatment, consistent supervision, and support to reconnect with their families. [Ref-04]

F08: The common elements in MHCs are: [Ref-02] • participation in a mental health court is voluntary • each jurisdiction accepts only persons with demonstrable mental illnesses who have become involved in the criminal justice system • the key objective of a MHC is to either prevent the jailing of mentally ill offenders or to secure their release from jail for appropriate community services • public safety is a high priority, and mentally ill offenders are carefully screened for appropriate inclusion in the program • early intervention is essential, with screening and referral occurring either immediately after arrest or up to a maximum of three weeks after arrest • a multidisciplinary team approach is used, with the involvement of justice system representatives, mental health providers, and other support systems • intensive case management includes supervision of participants, with a focus on accountability and monitoring of each participant's performance • the judge is the center of the treatment and supervision process

F09: The stated goal of a MHC is to: [Ref-05] • decrease the frequency of clients’ contact with the criminal justice system • provide courts with resources to improve clients social functioning • link clients to employment, housing, treatment, and support services 4 Mentally Ill Housed in Jails

F10: There are two major concepts underlying the essential elements in any MHC: [Ref-06] • Collaboration among the criminal justice, mental health, substance abuse treatment, and related systems is important • MHCs are not a panacea - reversing the overrepresentation of people with mental illness in the criminal justice system requires a comprehensive strategy of which mental health courts should be just one part

F11: More than 175 counties in the United States, including 43 of the 58 counties in California, have a MHC.

F12: Santa Clara and San Bernardino Counties are two of the earliest examples of MHCs in California, having begun in the late 1990s.

F13: The stated vision of both counties was to bring together the Court, Criminal Justice System, Mental Health System, Drug and Alcohol System, and community treatment to reach mentally ill defendants and to release them from jail into community treatment, consistent with public safety.

F14: In order to graduate from these programs, each participant must remain sober and drug-free, complete a treatment plan, maintain medication, and continue treatment compliance.

F15: Officials in both counties stated that a major obstacle has been the availability of sufficient types and numbers of suitable housing facilities.

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: Ventura County should ensure that there is sufficient and suitable housing necessary to support an effective Mental Health Court system. (C-10) Responses (Using the table below is optional. If it is not used, then, as applicable, list each agency that is required to respond and, the recommendation number(s) for each and in a separate list, list each agency that is requested to respond and the recommendation number(s). Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-01, R-02) District Attorney, County of Ventura (R-01) Sheriff, County of Ventura (R-01) Responses Requested From: Probation Agency, County of Ventura (R-01) Health Care Agency, County of Ventura (R-01, R-02) Public Defender, County of Ventura (R-01) Responses Accepted From: National Alliance on Mental Illness, Ventura County

F16: The average number of participants currently served by these MHCs is: County Participants Santa Clara 150 San Bernardino 125

F17: The number of graduates from the two programs are: County Period Graduates Santa Clara 1999-2009 1,100 San Bernardino 1999-2009 623

F18: These graduates have avoided jail bed days with the following cost savings: County Period No. jail bed day $ Savings Santa Clara 1/05–6/06 31,315 $2,175,453 San Bernardino 1/06-12/06 10,316 $ 576,571

F19: The Council on Mentally Ill Offenders designated The San Bernardino County, Supervised Treatment After Release Program to receive the 2009 Best Practices Award. They stated “. . . the program has been in ___________________________________________________________________________ Mentally Ill Housed in Jails 5 operation for ten years and has effectively reduced recidivism for incarceration, shifted the demand for services to the mental heath system and provided significant benefits for consumers in terms of deinstitutionalization.” [Ref-07]

F20: San Bernardino County utilizes the following types of housing in support of the individuals in the program: Type of Facility Characteristic Cost /Day Board and Care Licensed to dispense medications $ 32 Room and Board Housing/meals $ 22 Sober Living Housing only $ 18

F21: In most cases, the cost of housing is paid for by Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and not borne by the County.

F22: In October 2008 the Ventura County jails housed approximately 1,680 inmates: Facility No. Inmates Main Jail 822 Todd Road 833 East Valley Jail 25

F23: Approximately 10%-14% of the County inmate population is diagnosed with mental illness.

F24: The total capacity of the County jails is: Facility Rated1 Overflow2 Total Main Jail 793 108 901 Todd Road 782 98 880 East Valley 35 N/A 35 Total 1,610 206 1,816

F25: The average daily cost of incarceration per inmate, according to the VCSD is: Facility Cost per Day Main Jail $153.00 Todd Road $115.00 1Rated Capacity means the number of inmate occupants for which a facility’s single and double occupancy cells or dormitories, except those dedicated for health care or disciplinary isolation housing, were planned and designed in conformity to the standards and requirements in Title 15, California Code of Regulations. 2Overflow beds are bunk beds placed in dayrooms of housing sections during overcrowded conditions. The majority of these beds are normally occupied and one cell remains open to give inmates housed in the dayrooms access to a toilet. Mentally Ill Housed in Jails

F26: The Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program was implemented in the County in 2001 through the efforts of the BHD and several local police agencies. It was a direct result of a number of shootings involving mentally ill individuals, which occurred in the late 1990s.

F27: The published goals for the CIT are: [Ref-08] • reduce the necessity for the use-of-force • de-escalate crisis situations • reduce the use of jail • decrease recidivism • increase lawful self-reliance and health enhancing behaviors

F28: MARRT was federally funded by a Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Program (MIOCOR) Grant which began on April 1, 2007: • the intent was to encourage seriously mentally ill offenders who are not currently involved in mental heath treatment to agree to receive needed treatment • the MARRT Team includes members from the Court, VCSD, DA’s Office, PD’s Office, Probation and BHD • with the exception of BHD, the Judge and other team members are assigned on a rotating basis • average client participation is approximately 20

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: Ventura County should formalize the current MARRT program into a permanent Mental Health Court with the necessary funding and assignment of full-time personnel from each of the collaborative departments. (C-01 through C-10) 8 Mentally Ill Housed in Jails

F29: Although the funding for MARRT ceased in September 2008 after eighteen months, the MARRT Team agencies determined the program to be a success and decided to continue participation utilizing their respective general funds.

Related Recommendations (1)

F30: The results of the MARRT client screening process are: • 203 were reviewed for eligibility • 136 were found to be eligible and then evaluated for suitability • 76 were found to be suitable • 59 agreed to enter the program • 14 have graduated to voluntary mental health services

F31: The BHD has identified a shortfall in appropriate housing for very low- income individuals who have serious mental illness. (Att-01)

Related Recommendations (1)

F32: In a December 2008 article titled, The Mentally Ill in Our Jails, County Supervisor Linda Parks states: (Att-02) • county jails are overcrowded • there are approximately 200 mentally ill people, with females outnumbering the males by more than 2 to 1 ___________________________________________________________________________ Mentally Ill Housed in Jails 7 • common offenses for these people are: public intoxication, trespassing, substance abuse, and theft • those incarcerated lose their Medi-Cal and SSI benefits • keeping people in jail is expensive

F33: Supervisor Parks closes by stating, “Now is also the time to look at programs to provide treatment for the mentally ill with the same goal of helping them to re-enter society as productive citizens.” (Att-02) Conclusions C-01. MHCs have proven to be successful in the United States, specifically in California over the past ten years. (F-16, through F-19) C-02. To be effective, MHCs require intensive collaboration among judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation, and behavioral health. (F-06, F-07, F-08, F-10, F-13) C-03. The use of MHCs reduces recidivism, thereby lowering the overall cost of multiple incarcerations. (F-19) C-04. The cost to the County of diverting individuals to alternate mental health treatment facilities is lower than the cost of incarceration in County jails. (F-20, F-21, F-25) C-05. The MARRT Program has some of the same features and goals as a MHC. (F-28) C-06. MARRT Team agencies are supportive of the MARRT Program. (F-29, F-30) C-07. The success of the MARRT Program has been demonstrated; it could be expanded with commitment of more resources to accommodate additional clients. (F-29, F-30, F-33) C-08. The funding for MARRT is tenuous, since it is currently based on the generosity of each individual team member agency. (F-29) C-09. Assigning team members on a rotational basis may diminish the effectiveness of the program. (F-28) C-10. The County has a shortage of appropriate housing for those who have serious mental illness, especially those who are of very low income, are homeless, or are at risk of homelessness. (F-31) Recommendations

June 10, 2009 — Ventura County Pension: “An Uncontrollable Cost”

26 pages 24 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 24 findings

F01: Total County payments to the pension fund have increased from $32,715,209 in FY 1998-1999 to a budgeted amount of $139,742,615 in FY 2008-2009, a 327% increase over 10 years. The County annual pension costs, including Pension Obligation Bonds (POB) payments1, from FY 1998-1999 were: 1 The County issued $250 Million of POBs in 1995. The proceeds from the POBs were placed into the VCERA fund. Principal and interest payments added an average of $18.2 Million per year to the County retirement costs. The POBs were fully paid and retired in FY 2007-2008. Ventura County Pension Fiscal Year Pension Costs 1998-99 $32,715,209 1999-00 $34,768,877 2000-01 $36,074,330 2001-02 $39,414,246 2002-03 $40,050,756 2003-04 $53,938,205 2004-05 $96,613,112 2005-06 $120,618,500 2006-07 $139,097,134 2007-08 $146,866,534 2008-09 Budget $139,742,615

F02: The average County retiree’s monthly pension increased from 1999 to 2008 as follows: [Ref-04] 1999 2008 Increase General Employees $1,195 $2,013 69% Safety Employees $3,434 $5,478 60%

F03: The County employee retirement benefits formula has remained substantially constant for more than 30 years.

F04: Payments from the pension fund (including benefit payments, member refunds, administrative expenses, and legal settlements) were $149,917,062 in FY 2007-2008 and $138,275,948 in FY 2006-2007. [Ref-04]

F05: The County Chief Financial Officer (County CFO) estimated, at a BOS briefing October 7, 2008, that there will be a $20 Million to $30 Million increase in County pension contributions in FY 2010-2011 due to the negative investment results of VCERA in calendar year 2008.

F06: The County CFO, in April 2009, forecasted “. . . increases of approximately 20% to 25% per year over the next several years in County retirement costs.”

F07: VCERA presented the ANNUAL ACTUARIAL VALUATION OF THE VENTURA COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION report to the BOS on April 28, 2009. The report, based on June 30, 2008 data, included charts which projected the fiscal impact to the County’s annual pension costs. (Att-01)

F08: Based on the above VCERA presentation to the BOS, by 2013, the County increase in pension costs would be more than $100 Million above the FY 2008-2009 budget of $139.7 Million.

F09: The VCERA presentation to the BOS assumed an 8% return for FY 2008- 2009; however, the fund experienced substantial losses through the first nine months of the fiscal year. Ventura County Pension 3

F10: The VCERA presentation also assumed that the County payroll costs will remain constant over the next five years.

F11: Factors affecting the County annual pension costs include: • investment results • number of active and retired employees in the plan • compensation of active employees • county payment of employee retirement contributions • projected compensation increases for active employees • retirement benefits formula • actuarial assumptions, such as retiree life expectancy and the financial earnings rate • use of “Excess Earnings”

F12: In years with good investment results, earnings above approximately 10% are treated as “Excess Earnings.” The 10% is composed of the assumed 8% investment earnings, plus a 1% reserve, plus the annual administrative costs of the Fund. VCERA has the option to use the excess earnings to offset members’ contributions, or to transfer excess earnings to the County advance reserve, or to leave excess earnings in the undistributed reserve (where they would be treated as a valuation asset), or to use the excess earnings to provide supplemental benefits to existing retirees. Examples of excess earnings being used to provide supplemental benefits to existing retirees, rather than to offset investment losses include: • effective October 1, 1997, special payments known as “STAR COLA” were granted to employees who had retired prior to April 1981 and had lost over 20% of the purchasing power from their retirement benefits due to inflation • effective March 17, 2003, special payments of $27.50 per month were granted to retirees with at least five years of service credit with VCERA

Related Recommendations (2)

R04: The Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association should retain “Excess Earnings” in the Fund whenever the Fund is less than 90% funded. (C-04, C-05)

R05: The Board of Supervisors and the Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association should propose state legislation to change the “Excess Earnings” provision in the ’37 Act, to require that returns from above-target investment performance years must be used to offset investment returns from below-target performance years before considering additional benefits or offsetting contributions. (C-04, C-05) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura: (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05) Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association: (R-04, R-05) Responses Requested From: County Executive Officer, County of Ventura: (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05) Commendations The Grand Jury was impressed by the professionalism of the management and operations within the Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association and within the County Executive Office. References Ref-01. Grand Jury 2006-2007 “Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Plan” http://grandjury.countyofventura.org/reports/06 Ref-02. County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 http://www.sdcera.org/PDF/1937_Act_09.pdf Ref-03. “Retirement 101,” Ventura County, County Executive Office http://ventura.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=28 Ref-04. VCERA “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2008” http://portal.countyofventura.org/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/VCERA/PUBLI CATIONS/2008%20CAFR%20-%20FINAL.PDF Ventura County Pension 7 Ref-05. “San Francisco pensions: conservative trendsetter,” by Ed Mendel, February 27, 2009. http://calpensions.com/2009/02/27/san-francisco-pensions- conservative-trendsetter/ Ref-06. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Program Perspectives,” March 2009 Ref-07. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics by William J Wiatrowski, February 25, 2009 http://stats.bls.gov/opubReferences/cwc/print/cm20090218ar01pl.htm Attachments Att-01. “ANNUAL ACTUARIAL VALUATION OF THE VENTURA COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION”, to County BOS from Tim Thonis, Retirement Administrator, April 28, 2009. Att-02. FULL TEXT OF MEASURE J, ORANGE COUNTY Att-03. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MEASURE J 8 Ventura County Pension Attachment -01 “ANNUAL ACTUARIAL VALUATION OF THE VENTURA COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION” Tim Thonis, Retirement Administrator, April 28, 2009. Ventura County Pension 9 (This page intentionally blank) 10 Ventura County Pension Ventura County Pension 11 12 Ventura County Pension Ventura County Pension 13 14 Ventura County Pension Ventura County Pension 15 16 Ventura County Pension Attachment -02 FULL TEXT OF MEASURE J, ORANGE COUNTY Ventura County Pension 17 (This page intentionally blank) 18 Ventura County Pension VVeennttuurraa CCoouunnttyy 22000088 –– 22000099 GGrraanndd JJuurryy FFiinnaall RReeppoorrtt ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ VVeennttuurraa CCoouunnttyy PPeennssiioonn 1199 (This page intentionally blank) 20 Ventura County Pension Attachment - 03 ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MEASURE J ___________________________________________________________________________ Ventura County Pension 21 (This page intentionally blank) 22 Ventura County Pension ___________________________________________________________________________ Ventura County Pension 23 (This page intentionally blank) 24 Ventura County Pension

F13: On December 18, 2007, the County Executive Officer (CEO) submitted a letter concerning excess earnings to VCERA stating, “It is the County’s position that the concept of excess earnings is a legal and accounting anomaly that is not consistent with sound funding practices. The retirement system is a long-term entity that should keep investment earnings from good years to offset for investment losses in bad years. Spending “excess” funds in the good years to increase benefits requires additional County contributions to make up for the loss of funds from the trust. The effect is to increase the cost to the taxpayer above and beyond the promised benefits of the defined public pension plan.”

Related Recommendations (2)

R04: The Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association should retain “Excess Earnings” in the Fund whenever the Fund is less than 90% funded. (C-04, C-05)

F14: On September 15, 2008, the CEO submitted a letter concerning excess earnings to VCERA stating, “. . . the County does not support increasing the amount excluded from Assets Available for Benefits in order to 4 Ventura County Pension provide non-vested supplemental benefits. As a reminder, every dollar that is excluded from the actuarial value of assets must be made up for by increased employer contribution.”

F15: At the January 2009 VCERA Board meeting, the Board discussed, in detail, the investment loss of about $1 Billion in fund assets (about 31% decline of the total value) in calendar year 2008. However, at that same meeting, the issue of “Excess Earnings” reserve from previous years was raised. The Board chose to extend a retiree Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) funded by “Excess Earnings” from 2007, justified as a “commitment made in earlier years.”

F16: On December 31, 2007, VCERA’s net assets held in trust for pension benefits were $3.11 Billion. On December 31, 2008, the net assets held in trust for pension benefits were $2.14 Billion. These results are comparable to those experienced by other public pension funds.

F17: San Francisco has required voter approval of pension benefit increases which has been in its charter since 1889. Voters have rejected three attempts in recent decades to let the board of supervisors set pension benefits, each time by a wider margin. [Ref-05]

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: The Board of Supervisors should investigate and, if legal, place a proposition (similar to Orange County “Proposition J”) on the next County-wide election ballot to require voter approval for increases in retirement benefits as a long term control of pension costs. (C-06)

F18: In November 2006, the City of San Diego stripped the power to raise pension benefits from elected officials and from the collective bargaining process. That power now resides with the electorate. [Ref-05]

Related Recommendations (1)

F19: In the 2008 general election, Orange County passed “Proposition J” with 75% of the vote, requiring voter approval for increases in county employee retirement benefits. (Att-02)

Related Recommendations (1)

F20: Orange County “Proposition J” provides that all increases in retirement benefits must be approved by the electorate. Further, prior to any ballot initiative to increase retiree benefits, an actuarial study on the proposed cost of the new benefits will be provided to the electorate. (Att-02)

F21: The Orange County ballot statement in favor of “Proposition J” is included in Attachment 03. There were no ballot statements against “Proposition J”. (Att-03)

F22: “Defined-benefit plan. A plan that provides employees with guaranteed retirement benefits that are based on a benefit formula. A participant’s retirement age, length of service and pre-retirement earnings may affect the benefit received.” [Ref-06]

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The Board of Supervisors should commission an independent study on the merits of replacing the current defined benefit pension plan, for new hires, with a combination of reduced defined benefits and adjusted defined contributions similar to private industry. (C-07) 6 Ventura County Pension

F23: “Defined-contribution plan. A plan that specifies the level of employer contributions and places those contributions into individual employee accounts. Retirement benefits are based on the level of funds in the account at the time of retirement.” [Ref-06]

Related Recommendations (1)

F24: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics stated in 2009, “BLS data on State and local government employees show that 84 percent of workers in 2008 had a defined benefit plan available to them; in contrast, 22 percent of private industry workers had such a plan available to them in the same Ventura County Pension 5 year.” “Just as the structure of retirement plans differs between public and private sector workers, so too has the pace of change in retirement plans differed between the two sectors. From 1986 to 2008, participation in defined benefit plans among full-time workers in private industry declined from 76 percent to 24 percent. Over a similar period (1987-2008), State and local government employee participation in defined benefit plans declined modestly—from 93 percent of full-time workers in 1987 to 88 percent of full-time workers in 2008.” [Ref-07] Conclusions C-01. Increasing pension costs are stressing the County’s budget. County pension costs have risen over 327% in the last 11 years ($32.7 Million in FY 1998-1999 to $139.7 Million in FY 2008-2009). (F-01) C-02. The County’s future pension costs are projected to increase significantly for the foreseeable future. (F-05 through F-09) C-03. Pension payments to retirees remain secure, backed by the Fund’s assets and the annual contributions. (F-01, F-04, F-16) C-04. The factors that cause the County pension costs to increase include: • VCERA investment results • employee salary increases • increases in pension formula (not currently used by the County) • County payment of employee retirement contributions • actuarial assumptions • excess earnings not used to offset losses The County bears all the costs of these factors, but does not control all of them. (F-03, F-11, F-12, F-15) C-05. The ’37 Act gives VCERA sole discretion on the use of “Excess Earnings” regardless of the Plan funding status. (F-12 through F-15) C-06. In an effort to contain retiree benefits costs, San Francisco, Orange County, and the City of San Diego require the electorate to approve retiree benefit increases. (F-17 through F-21) C-07. Private industry has substantially transitioned to defined contribution plans in order to manage pension costs. Public employee pensions are still substantially defined benefit plans. (F-22 through F-24) Recommendations

June 09, 2009 — City of Fillmore Central Park Plaza*

1 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

June 03, 2009 — Moorpark*

4 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

May 29, 2009 — Detention Facilities: Condition and Management

14 pages 38 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 38 findings

F01: The VCSD operates three major detention facilities within the County: • Main Jail • Todd Road Facility • East Valley Detention Center

F02: A former detention facility, VCSD Branch Jail Honor Farm (Honor Farm), located in the Ojai Valley, was closed in 2002. This jail facility, with a capacity of 234, housed only female inmates. Detention Facilities

F03: At the time the Honor Farm closed, 200 female inmates were transferred to the Main Jail.

F04: Main Jail: • is located at the County Government Center in the City of Ventura • is a Type II Facility for the detention of persons pending arraignment, during trial, and awaiting transfer to state prison upon sentencing • houses both male and female inmates • has a total rated capacity1 of 793, sentenced and un-sentenced inmates • has an overflow capacity2 of 108 beds above its rated capacity • processes over 29,000 bookings and releases every year • segregates general population, violent offenders, and inmates needing medical or psychiatric services Pre-trial Detention Facility (Main Jail) 1 Rated Capacity means the number of inmate occupants for which a facility’s single- and double-occupancy cells or dormitories, except those dedicated for health care or disciplinary isolation housing, were planned and designed in conformity to the standards and requirements in CCR Title 15. Overflow beds are bunk beds placed in dayrooms of housing sections during overcrowded conditions. The majority of these beds are normally occupied and one cell remains open to give inmates housed in the dayrooms access to a toilet. ___________________________________________________________________________ Detention Facilities 3

F05: Todd Road Facility: • is located in an unincorporated area of the County near the City of Santa Paula • was completed in 1995 as a Type III Facility for the detention of convicted and sentenced inmates • houses only male inmates • is currently being operated as both a Type II Facility and Type III Facility • has a rated capacity of 782 beds • has an overflow capacity of 98 beds above its rated capacity Todd Road Facility

F06: East Valley Detention Center: • is located in the City of Thousand Oaks and was re-opened in January 2008 • is a Type III Facility designed to house 35 minimum security adult male inmates 4 Detention Facilities East Valley Detention Center

F07: The total capacity of the VCSD detention facilities is: Facility Rated Overflow Total Main Jail 793 108 901 Todd Road Jail 782 98 880 East Valley 35 N/A 35 Total 1,610 206 1,816

F08: In October 2008, County jails housed approximately 1,680 inmates as follows: • Main Jail 822 • Todd Road Jail 833 • East Valley Jail 25

F09: The Ventura County Todd Road Jail Needs Assessment and Engineering Analysis report (The Report), prepared for the County by HDR Architecture, Inc., was published April 4, 2007. It listed four options for the build-out of the Todd Road Jail. [Ref-03]

F10: The Report stated: “Since the 2002 closing of the Honor farm and due to the growing volume of jail admissions and the increasing average length of stay of jail inmates, overcrowded conditions for the Ventura County Jail system are common.” ___________________________________________________________________________ Detention Facilities 5

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, the Board of Supervisors, and the County Executive Officer should continue discussions regarding the overcrowding in the jails and develop alternate solutions to alleviate this problem. (C-01 through C-04)

F11: The Report identifies a number of jail diversion alternatives and criminal process procedures to reduce jail population: • Proposition 36 Drug Diversion • Work Furlough • Work Release • Direct Work The report fails to identify any specific jail diversion alternatives associated with the mentally ill.

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: The Ventura County Sheriff’s Department should support an expanded diversion program for the mentally ill with the goal of reducing the jail population. (C-04)

F12: The Report identifies the potential reduction in the Average Daily Population (ADP)3 when utilizing these diversion programs: Diversion Program ADP Reduction Prop. Drug Diversion 21 Work Furlough 40 Work Release 107 Direct Work 30 Total Est. ADP Reduction 198

F13: There are currently 20 California counties where an inmate population cap has been imposed by the federal courts and an additional 12 counties with a self-imposed population cap. In counties with such population caps, inmates are sometimes released early to comply with the limit imposed by the cap. Currently, there is no court-mandated inmate population cap for the County.

Related Recommendations (1)

F14: Plans for a build-out of Todd Road Jail are still under discussion among the VCSD, the BOS, and the CEO.

F15: The Grand Jury visited the three jail facilities and found the physical conditions to be clean and well maintained.

F16: The Grand Jury observed professional and efficient performance by staff members.

F17: Sheriff’s Service Technicians actively monitored and controlled access to various areas of the jails.

F18: Housing Security Deputies actively supervised the inmates by conducting periodic patrols of cell block day rooms and individual inmate cells.

F19: The five city holding facilities operated by VCSD were found to be clean and well maintained. Average Daily Population is the average number of inmates housed daily during the prior fiscal year. Detention Facilities Probation (Adult Facility)

F20: Probation operates one adult detention facility under the Work Furlough Program: • is a Type IV Facility for the housing of inmates eligible under Penal Code § 1208 for work/education furlough and/or other programs involving inmate access into the community • was established in January 1973 • is located at the Camarillo Airport Complex • is a minimum security facility with a capacity of 240 adult inmates (200 male and 40 female) • the inmates serve court-ordered confinement while maintaining their employment or school attendance in the community • the inmates are released to their jobs or schools daily • each inmate in the Work Furlough Program reimburses the County based on a sliding scale from a minimum of $43.00 to $73.00 per day based on the inmate’s income or ability to pay • the typical confinement at the facility is 45-60 days

F21: The Grand Jury visited the Work Furlough Facility and, in spite of the advanced age of the facility, found it to be clean and well maintained.

F22: The Grand Jury observed professional and efficient performance by staff members. Work Furlough Facility ___________________________________________________________________________ Detention Facilities 7 Probation (Juvenile Facility)

F23: The Ventura County Probation Agency Juvenile Facilities (Juvenile Complex) sit on a 45 acre parcel in an unincorporated area of the County near the community of El Rio. Ventura County Juvenile Facilities

F24: The Juvenile Complex was built to house a total of 420 male and female youths.

F25: There were approximately 210 wards at the time the Grand Jury visited the Juvenile Complex.

F26: Detention housing is intended for juveniles going through the court process. It also serves to provide temporary custody of juveniles in need of short-term removal from the community and for those awaiting transfer to other jurisdictions or suitable placement facilities.

F27: Commitment housing is intended for juveniles who are serving court- imposed commitments of up to one year.

F28: The Grand Jury visited the Juvenile Complex, interviewed various staff members, and spoke with several of the wards.

F29: The Grand Jury observed proceedings of the Juvenile Mental Health Court, known as Solutions Court, on two occasions. Detention Facilities

F30: The Grand Jury observed professional and efficient performance by staff members at the Juvenile Complex. City Police Departments

F31: The Grand Jury inspected temporary holding facilities operated by the Police Departments located in: • Oxnard • Ventura • Simi Valley • Santa Paula • Port Hueneme Ventura Police Department

F32: A temporary holding facility is used for the confinement of adults for 24 hours or less pending release, transfer to another facility, or appearance in court.

F33: CCR Title 15, Subchapter 4, Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities, contains very specific requirements regarding the segregation and treatment of minors in custody in a law enforcement facility.

F34: The procedures for the treatment of minors detained at all five police departments comply with the requirements of CCR Title 15. ___________________________________________________________________________ Detention Facilities 9

F35: The 2007-2008 Ventura County Grand Jury recommended that the cities of Oxnard and Santa Paula install an AED in their holding cell areas. To date, the City of Santa Paula has not installed an AED.

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: The City of Santa Paula should immediately procure and install an AED device near the holding cells and train the appropriate personnel in its operation. (C-08) 10 Detention Facilities Responses Responses Required From: Sheriff, County of Ventura (R-01, R-02) Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-01) City Council, City of Santa Paula (R-03) Responses Requested From: County Executive Officer, County of Ventura (R-01) Commendations The Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, Ventura County Probation Agency, and the City Police Departments are commended for the excellent condition and management of their respective facilities. References Ref-01. California Code of Regulations Title 15, Subchapter 4, Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities http://nicic.gov/Library/022900 Ref-02. California Code of Regulation Title 15, Subchapter 5, and Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities http://nicic.gov/Library/022898 Ref-03. Ventura County Todd Road Jail Needs Assessment and Engineering Analysis Report, prepared for County of Ventura, California, by HDR Architecture, Inc. dated April 4, 2007 www.vcsd.org/detention_services/todd_road/todd_road_jail_needs accessment_april_2007.pdf

F36: The age of the facility and number of holding cells varies among the cities.

F37: The overall physical condition of the holding areas was observed to be clean and well maintained.

F38: There were no noteworthy deficiencies in either the overall condition or in the management of the holding facilities. Conclusions C-01. The 2002 closure of the Honor Farm is a major contributor to the continual overcrowding of inmates in the Main Jail and the Todd Road Jail. (F-02, F-07, F-10) C-02. This continual overcrowding could result in a court mandated inmate population cap for Ventura County. (F-10, F-13) C-03. To date, the VCSD, BOS, and CEO have not agreed on a decision dealing with the continual overcrowding in both jails. (F-14) C-04. The Ventura County Todd Road Jail Needs Assessment and Engineering Analysis Report fails to identify any specific diversion program for the mentally ill to reduce the jail population. (F-09, F-11, F-12) C-05. In spite of the overcrowded conditions, the County jails are being operated in a safe, effective, and efficient manner. (F-15, F-16) C-06. Both the Juvenile Complex and the Adult Work Furlough facilities operated by the Probation Agency are being operated in a safe, efficient and professional manner. (F-21, F-22, F-30) C-07. Each of the five City Police Departments operates its holding facilities in an exemplary manner. (F-37, F-38) C-08. The installation of an AED in the City of Santa Paula’s holding facility would enhance the health and safety of the detainees. Recommendations

📋May 18, 2009 — School District Administration: Is the Cost Too High?

50 pages 26 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 26 findings

F01: Ventura County has 203 schools comprised of 131 Elementary Schools, 28 Junior High/Middle Schools, 20 High Schools, 17 Alternative Schools, and 7 Charter Schools in the 20 public school districts: (Att-02) • 11 Elementary - kindergarten through eighth grade • 7 Unified – kindergarten through twelfth grade • 2 High School – ninth through twelfth grade

F02: As of November 2008, in the Districts there are a total of: (Att-03) • 96 School Board Members/Trustees • 20 Superintendents • 36 Assistant Superintendents • 27 Administrators • 116 Directors • 42 Managers/Supervisors • 1,391 support staff assigned to the district offices Cost of Administering Schools 3 Ventura County School Districts by Geographical Area Northeast County

F03: In the Briggs Elementary School District there are: (Att-03) • 2 schools • 457 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 Trustees (compensation not reported) • 1 Superintendent at approximately $173,000 • 4 support staff at a total of approximately $125,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $60,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $205,000 • approximate cost of administration per student (exclusive of Trustee compensation) is $1,233 or 14.1% of the General Fund Revenues of $8,723 per year per student ADA

F04: In the Fillmore Unified School District there are: (Att-03) • 7 schools • 3,762 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 School Board Members at a total of approximately $31,000 • 1 Superintendent at approximately $178,000 • 3 Assistant Superintendents at a total of approximately $363,000 • 5 Directors at approximately $447,000 • 2 Managers/Supervisors at a total of approximately $117,000 • 46 support staff at a total of approximately $2,000,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $1,200,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $490,000 • approximate cost of administration per student is $1,277 or 14.3% of the General Fund Revenues of $8,944 per year per student ADA

F05: In the Mupu Elementary School District there are: (Att-03) • 1 school • 127 students for 2008-2009 school year • 3 Trustees (compensation not reported) • 1 Superintendent/Principal at approximately $21,000 • 1 support staff at roughly $36,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $20,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $58,000 • approximate cost of administration per student (exclusive of Trustee compensation) is $1,066 or 12.5% of the General Fund Revenues of $8,508 per year per student ADA 4 Cost of Administering Schools

F06: In the Santa Clara Elementary School District there are: (Att-03) • 1 school • 55 students for 2008-2009 school year • 3 Trustees (compensation not reported) • 1 Superintendent//Principal at approximately $34,000 • 1 support staff at approximately $4,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $10,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $51,000 • approximate cost of administration per student (exclusive of Trustee compensation) is $1,811 or 16.9% of the General Fund Revenues of $10,725 per year per student ADA

F07: In the Santa Paula Elementary School District there are: (Att-03) • 7 schools • 3,699 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 Trustees at a total of approximately $48,000 • 1 Superintendent at approximately $160,000 • 2 Assistant Superintendents at a total of approximately $245,000 • 6 Directors at a total of approximately $550,000 • 1 Administrator at approximately $78,000 • 36 support staff at a total of approximately $1,600,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $855,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $800,000 • approximate cost of administration per student is $1,153 or 12% of the General Fund Revenues of $9,578 per year per student ADA

F08: In the Santa Paula Union High School District there are: (Att-03) • 2 schools • 1,661 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 Trustees at a total of approximately $55,000 • 1 Superintendent at approximately $190,000 • 1 Assistant Superintendent at approximately $115,000 • 2 Directors at a total of approximately $180,000 • 5 Managers/Supervisors at a total of approximately $290,000 • 8 support staff at a total of approximately $470,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $420,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $200,000 • approximate cost of administration per student is $1,159 or 12.5% of the General Fund Revenues of $9,296 per year per student ADA Cost of Administering Schools 5 Southeast County

F09: In the Conejo Valley Unified School District there are: (Att-03) • 29 schools • 22,097 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 Board Members at a total of approximately $82,000 • 1 Superintendent at approximately $183,000 • 3 Assistant Superintendents at a total of approximately $435,000 • 16 Directors at approximately a total of $1,660,000 • 10 Managers/Supervisors at a total of approximately $670,000 • 136 support staff at a total of approximately $7,380,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $2,040,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $1,700,000 • approximate cost of administration per student is $643 or 8% of the General Fund Revenues of $8,042 per year per student ADA

F10: In the Oak Park Unified School District there are: (Att-03) • 7 schools • 3,620 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 School Board Members (not compensated) • 1 Superintendent at approximately $165,000 • 2 Assistant Superintendents at a total of approximately $259,000 • 6 Directors at a total of approximately $545,000 • 23 support staff at a total of approximately $1,000,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $450,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $710,000 • approximate cost of administration per student is $880 or 10.9% of the General Fund Revenues of $8,088 per year per student ADA Southwest

F11: In the Hueneme Elementary School District there are: (Att-03) • 11 schools • 7,988 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 Trustees at a total of approximately $68,000 • 1 Superintendent at approximately $185,000 • 2 Assistant Superintendents at a total of approximately $255,000 • 8 Directors at a total of approximately $815,000 • 69 support staff at a total of approximately $3,700,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $1,800,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $610,000 6 Cost of Administering Schools • approximate cost of administration per student is $926 or 10.8% of the General Fund Revenues of $8,528 per year per student ADA

F12: In the Ocean View Elementary School District there are: (Att-03) • 4 schools • 2,510 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 Governing Board Members at a total of approximately $34,000 • 1 Superintendent at approximately $146,000 • 3 Assistant Superintendents at a total of approximately $350,000 • 2 Directors at a total of approximately $180,000 • 5 Managers/Supervisors at a total of approximately $300,000 • 36 support staff at a total of approximately $1,300,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $800,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $497,000 • approximate cost of administration per student is $1,316 or 14.4% of the General Fund Revenues of $9,133 per year per student ADA

F13: In the Oxnard Elementary School District there are: (Att-03) • 20 schools • 14,792 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 Trustees at approximately (compensation not reported) • 1 Superintendent at approximately $235,000 • 3 Assistant Superintendents at a total of approximately $335,000 • 11 Administrators at a total of approximately $1,055,000 • 5 Directors at a total of approximately $410,000 • 1 Manager/Supervisor at approximately $58,000 • 100 support staff at a total of approximately $4,500,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $3,200,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $3,545,000 • approximate cost of administration per student (exclusive of Trustee compensation) is $826 or 9.5% of the General Fund Revenues of $8,638 per year per student ADA

F14: In the Oxnard Union High School District there are: (Att-03) • 9 schools • 16,478 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 Trustees at a total of approximately $70,000 • 1 Superintendent at approximately $210,000 • 3 Assistant Superintendents at a total of approximately $415,000 • 12 Directors at a total of approximately $1,340,000 Cost of Administering Schools 7 • 2 Managers/Supervisors at a total of approximately $145,000 • 71 support staff at a total of approximately $3,700,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $2,160,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $1,800,000 • approximate cost of administration per student is $597 or 6.6% of the General Fund Revenues of $9,045 per year per student ADA

F15: In the Rio Elementary School District there are: (Att-03) • 8 schools • 4,150 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 Trustees at a total of approximately $12,000 • 1 Superintendent at approximately $192,000 • 3 Assistant Superintendents at a total of approximately $370,000 • 4 Directors at a total of approximately $383,000 • 1 Manager/Supervisor at approximately $66,000 • 60 support staff at a total of approximately $2,000,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $620,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $1,675,000 • approximate cost of administration per student is $1,286 or 15.5% of the General Fund Revenues of $8,275 per year per student ADA Central County

F16: In the Pleasant Valley Elementary School District there are: (Att-03) • 13 schools • 6,509 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 Trustees at a total of approximately $55,000 • 1 Superintendent at approximately $205,000 • 2 Assistant Superintendents at a total of approximately $274,000 • 6 Directors at a total of approximately $673,000 • 3 Managers/Supervisors at a total of approximately $198,000 • 63 support staff at a total of approximately $3,150,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $1,375,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $1,125,000 • approximate cost of administration per student is $1,085 or 13.8% of the General Fund Revenues of $7,829 per year per student ADA

F17: In the Mesa Union Elementary School District there are: (Att-03) • 2 schools • 580 students for 2008-2009 school year 8 Cost of Administering Schools • 5 Trustees (compensation not reported) • 1 Superintendent at approximately $168,000 • 5 support staff at a total of approximately $155,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $90,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $200,000 • approximate cost of administration per student (exclusive of Trustee compensation) is $1,059 or 11.7% of the General Fund Revenues of $9,045 per year per student ADA

F18: In the Somis Union Elementary School District there are: (Att-03) • 2 schools • 310 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 Trustees (compensation not reported) • 1 Superintendent/Principal at approximately $32,000 • 5 support staff at a total of approximately $150,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $75,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $195,000 • approximate cost of administration per student (exclusive of Trustee compensation) is $1,450 or 16.8% of the General Fund Revenues of $8,617 per year per student ADA East County

F19: In the Simi Valley Unified School District there are: (Att-03) • 29 schools • 20,885 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 School Board Members at a total of approximately $96,000 • 1 Superintendent at approximately $256,000 • 2 Assistant Superintendents at a total of approximately $340,000 • 10 Administrators at a total of approximately $712,000 • 11 Directors at a total of approximately $1,100,000 • 1 Manager/Supervisor at approximately $52,000 • 150 support staff at a total of approximately $11,700,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $6,200,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $1,600,000 • approximate cost of administration per student is $1,022 or 13.6% of the General Fund Revenues of $7,513 per year per student ADA

F20: In the Moorpark Unified School District there are: (Att-03) • 11 schools • 7,317 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 School Board Members at a total of approximately $75,000 Cost of Administering Schools 9 • 1 Superintendent at approximately $160,000 • 3 Assistant Superintendents at a total of approximately $365,000 • 9 Directors at a total of approximately $770,000 • 5 Managers/Supervisors at a total of approximately $312,000 • 32 support staff at a total of approximately $1,460,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $700,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $560,000 • approximate cost of administration per student is $506 or 6.2% of the General Fund Revenues of $8,162 per year per student ADA Northwest County

F21: In the Ventura Unified School District there are: (Att-03) • 29 schools • 17,428 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 School Board Members at a total of approximately $67,000 • 1 Superintendent at approximately $204,000 • 3 Assistant Superintendents at a total of approximately $430,000 • 5 Administrators at a total of approximately $500,000 • 19 Directors at a total of approximately $1,600,000 • 6 Managers/Supervisors at a total of approximately $374,000 • 270 support staff at a total of approximately $11,000,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $5,260,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $1,825,000 • approximate cost of administration per student is $1,191 or 14.3% of the General Fund Revenues of $8,322 per year per student ADA

F22: In the Ojai Unified School District there are: (Att-03) • 9 schools • 3,088 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 School Board Members at a total of approximately $55,000 • 1 Superintendent at approximately $153,000 • 1 Assistant Superintendent at approximately, 120,000 • 5 Directors at a total of approximately $445,000 • 1 Manager/Supervisor at approximately $70,000 • 38 support staff at a total of approximately $1,800,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $970,000 • miscellaneous expenses of approximately $375,000 • approximate cost of administration per student is $1,285 or 14.3% of the General Fund Revenues of $8,948 per year per student ADA 10 Cost of Administering Schools

F23: The following is a summary of the total district cost, enrollment, and cost per student. District Cost Comparisons Enrollment Districts Total Cost 08/09 Cost per Student Briggs Elementary $563,333 457 $1,233 Conejo Valley Unified 14,212,468 22,097 643 Fillmore Unified 4,805,695 3,762 1,277 Hueneme Elementary 7,397,731 7,988 926 Mesa Union Elementary 614,088 580 1,059 Moorpark Unified 4,408,461 7,317 602 Mupu Elementary 135,413 127 1,066 Oak Park Unified 3,185,537 3,620 880 Ocean View Elementary 3,302,452 2,510 1,316 Ojai Unified 3,967,717 3,088 1,285 Oxnard Elementary 13,305,697 14,792 900 Oxnard Union High 9,829,651 16,478 597 Pleasant Valley Elementary 7,060,848 6,509 1,085 Rio Elementary 5,336,653 4,150 1,286 Santa Clara Elementary 99,613 55 1,811 Santa Paula Elementary 4,344,789 3,699 1,175 Santa Paula Union High 1,924,541 1,661 1,159 Simi Valley Unified 22,047,909 20,885 1,056 Somis Union Elementary 449,411 310 1,450 Ventura Unified 21,248,215 17,428 1,219 Total for all Districts $128,240,222 137,513 Average cost per student for all Districts $933 Cost of Administering Schools 11 Ventura County Office of Education (VCOE)

F24: In the VCOE there are: (Att-03) • 5 special needs schools – kindergarten through twelfth grade • 15 special day-class programs on public school sites • 2,800 students for 2008-2009 school year • 5 Trustees at $55,000 • 1 Superintendent at approximately $210,000 • 4 Assistant Superintendents at a total of approximately $625,000 • 20 Directors at a total of approximately $2,300,000 • 23 Managers/Supervisors at a total of approximately $2,000,000 • 140 support staff at a total of approximately $6,800,000 • non-salary compensation and benefits of approximately $3,500,000 • cost per VCOE student is not relevant to this study

F25: The VCOE operates many support departments such as Information & Technology, Facilities, Purchasing, and Transportation; some of the Districts utilize these services.

F26: The VCCSDO makes recommendations on organization and reorganizations of school districts, the transfer of territory between and/or among school districts, the number of trustees, and the manner by which they are elected. (Att-06) Conclusions C-01. The cost of administering Ventura County’s 20 public school districts is approximately $128,240,000: (Att-03) (F-01 through F-22) • average administrative cost as reported is $933 per year per student • there are over 240 administrators at a cost of approximately $24,000,000 per year, not counting benefits and non-salary compensation • there are 1,400 support staff at a cost of approximately $57,000,000 per year, not counting benefits and non-salary compensation • total non-salary compensation and medical benefits are approximately $31,457,000 • miscellaneous cost of materials, supplies, travel and conferences, staff development, dues and memberships, rentals and leases, professional consultants, audit, business service authority, employment fees, legal services, postage, miscellaneous insurance, etc. is approximately $18,250,000 per year • total cost of the sixty reported school board members and trustees is approximately $760,000 per year including benefits and non- 12 Cost of Administering Schools salary compensation (exclusive of non-reported Trustee compensation) C-02. Unification/consolidation of some of the County’s 20 public school districts could significantly reduce administrative costs which, in turn, could be used to maintain classroom programs and teachers. (Att-07) (F-01 through F-22) C-03. Combining some District support functions at the VCOE could reduce the cost of operating Districts. (F-23, F-24) Recommendations

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R01: The Grand Jury recommends that the VCOE, the Districts, and the VCCSDO should investigate ways to consolidate or unify some of the 20 public school districts with the potential to save millions of dollars in administrative costs. Some suggestions are as follows: (C-01, C-02) • consolidate/unify Briggs Elementary, Mupu Elementary, Santa Paula Elementary, Santa Paula Union High, and Santa Clara Elementary • consolidate Ojai Unified and Ventura Unified • consolidate/unify Hueneme Elementary, Ocean View Elementary, Oxnard Elementary, Oxnard Union High, and Rio Elementary • consolidate/unify Mesa Union Elementary, Pleasant Valley Elementary, and Somis Union Elementary • consolidate Conejo Valley Unified and Oak Park Unified • consolidate Moorpark Unified and Simi Valley Unified Different consolidations or unifications could achieve similar savings.

R02: The Grand Jury recommends that the VCOE should coordinate efforts with individual districts to consolidate support services, such as, Information and Technology, Purchasing, Facilities, and Transportation to help reduce costs for all of the Districts and the VCOE. (C-03) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools (R-01, R-02) Ventura County Board of Education (R-01, R-02) Board of Trustees Briggs Elementary School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Education Conejo Valley Unified School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Education Fillmore Unified School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Trustees Hueneme Elementary School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Trustees Mesa Union Elementary School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Education Moorpark Unified School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Education Oak Park Unified School District (R-01, R-02) Cost of Administering Schools 13 Governing Board Ocean View Elementary School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Education Ojai Unified School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Trustees Oxnard Elementary School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Trustees Oxnard Union High School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Trustees Pleasant Valley Elementary (R-01, R-02) Board of Trustees Rio Elementary School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Trustees Santa Clara Elementary School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Trustees Santa Paula Elementary School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Trustees Santa Paula Union High School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Education Simi Valley Unified School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Trustees Somis Union Elementary School District (R-01, R-02) Board of Education Ventura Unified School District (R-01, R-02) Responses Requested From: Ventura County Committee on School District Organization (R-01) Attachments Att-01. Average Daily Attendance Definition Att-02. List of Ventura County Public Schools Att-03. Summary of Responses Received from all School Districts and the VCOE Att-04. Ventura County School Districts Map Att-05. Potential Consolidations/Unifications Map Att-06. Information on the Ventura County Committee on School District Organization Att-07. Potential Administrative Cost Savings from the Recommended Consolidations/Unifications 14 Cost of Administering Schools Attachment – 01 Average Daily Attendance Definition Cost of Administering Schools 15 (This page intentionally blank) 16 Cost of Administering Schools Average Daily Attendance Provided by the Ventura County Office of Education “ADA means that the student was in class for every school day. If a student is not in school (for any reason) the school loses the credit for that day. For example – a student is enrolled on day 1 of school, then the student is sick for 4 days during the year, and the student also takes a family vacation and is out for 5 additional days. That student only attended 171 days out of 180 possible school days. Therefore, the student generated .95 ADA (171 divided by 180). There is a little more to it than that, but that is the basic formula. Many (not all) revenues are ADA based. The largest source of unrestricted revenues - the Revenue Limit - is ADA based. Basically, the formula is "Revenue Limit amount times ADA". The district can use the current year ADA or the prior year ADA, whichever is greater. That helps protect a district with declining enrollment. Another revenue source that is ADA based is Lottery. Lottery funds are distributed on a per ADA basis.” Cost of Administering Schools 17 (This page intentionally blank) 18 Cost of Administering Schools Attachment – 02 List of Ventura County Public Schools Cost of Administering Schools 19 (This page intentionally blank) 20 Cost of Administering Schools Cost of Administering Schools 21 (This page intentionally blank) 22 Cost of Administering Schools Attachment -03 Summary of Responses Received from all School Districts and the VCOE Cost of Administering Schools 23 (This page intentionally blank) 24 Cost of Administering Schools SummVaernyt oufr aR eCsopuonntyse 2s0 R0e8c-e2i0v0e9d Gfrroamnd a Jllu Srychool Districts and the VCOE for 2007-2008 Final Report District Trustees Trustees Benefits Ct. Superintendent Sup. Compensation Asst. Superintendent CT. Administrator CT. Directors CT. Management/Supervisor CT. Certificated Emp. CT. Classified Emp. CT. Non-Salary Benefits *** Misc. Cost Total Cost Enrollment 08/09 Cost per Student Compensation Briggs Elementary 5 $144,430 $28,601 $124,768 4 $33,090 $27,936 $204,508 $563,333 457 $1,233 Conejo Valley Unified 32,160 59,690 5 175,000 8,400 434,941 3 1,663,901 16 669,211 10 1,040,787 13 6,344,095 123 126,540 1,918,262 1,701,867 14,212,468 22,097 643 Fillmore Unified 30,691 5 147,351 30,311 362,896 3 447,480 5 116,802 2 439,182 6 1,546,548 40 1,192,985 491,449 4,805,695 3,762 1,277 Hueneme Elementary 14,000 54,260 5 154,640 29,977 255,043 2 814,775 8 1,170,715 14 2,514,926 55 1,009,626 768,814 610,955 7,397,731 7,988 926 Mesa Union Elementary 5 146,231 22,671 156,208 5 49,105 38,027 201,846 614,088 580 1,059 Moorpark Unified 14,400 61,150 5 149,018 10,258 365,223 3 772,213 9 312,376 5 169,175 2 1,294,164 30 63,397 635,960 561,127 4,408,461 7,317 602 Mupu Elementary 3 20,569 35,640 1 10,850 10,050 58,304 135,413 127 1,066 Oak Park Unified 5 164,877 258,965 2 544,983 6 393,438 5 661,927 18 27,792 419,892 713,663 3,185,537 3,620 880 Ocean View Elementary 33,340 5 145,600 349,028 3 178,572 2 302,239 5 66,767 1 1,230,263 35 27,500 472,087 497,056 3,302,452 2,510 1,316 Ojai Unified 54,475 5 152,270 120,827 1 444,141 5 70,404 1 370,067 7 1,408,073 31 542,940 430,251 374,270 3,967,717 3,088 1,285 Oxnard Elementary 5 195,907 38,661 336,905 3 1,054,021 11 408,335 5 58,221 1 4,478,848 100 3,162,687 3,545,762 13,305,697 14,792 900 Oxnard Union High 29,170 43,082 5 177,354 36,737 414,940 3 1,337,282 12 146,180 2 3,687,975 71 2,158,883 1,798,049 9,829,651 16,478 597 Pleasant Valley Elementary 14,000 39,218 5 182,050 23,648 273,600 2 672,913 6 197,862 3 96,094 1 3,061,670 62 877,729 497,762 1,124,302 7,060,848 6,509 1,085 Rio Elementary 12,000 5 165,000 26,788 370,103 3 382,861 4 66,170 1 376,467 14 1,637,451 46 620,055 1,679,758 5,336,653 4,150 1,286 Santa Clara Elementary ** 3 22,587 11,635 3,914 1 424 9,600 51,453 99,613 55 1,811 Santa Paula Elementary 14,400 33,932 5 155,000 4,800 245,183 2 78,007 1 551,664 6 264,378 4 1,335,555 32 12,000 844,323 803,888 4,344,789 3,699 1,175 Santa Paula Union High 15,000 40,078 5 159,794 29,231 114,694 1 180,356 2 290,116 5 135,772 2 331,470 6 216,054 205,992 205,984 1,924,541 1,661 1,159 Simi Valley Unified 26,460 70,154 5 206,104 50,021 340,084 2 712,486 10 1,084,852 11 51,970 1 4,216,257 59 7,474,418 191 354,585 5,835,228 1,596,225 22,047,909 20,885 1,056 Somis Union Elementary * 5 31,700 147,285 5 35,935 38,729 195,762 449,411 310 1,450 Ventura Unified 24,000 42,527 5 173,009 31,208 428,160 3 500,019 5 1,596,496 19 373,826 6 2,615,168 52 8,373,964 218 2,970,524 2,293,093 1,826,221 21,248,215 17,428 1,219 Total for all Districts $195,590 $562,597 96 $2,868,491 $382,947 $4,670,592 36 $2,344,533 27 $11,080,824 116 $2,655,376 42 $11,354,267 180 $45,849,162 1074 $10,330,014 $17,608,693 $18,242,449 $128,240,222 137,513 $933 VCOE 0 54,895 5 177,842 33,155 626,001 4 2,273,878 20 1,956,959 23 517,142 8 6,351,052 129 3,518,714 15,509,638 2,800 Total with VCOE $195,590 $617,492 101 $3,046,333 $416,102 $5,296,593 40 $2,344,533 27 $13,354,702 136 $4,612,335 65 $11,871,409 188 $52,200,214 1,203 $10,330,014 $21,127,407 $18,242,449 $143,749,860 140,313 * Somis has a consultant as a superintendent. ** at 25% of listed salary due to other duties *** Misc. Cost (Materials/Supplies, Travel & Conferences, Staff Development, Dues & Memberships, Rentals & Leases, Consultants, Audit, Business Service authority, Employment Fees, Legal services, Postage, Misc. Insur.etc.) All information obtained from the School Districts and the Ventura County Office of Education. Cost of Administering Schools 25 Ventura County 2008-2009 Grand Jury Final Report Summary of all Responses Received from all School Districts and the VCOE (Misc Cost 06-07) Fund 010-General Fund Briggs Conejo Fillmore Hueneme Mesa Union Moorpark Mupu Oak Park Ocean View Ojai Unified Oxnard ElOUHSD Pleasant Valley Rio Elementary Santa Clara Santa Paula ESPUH Simi ValleySomis Union Ventura Unified 1105 - Teacher sub. 5,150 4,559 1121 - Cert. Sub. 1,285 1122 - Teacher Extra Help 8,720 1901 - Teacher Trainer 103,961 1903 - Cert. Hourly 67 1904 - Other Cert. Stipend 7,670 2201 - Class. Extra Help 2,201 6,009 2202 - Class. Sub. 120 979 110 2203 - Class. O.T. 8,284 40 2205 - Class Sub 2,460 2206 - Class Support Sub. 16,792 2223 - Extra Duty 751 2260 - Class. Support Extra Pay 200 2401 - Clerical Extra Help 48,561 8,533 2402 - Clerical Sub. 1,667 2403 - Clerical Extra Duty 28,752 32,451 18,993 2404 - Clerical Temp. 2,134 2460 - Clerical, Tech & Office Extra Pay 6,419 6,512 2460 - Wellness Bonus 300 2412 - Class. Sub. 2,518 2415 - Clerk/Office O.T. 33,987 2,195 2901 - Student Workers 3,502 2902 - Other Class. Hrly. 10,031 7,169 2903 - Class. Extra Duty 238 2,537 2905 - Class. Specialists 87 2920 - Class. Retiree Cons. 10,649 3299 - Pers Golden Handshake 29,120 3902 - Other Benefits 3,888 1,328 6,008 510 12,097 23,807 6,000 135,260 288,978 1,860 4300 - Materials & Supplies 7,282 312,132 55,536 76,510 2,492 33,691 101,882 115,149 53,791 81,338 123,684 88,677 188,358 36,000 20,663 211,279 2,059 216,290 5200 -Travel & Conferences 1,065 59,000 23,482 49,329 34 24,694 26,170 39,657 29,111 64,463 59,342 33,258 28,427 18,165 21,671 26,775 78,467 5210 - Mileage 8,794 1,200 94,388 600 10,860 11,337 13,600 32,196 47,366 5220 - Staff Development 11,352 6,048 180 40 2,174 5300 - Dues & Memberships 9,710 46,296 19,780 18,342 6,383 17,799 893 16,247 17,756 25,830 71,010 23,248 32,435 14,657 2,271 14,094 17,397 1,982 3,863 41,000 5600 - Rentals, Leases 6,013 140,645 23,574 30,998 1,868 16,113 21,031 20,516 12,342 65,888 35,065 4,700 6634 203,007 1,277 385,821 5610 - Contracts & Repairs 365,042 38,448 11,350 3,973 11,235 35,876 57,690 819 118 5631 - Maintenance Agreements 400,271 5800 - Professnl/Consult Serv &Opera. 22,575 91,579 429,768 28,674 10,062 11,853 205,719 172,194 2,581,801 713,841 473,112 7,288 152,245 132,177 1,051,016 15,432 810,678 5801 - Audit 15,069 13,550 25,809 15,997 43,925 11,717 14,865 106,844 20,741 11,708 52,335 9,647 5803 - Business Services Authority 124,906 124,879 32,779 30024 124,909 5804 - Employment Fees 4,748 1,318 768 84 5,689 3940 33,925 2,077 25,776 5820 - Other Opert. Expense 470,074 5830 - County Contracts 297,642 68,170 5855 - Advertising 22,190 3,834 10,908 2942 17595 5810 - Other Services 272,614 140,131 178,702 4,264 130,466 825,800 88,714 453 5890 - Other Recruitment 72,291 5899 - Legal Services 1,087 43,678 102,411 13,052 25,690 114 66,162 37,213 33,012 230,396 809,208 450,522 21,257 33,492 183,682 5903 -Postage 701 591 5,611 25,289 10,478 27580 38 532 Total For All Districts $204,508 $1,701,867 $491,449 $610,955 $201,846 $561,127 $58,304 $713,663 $497,056 $374,270 $3,545,762 $1,798,049 $1,124,302 $1,679,758 $51,453 $803,888 $205,984 $1,596,225 $195,762 $1,826,221 $18,242,449 26 Cost of Administering Schools Attachment – 04 Ventura County School Districts Map Cost of Administering Schools 27 (This page intentionally blank) 28 Cost of Administering Schools Cost of Administering Schools 29 (This page intentionally blank) 30 Cost of Administering Schools Attachment – 05 Potential Consolidations/Unifications Map Cost of Administering Schools 31 (This page intentionally blank) 32 Cost of Administering Schools Cost of Administering Schools 33 (This page intentionally blank) 34 Cost of Administering Schools Attachment – 06 Information on the Ventura County Committee on School District Organization Cost of Administering Schools 35 (This page intentionally blank) 36 Cost of Administering Schools Cost of Administering Schools 37 38 Cost of Administering Schools Cost of Administering Schools 39 40 Cost of Administering Schools Cost of Administering Schools 41 (This page intentionally blank) 42 Cost of Administering Schools Attachment 7 Potential Administrative Cost Savings from the Recommended Consolidations/Unifications Cost of Administering Schools 43 (This page intentionally blank) 44 Cost of Administering Schools Ventura County 2008-2009 Grand Jury Final Report Potential Administrative Cost Savings from the Recommended Consolidations/Unifications District Trustees Trustees Benefits # Of Personnel Comm. P.C. Benefits # Of Superintendent Sup. Compensation Asst. Superintendent # Of Administrator #Of Directors # Of Management/Supervisor # Of Certificated Emp. # Of Classified Emp.# Of CompensationBenefits Misc. Cost Total Cost Enrollment 08/09Cost per Student Scenario 2 Briggs Elementary 0 0 5 144,430 28,601 124,768 4 33,090 27,936 204,508 563,333 457 1,233 Fillmore Unified 0 30,691 5 147,351 30,311 362,896 3 447,480 5 116,802 2 439,182 6 1,546,548 40 1,192,985 491,449 4,805,695 3,762 1,277 Mupu Elementary 0 0 3 20,569 35,640 1 10,850 10,050 58,304 135,413 127 1,066 Santa Paula Elementary 14,400 33,932 5 1,500 159 3 155,000 4,800 245,183 2 78,007 1 551,664 6 264,378 4 1,335,555 32 12,000 844,323 803,888 4,344,789 3,699 1,175 Santa Paula Union High 15,000 40,078 5 159,794 29,231 114,694 1 180,356 2 290,116 5 135,772 2 331,470 6 216,054 205,992 205,984 1,924,541 1,661 1,159 Santa Clara Elementary * 0 0 3 22,587 11,635 3,914 1 424 9,600 51,453 99,613 55 1,811 Total for all Districts $29,400 $104,701 26 $1,500 159 3 $649,731 $104,578 $722,773 6 $78,007 1 1,179,500 13 $406,918 7 $839,332 12 $3,377,895 84 $1,465,403 $1,097,901 $1,815,586 11,873,384 9,761 $1,216 Santa Paula Unified 14,400 33,932 5 1,500 159 3 155,000 4,800 245,183 2 78,007 1 551,664 6 264,378 4 1,335,555 32 12,000 844,323 793,373 4,334,274 9,761 444 Potential Savings 15,000 70,769 21 0 0 0 494,731 99,778 477,590 4 0 0 627,836 7 406,918 7 574,954 8 2,042,340 52 1,453,403 253,578 1,022,213 7,539,110 9,761 772 Scenario 2 District Trustees Trustees Benefits # Of Personnel Comm. P.C. Benefits # Of Superintendent Sup. Compensation Asst. Superintendent # Of Administrator #Of Director's # Of Management/Supervisor # Of Certificated Emp.# Of Classified Emp.# Of CompensationBenefits Misc. Cost Total Cost Enrollment 08/09Cost per Student Ojai Unified 0 54,475 5 152,270 120,827 1 444,141 5 70,404 1 370,067 7 1,408,073 31 542,940 430,251 374,270 3,967,717 3,088 1,285 Ventura Unified 24,000 42,527 5 173,009 31,208 428,160 3 500,019 5 1,596,496 19 373,826 6 2,615,168 52 8,373,964 218 2,970,524 2,293,093 1,826,221 21,248,215 17,428 1,219 Total for all Districts $24,000 $97,002 10 0 0 0 $325,279 $31,208 $548,987 4 $500,019 5 $2,040,637 24 $444,230 7 $2,985,235 59 $9,782,037 249 $3,513,464 $2,723,344 $2,200,491 25,215,932 20,516 $1,229 Ventura Unified 24,000 42,527 5 173,009 31,208 428,160 3 500,019 5 1,596,496 19 373,826 6 2,615,168 52 8,373,964 218 2,970,524 2,293,093 1,977,678 21,399,672 20,516 1,043 Potential Savings 0 54,475 5 152,270 0 120,827 0 0 0 444,141 0 70,404 0 370,067 0 1,408,073 0 542,940 430,251 222,813 3,816,260 20,516 186 Scenario 3 District Trustees Trustees Benefits # Of Personnel Comm. P.C. Benefits # Of Superintendent Sup. Compensation Asst. Superintendent # Of Administrator #Of Director's # Of Management/Supervisor # Of Certificated Emp.# Of Classified Emp.# Of CompensationBenefits Misc. Cost Total Cost Enrollment 08/09Cost per Student Hueneme Elementary 14,000 54,260 5 154,640 29,977 255,043 2 814,775 8 0 1,170,715 14 2,514,926 55 1,009,626 768,814 610,955 7,397,731 7,988 926 Ocean View Elementary 0 33,340 5 145,600 349,028 3 178,572 2 302,239 5 66,767 1 1,230,263 35 27,500 472,087 497,056 3,302,452 2,510 1,316 Oxnard Elementary 0 5 195,907 38,661 336,905 3 1,054,021 11 408,335 5 58,221 1 4,478,848 100 3,162,687 3,545,762 13,279,347 14,792 898 Oxnard Union High 29,170 43,082 5 177,354 36,737 414,940 3 1,337,282 12 146,180 2 3,687,975 71 2,158,883 1,798,049 9,829,651 16,478 597 Rio Elementary 12,000 0 5 165,000 26,788 370,103 3 382,861 4 66,170 1 376,467 14 1,637,451 46 620,055 1,679,758 5,336,653 4,150 1,286 Total for all Districts $55,170 $130,682 25 0 0 0 $838,501 $132,163 $1,726,019 14 $1,054,021 11 $3,121,825 31 $572,810 9 $1,613,949 29 $13,549,463 307 $3,816,064 $4,403,588 $8,131,580 39,145,834 45,918 $853 Oxnard Unified 0 5 195,907 38,661 336,905 3 1,054,021 11 408,335 5 58,221 1 4,478,848 100 3,162,687 3,078,419 12,812,004 45,918 279 Potential Savings 55,170 130,682 20 0 0 0 642,594 93,502 1,389,114 11 0 0 2,713,490 26 514,589 8 1,613,949 29 9,070,615 207 3,816,064 1,240,901 5,053,161 26,333,830 45,918 573 Scenario 4 District Trustees Trustees Benefits # Of Personnel Comm. P.C. Benefits # Of Superintendent Sup. Compensation Asst. Superintendent # Of Administrator #Of Director's # Of Management/Supervisor # Of Certificated Emp.# Of Classified Emp.# Of CompensationBenefits Misc. Cost Total Cost Enrollment 08/09Cost per Student Mesa Union Elementary 0 5 146,231 22,671 156,208 5 49,105 38,027 201,846 614,088 580 1,059 Pleasant Valley Elementa 14,000 39,218 5 182,050 23,648 273,600 2 672,913 6 197,862 3 96,094 1 3,061,670 62 877,729 497,762 1,124,302 7,060,848 6,509 1,085 Somis Union Elementary 0 0 5 31,700 147,285 5 35,935 38,729 195,762 449,411 310 1,450 Total for all Districts $14,000 $39,218 15 0 0 0 $359,981 $46,319 $273,600 2 0 0 $672,913 6 $197,862 3 $96,094 1 $3,365,163 72 $962,769 $574,518 $1,521,910 8,124,347 7,399 $1,098 Pleasant Valley Unified 14,000 39,218 5 182,050 23,648 273,600 2 672,913 6 197,862 3 96,094 1 3,061,670 62 877,729 497,762 1,124,560 7,061,106 7,399 954 Potential Savings 0 0 10 0 0 0 177,931 22,671 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303,493 10 85,040 76,756 397,350 1,063,241 7,399 144 Scenario 5 District Trustees Trustees Benefits # Of Personnel Comm. P.C. Benefits # Of Superintendent Sup. Compensation Asst. Superintendent # Of Administrator #Of Director's # Of Management/Supervisor # Of Certificated Emp.# Of Classified Emp.# Of CompensationBenefits Misc. Cost Total Cost Enrollment 08/09Cost per Student Conejo Valley Unified 32,160 59,690 5 1,800 35,814 3 175,000 8,400 434,941 3 1,663,901 16 669,211 10 1,040,787 13 6,344,095 123 126,540 1,918,262 1,701,867 14,212,468 22,097 643 Oak Park Unified 0 0 5 164,877 258,965 2 544,983 6 393,438 5 661,927 18 27,792 419,892 713,663 3,185,537 3,620 880 Total for all Districts $32,160 $59,690 10 $1,800 $35,814 3 $339,877 $8,400 693,906 5 0 0 $2,208,884 22 $669,211 10 $1,434,225 18 $7,006,022 141 $154,332 $2,338,154 $2,415,530 17,398,005 25,717 $677 Conejo Valley Unified 32,160 59,690 5 1,800 35,814 3 175,000 8,400 434,941 3 1,663,901 16 669,211 10 1,040,787 13 6,344,095 123 126,540 1,918,262 1,864,186 14,374,787 25,717 559 Potential Savings 0 0 5 0 0 0 164,877 0 258,965 2 0 0 544,983 6 0 0 393,438 5 661,927 18 27,792 419,892 551,344 3,023,218 25,717 118 Scenario 6 District Trustees Trustees Benefits # Of Personnel Comm. P.C. Benefits # Of Superintendent Sup. Compensation Asst. Superintendent # Of Administrator #Of Director's # Of Management/Supervisor # Of Certificated Emp.# Of Classified Emp.# Of CompensationBenefits Misc.Cost Total Cost Enrollment 08/09Cost per Student Moorpark Unified 14,400 61,150 5 149,018 10,258 365,223 3 772,213 9 312,376 5 169,175 2 1,294,164 30 63,397 635,960 516,127 4,363,461 7,317 596 Simi Valley Unified 26,460 70,154 5 2,400 26,665 2 206,104 50,021 340,084 2 712,486 10 1,084,852 11 51,970 1 4,216,257 59 7,474,418 191 354,585 5,835,228 1,596,225 22,047,909 20,885 1,056 Total for all Districts $40,860 $131,304 10 $2,400 $26,665 2 $355,122 $60,279 $705,307 5 $712,486 10 $1,857,065 20 $364,346 6 $4,385,432 61 $8,768,582 221 $417,982 $6,471,188 $2,112,352 26,411,370 28,202 $937 Simi Valley Unified 26,460 70,154 5 2,400 26,665 2 206,104 50,021 340,084 2 712,486 10 1,084,852 11 51,970 1 4,216,257 59 7,474,418 191 354,585 5,835,228 1,673,711 22,125,395 28,202 785 Potential Savings 14,400 61,150 5 0 0 0 149,018 10,258 365,223 3 0 0 772,213 9 312,376 5 169,175 2 1,294,164 30 63,397 635,960 438,641 4,285,975 28,202 152 Total Potential Savings 84,570 317,076 66 0 0 0 1,781,421 226,209 2,611,719 20 0 0 5,102,663 48 1,304,287 20 3,121,583 44 14,780,612 317 5,988,636 3,057,338 7,685,522 46,061,634 137,513 335 Cost of Administering Schools 45 (This page intentionally blank) 46 Cost of Administering Schools

May 12, 2009 — Inmate Grievance Procedure

54 pages 22 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 22 findings

F01: Ventura County Jails housed approximately 1,680 inmates as of October 2008. • Main Jail 822 • Todd Road Jail 833 • East Valley Jail 25

F02: An inmate grievance procedure is mandated by Title 15, § 1073 of the California Code of Regulations. (Att-01)

F03: The Ventura County grievance procedures are outlined in the VCSD Pre- Trial Detention Facility Policy and Procedures Manual, Chapter 9-8, and the Todd Road Jail Policy and Procedure Manual, Chapter 7, Section 2. (Att-02, Att-03)

F04: The grievance procedure is explained to all inmates at their intake processing orientation and is delineated in the handbook given to inmates at the time of detention. (Att-04)

F05: The grievance procedure within the jail system is two-tiered with an informal system of request/complaints followed by a formal grievance process.

F06: The Inmate Request for Information or Service (Form SO-1012), commonly known as a kite, is the form used in the informal request/complaint process. (Att-05)

F07: Kites are made available to all inmates. At the Main Jail, they can be requested from an HSD, are available on a table in the common area of each cell block, and/or are in a container outside individual cells. At the Todd Road Jail, they must be requested from an HSD. Kites are ______________________________________________________________________________ 2 Inmate Grievance Procedure provided at the time of intake processing and are distributed weekly with sanitary supplies.

F08: Kites are filled out by inmates and placed outside their cells or in common areas of the cell blocks where they are collected several times a day by HSDs.

F09: Routine kites are typically processed and handled directly by the HSD. Kites which require special responses, or which cannot be handled at this first level, are referred to the appropriate level for disposition.

F10: Kites come in three colors depending on the type of request: • white is for clothes, food, treatment, and/or housing condition • blue is for medical • green is for court-related

F11: There are approximately 8,500 kites received monthly and most are settled informally at the first level.

F12: Inmates may request the multi-copy Grievance Form (Form SO-1011) if they are not satisfied with the resolution of their kites. (Att-06)

F13: Requests for a Grievance Form are made using a kite.

F14: Formal inmate grievances may be filed in all matters except legal decisions handed down by the courts. (Att-02, Att-03)

F15: About 250 grievances are filed monthly within the three jails. All grievances are entered into a computer system and tracked by the VCSD. (Att-02, Att-03)

F16: Grievance Forms are reviewed by succeeding levels of authority in the jails, starting with the HSD, unless resolved to the satisfaction of the inmate. The final review is performed by the Custody Commander, the highest ranking official within each jail. (Att-02, Att-03)

F17: The Custody Commander’s decision is the final step in which to resolve a grievance. Relief or satisfaction beyond this step requires the inmate to pursue relief through the courts by way of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Att-02, Att-03)

F18: Each level must respond in writing to an inmate’s grievance within these specified time limits: (Att-02, Att-03) Level I HSD or SST 24 hours (within 24 hours of receipt) Level II Senior Deputy 24 hours (within 24 hours of receipt) Level III Facility Sergeant Three days (not counting weekends/holidays) Level IV Facility Manager Seven days (not counting weekends/holidays) Level V Custody Commander Ten days (not counting weekends/holidays) ___________________________________________________________________________ Inmate Grievance Procedure 3

F19: Besides routine inmate grievances, there are: • Medical Grievances • Classification Grievances • Food Service Grievances • Discipline Grievances These specialized grievances do not have to follow the normal steps in the grievance procedure, but are expedited to the resolution authority. (Att-02, Att-03)

F20: Jail commanders state that information gleaned from grievances is used to determine trends within the jail and to possibly identify individual employees for discipline and retraining.

F21: Chapter 9-8 of the VCSD’s Pre-Trial Detention Facility Policy and Procedure Manual was last updated February 26, 2003. At the Todd Road Jail, the Inmate Grievance Procedure, Chapter 7, Section 2 was reviewed in January 2009.

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The VCSD should review grievance procedures on a regular basis or as necessary for compliance with Title 15. (C-01, C-03, C-05)

F22: VCSD officials state that they are currently reviewing the grievance procedure at both facilities and intend to merge both facilities’ policies into a single consolidated document. Conclusions C-01. The VCSD is in compliance with: • Title 15, § 1073 • the VCSD Todd Road Jail Inmate Grievance Procedure, Chapter 7, Section 2 • the VCSD Pre-Trial Detention Facility Policy and Procedures Manual, Chapter 9-8 All of the above are intended to allow inmates to grieve their conditions of confinement. (F-02 through F-07, F-11, F-12, F-14 through F-17) C-02. Allowing inmates to file kites and grievances permits them to voice their complaints and obtain a measure of input concerning their incarceration. (F-04 through F-16) C-03. The VCSD management is able to use the grievance process to monitor conditions within the jails through its attention to and tracking of grievances. (F-13 through F-20) C-04. The ability of inmates to obtain kites differs from facility to facility. (F-07) C-05. The current grievance procedure at the Main Jail has been in effect since 2003. There is no evidence that the procedure was updated since that date and the policy is due for review and updating. (F-02, F-03, F-21) ______________________________________________________________________________ 4 Inmate Grievance Procedure Recommendations

May 12, 2009 — Oversight of Oxnard’s Purchasing System

12 pages 20 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 20 findings

F01: The City has a written Manual, authorized by the City’s Purchasing Ordinance, as of April 2006: • it was prepared to assist City staff in the purchase of goods, services, facilities, and capital improvements ______________________________________________________________________________ Oxnard’s Purchasing System 1 • its stated purpose is to provide for the efficient purchase of goods and services in a timely and professional manner that meets City policy

F02: The Manual provides: • guidance for implementation of City and State purchasing requirements as set forth in Laws, Regulations, and Codes • clearly defined Prohibited Practices • a “full range” of procurement methods based on the complexity and dollar amount of the procurement • specific guidance regarding signature and approval authority at various dollar thresholds for the purchase of: • Supplies, Equipment, and Trade Services • Public Works Construction Projects

F03: Amendments to contracts for Supplies, Equipment and Trade Services which increase the contract amount over $100,000 must be approved by the City Manager, and those over $250,000 by the City Council.

F04: Change Orders1 (CO) to Public Works Construction Projects must be approved by the City Manager as follows: • any CO exceeding $50,000 on a contract of $75,000 or less • any CO exceeding $100,000 on a contract of more than $100,000

F05: COs to construction contracts are processed as follows: • the Contract Project Manager defines the change requirement, which is then provided to the contractor • the contractor prepares and submits a cost proposal • the City evaluates the cost proposal • the City and contractor negotiate, agreeing to a price • the City Manager approves, when required • the CO is signed by both parties

F06: The format for COs is shown in the Manual, as Exhibit No. 17. (Att-01)

F07: The latest revision to the Manual is dated September 2006.

F08: The Manual designates and delineates the responsibilities of the following as Purchasing Agents: • Finance Director • Public Works Director • Development Services Director 1 A Change Order is a document that allows the City to direct the contractor to make changes to the scope of the basic contract, on a unilateral basis. ________________________________________________________________ 2 Oxnard’s Purchasing System

F09: In practice, the current Purchasing Agents for the City are: • Finance Director - responsible for the purchase of goods and services, including professional and consulting services and for maintenance of the Manual • Public Works Director - responsible for the placement and management of contracts for most public works construction projects • General Services Division Director - responsible for the placement and management of contracts for parks and recreation construction projects, including street landscaping

F10: The City maintains Authorized Signature Forms from each department which identify those personnel authorized to sign contractual documents and their dollar limits.

F11: Public Works and General Services designate a City employee as a Project Manager to oversee the progress and completion of each construction project.

F12: In early 2008, at the direction of the City Manager, the CCRC was established with membership as follows: • Development Services Director - the CCRC Chairperson • General Services Division Director • Public Works Director • Accounting Manager • Representative of the General Services Division

F13: The CCRC was established to: • ensure that City employees are in full compliance with City purchasing policies and procedures • provide training for purchasing personnel and project managers

Related Recommendations (1)

R04: The Grand Jury recommends that the City continue to provide sufficient management oversight to ensure efficient purchases and proper expenditure of public funds. (C-06) ________________________________________________________________ 4 Oxnard’s Purchasing System Responses Responses Required From: City Council, City of Oxnard (R-01 through R-04) Responses Requested From: City Manager, City of Oxnard (R-01 through R-04) Attachments Att-01 Sample Change Order, City of Oxnard Purchasing Procedures Manual, Exhibit No. Oxnard’s Purchasing System 5 (This page intentionally blank) ________________________________________________________________ 6 Oxnard’s Purchasing System Attachment-01 Sample Change Order, City of Oxnard Purchasing Procedures Manual, Exhibit No. Oxnard’s Purchasing System 7 (This page intentionally blank) ________________________________________________________________ 8 Oxnard’s Purchasing System Oxnard’s Purchasing System 9 (This page intentionally blank) ________________________________________________________________ 10 Oxnard’s Purchasing System

F14: The CCRC is an ad hoc group with no written policy or procedure to govern and describe its workings.

Related Recommendations (2)

R01: The City should establish written policies and procedures for the CCRC, including a requirement to document its meetings. (C-03 through C-05)

R03: The Purchasing Procedures Manual should be revised to: • provide guidance for Public Works Construction Project COs which are greater than $75,000 and less than $100,000 • designate the current Purchasing Agents, consistent with the current revised organization • recognize the role of the CCRC (C-05)

F15: A member of the CCRC is currently drafting written procedures for the operation of the committee.

F16: The CCRC meets once a week and typically reviews 8-20 separate purchasing actions.

F17: The CCRC currently approves approximately 80% of the submitted purchasing actions without requiring any revision. This approval rate was much lower at the time the CCRC first started meeting.

F18: There are no formal minutes of the CCRC meetings; however, the Accounting Manager prepares and maintains a spreadsheet of the reviewed actions.

F19: There is no formal written report of CCRC activities provided to either the City Manager or the City Council. Oxnard’s Purchasing System 3

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: The CCRC should make a formal written report to the City Manager regarding the actions reviewed. (C-03 through C-05)

F20: Formal procedures were followed in conducting the transactions described in the public complaint. None of the COs was of a dollar amount to warrant City Manager approval. Conclusions C-01. The City’s purchasing personnel are compliant with the City’s established Purchasing Procedures. (F-01 through F-10) C-02. The City has limited the designation of Purchasing Agent to only three Department Directors in order to control the acquisition process. (F-08, F-09) C-03. The CCRC was established to oversee the various purchasing activities in order to improve the purchasing processes of the City. (F-12 through F-16) C-04. Establishment of the CCRC has resulted in improved practices and procurements. (F-17, F-18) C-05. The Manual is out of date in the following areas: • it fails to provide direction as to the approval of COs for Public Works Construction Projects which are greater than $75,000 and less than $100,000 (F-04) • it fails to recognize the latest reorganization within the City, which revised the designation of purchasing agents (F-09) • it fails to mention the CCRC (F-07, F-12) C-06. The Grand Jury found no significant procurement problems, either in the purchasing system or in the transactions described in the public complaint. Recommendations

May 11, 2009 — Is the City Car a Free Ride?

42 pages 12 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F01: As of September 2009, the Cities reported owning a total of 1,457 vehicles, of which 559 were Safety (police and fire) and 898 were Civil. The attached summary “Vehicle Usage – Summary Data” shows vehicle inventory for each city by type of vehicle with summary analyses. (Att-02)

F02: All Cities have written policies governing the acquisition of city vehicles. • all Cities other than Oxnard apply their standard formal purchasing policies which establish bidding and approval requirements by value of the acquisition • Oxnard has specific procedures regarding vehicle acquisition

F03: The Cities have few general limitations or rules regarding price, features, or specifications for acquisition. Some Cities have guidelines, such as, “no luxury options.” Vehicles may be individually specified according to the anticipated use. Several policies explicitly prohibit specification by brand name. (Att-03) Oxnard, Ventura, and Camarillo formally require vehicle purchase requests be reviewed by a fleet manager (or equivalent) before being sent out for bid; others require similar review by a department head (or higher) for approval.

F04: All Cities except Ojai have established specific rules for employee use of city-owned vehicles, such as, limitations on use for personal purposes, requirement for current drivers’ licenses, and accident reporting.

F05: Ojai reports that a vehicle use procedure is currently being prepared. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2 Is the City Car a Free Ride?

F06: Policies for assignment of take-home vehicles vary among the Cities as shown in the attachment “Take-Home Vehicle Assignment Policies.” (Att-04) • nine cities have written policies for approval of take-home vehicles requiring approvals at the department or city manger level • seven cities have work-related criteria for assigning take-home vehicles • two cities, Santa Paula and Moorpark, do not define bases for assigning overnight take-home vehicles • Ojai reports no take-home vehicles and has no applicable policies

F07: On July 8, 2008, the Thousand Oaks City Council, upon the recommendation of its finance department, voted to eliminate all 39 take-home vehicles effective January 1, 2009. The City Auditor estimated annual savings of $100,000, based on commuting miles, fuel, maintenance and depreciation. (Att-05)

F08: By January 2009, Thousand Oaks: • reduced the number of take-home vehicles from 39 to 5 (city manager and city attorney per employment contracts and three public works officials based on job-related need) • retained the other 34 vehicles in the city fleet for daytime use and keep them at city facilities overnight • reported no offsetting employee compensation

F09: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in Publication 15-B, “Employer’s Tax Guide to Fringe Benefits” (Pub 15-B) requires that an employer must include in employees’ taxable incomes the value of personal use of employer-owned vehicles, subject to certain exceptions, such as, marked and unmarked police, fire and law enforcement vehicles, special purpose/specially marked vehicles, pickups, and vans over 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. [Ref-01] ___________________________________________________________________________ Is the City Car a Free Ride? 3

F10: The Cities have various practices for reporting imputed income on take- home vehicles, per Pub 15-B. (Att-02, Att-06) Civil Take-home Vehicles and Imputed Income Civil City Civil Take- Take- Imputed Vehicles homes homes as a Income Percent of Reported Total Oxnard 309 21 7% 8 Thousand Oaks 154 5 3% 5 Simi Valley 137 13 10% 13 Ventura 111 37 33% 0 Camarillo 45 5 11% 0 Moorpark 23 1 4% 0 Port Hueneme 45 1 2% 0 Santa Paula 41 1 2% 0 Fillmore 19 1 5% 0 Ojai 14 0 0% 0 Total 898 85 9% avg. Five cities furnished procedures for reporting imputed taxable income to employees assigned qualified take-home vehicles consistent with Pub 15-B. Of the five cities with such procedures, Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, and Simi Valley reported imputed income; Camarillo and Santa Paula did not. Four cities (Ventura, Moorpark, Port Hueneme, and Fillmore) did not furnish an imputed income reporting procedure nor did they report imputed income on their take-home vehicles. Ojai reports no take-home vehicles and has no imputed income reporting procedure.

Related Recommendations (2)

R01: All Cities with take-home vehicles, especially Ventura, should conduct an evaluation of take-home vehicle practices for opportunities to reduce costs. (C-04, C-05)

R03: All other Cities with take-home vehicles should conduct a compliance review of their respective imputed income reporting practices. (C-06)

F11: In a letter dated September 18, 2008, Ventura stated: “The City does not report imputed income for employee take-home use of city vehicles because of the 24/7 availability requirements of these positions for emergencies together with the City policy (APP No. 12.29) and that the use is primarily for City business. The city is within the IRS exemption of Publication 15-B.” Ventura confirmed that it does not have an independent auditor’s opinion supporting its policy. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4 Is the City Car a Free Ride?

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: Ventura should obtain a written opinion from an independent auditor as to the validity of its policy of non-reporting of imputed income on all take-home vehicles. (C-06)

F12: No city reported assignment of a vehicle to an elected official. (Att-07) Conclusions C-01. The Cities’ policies and procedures regarding acquisition of vehicles are consistent with policies for purchasing other commodities of like value. (F-02, F-03) C-02. All Cities except Ojai currently have adequate written vehicle use policies addressing such matters as: requiring drivers to be licensed, reporting accidents, and avoiding non-business use of city vehicles. (F-04, F-05) C-03. The nine cities which furnish take-home vehicles have adequate authorization/approval policies. (F-06) C-04. In comparison with other Cities, Ventura has a disproportionately large percentage of take-home vehicles in its fleet (33%), triple that of the next largest (Camarillo 11%), and more than triple the 9% average of all Cities. (F-10) C-05. Thousand Oaks has found cost savings opportunities by changing its take-home vehicle practices. Similar savings may be available to other cities with take-home vehicles. (F-07, F-08) C-06. Every City with take-home vehicles is obligated to evaluate whether any of the exemptions of Pub 15-B applies to each employee assigned a take-home vehicle. Valid bases for exemption from reporting imputed income on a take- home vehicle are described in Pub 15-B. Ventura’s non-reporting of imputed income on any of its 37 Civil take-home vehicles, however, is based on an asserted need for 24/7 emergency availability; this is inconsistent with Pub 15-B. (F-09, F-11) Recommendations

April 27, 2009 — Did Your Vote Count?

10 pages 40 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 40 findings

F01: The CED is responsible for voter registration and administration of all Federal, State, County and Local elections in compliance with the California Elections Code. [Ref-02, Ref-06, Ref-08]

F02: In January 2006, the most recent census information available, the County population was stated to be 817,346 with 377,651 registered voters.

F03: On October 20, 2008, the CED stated that there were 425,968 registered voters, a 12.5% increase from January 2008 (378,501). [Ref-08]

F04: In August 2008, the CED predicted over a 70% voter turnout with 50% of the vote by absentee ballot. [Ref-05, Ref-08]

F05: A total of 178,210 absentee ballots were sent to registered voters representing 41.84% of all County voters. [Ref-03, Ref-08]

F06: By October 20, 2008, the CED received and processed a record 78,262 absentee ballots.

F07: As of September 15, 2008, there were 365 precincts assigned to 284 polling places. [Ref-03, Ref-04]

F08: Seventeen polling places had more than one ballot type (e.g., City or unincorporated County ballots) issued to voters at a single polling place.

F09: The CED provided on-line and hands-on training for poll workers. Inspectors are required to attend; other poll workers are encouraged to attend training sessions. [Ref-01, Ref-02, Ref-08,] ________________________________________________________________ 2 Did Your Vote Count?

F10: To prepare for the election, the CED hired 50 to 60 temporary workers for two to three months.

F11: The CED used approximately 1,500 workers at the polling places during the election.

F12: Prior to the election, the CED established eleven absentee ballot drop- off locations, one in the Government Center and one in each of the ten cities.

F13: The CED permitted early voting only at the CED office in the Government Center. Election Day

F14: Total voter turnout was 343,690 (80.69%) of the County’s 425,968 registered voters; 194,104 persons (45.57%) voted at the polls and 149,586 (35.12%) voted by mail. [Ref-9]

F15: There were 15,237 provisional ballots (late registered or someone voting in a site other than their precinct of record) cast during the election. [Ref-9]

F16: There were a total of 37,263 absentee ballots delivered to the CED by other than regular mail; 26,615 ballots were hand delivered to polling places, 2,900 were issued and returned to the Government Center and a total of 7,748 were hand delivered to the Government Center. [Ref-10]

F17: Each polling place housed an average of twelve polling booths and was staffed by four to five poll workers, one of which was an Inspector (supervisor).

F18: There was insufficient parking at many polling places, mostly at schools.

F19: There were insufficient supplies, such as pens and stationery, at some polling places.

F20: Some polling places did not have enough absentee or provisional ballot storage bags.

F21: At least two sites were missing a ballot box from 7:00 a.m. to at least 10:00 a.m. Ballots were stored in a secured bag until they were later processed when the ballot box was delivered.

F22: At the time of the Grand Jury inspection, voting equipment was not set up correctly or powered on at some polling places.

F23: Some polling places were not large enough to comfortably accommodate voters, voting equipment, and booths.

F24: Waiting lines exceeding 50 or more people were noted at several polling places in the morning and evening.

F25: Street indexes were not updated on a regular basis. ___________________________________________________________________________ Did Your Vote Count? 3

F26: Incorrect ballot types (e.g., City or unincorporated County ballots) were handed out at some dual ballot/precinct polling places. This was observed by Grand Jury members in one polling place for the Santa Paula School Board Election and reported by the CED in one other location not observed by the Grand Jury.

F27: There was confusion among some voters as to which table to register and receive their ballot at some multi-precinct polling sites.

F28: The voting procedure required dual cross checking of voter’s name and address on data sheets prior to a voter being given a ballot.

F29: Grand Jurors observed that identification was inappropriately asked of voters at some of the polling places.

F30: In at least one polling place, provisional voters were inappropriately told by poll workers/inspectors that their vote would most likely not count.

F31: There were 26,615 absentee ballots delivered by hand to polling places. At times, voters handed in two or three ballots and signatures were not checked.

F32: Some poll workers appeared to have difficulty in lifting voting equipment.

F33: Grand jurors observed campaigning taking place within 100 feet of a polling place. Post Election

F34: According to the CED, the cost of the election was $2,218,075. The projected cost by CED if an all-absentee ballot election (currently not allowed by election code) were held is $2,027,000, a savings of about $200,000.

F35: Absentee ballots reduce the cost by over $2.00 per vote in another county. [Ref–13]

F36: There were 15,237 provisional ballots received during the election, 12,414 were validated and counted.

F37: CED officials state that verification of deceased registered voters relies on voluntary notification by families and by occasional cross checking of death certifications within the Public Health Department and the CED.

F38: Absentee ballots delivered by hand at polling places or received by the CED office in the final days before the election are not counted until signatures are verified during the weeks after the election.

F39: Validation of provisional ballots was completed during the days after the election.

F40: Determination of the outcome of at least four close races was not known until several days after the election. ________________________________________________________________ 4 Did Your Vote Count? Conclusions C-01. The physical layout and setup of several polling places inconvenienced voters. (F-18 through F-24, F-27) C-02. The Grand Jury concluded that some inspectors made procedural errors in running their polling places. As a result, the voting process was inconsistent from one polling place to another. (F-22, F-25 through

Additional Recommendations 8

Not linked to specific findings.

R01: The Grand Jury recommends that the CED should minimize polling places with more than one ballot (e.g., City vs. unincorporated County) by adding polling places. (C-01 through C-05)

R02: The CED should improve procedures to ensure that at multi-precinct polling places, voters are given the correct ballot (e.g., City vs. unincorporated County). (C-01 through C-05)

R03: The CED should develop procedures that ensure an experienced poll worker is assigned to direct voters to the correct table to receive their ballot and to oversee the overall location at polling places with more than one precinct. (C-01 through C-05)

R04: The CED should ensure that at least one worker at each site is able to lift and handle heavy equipment. (C-04)

R05: The CED should require that all poll workers, especially inspectors, get the proper training so that they understand what needs to be done before, during, and after the election. (C-01 through C-06) ___________________________________________________________________________ Did Your Vote Count? 5

R06: The CED should explore ways, including State legislation, to streamline the voting process, such as: (C-01 through C-07) • enabling registered voters to swipe their driver’s license or ID card through an automated system to process them to vote • 100% voting by mail • 100% voting by mail with prepaid return postage

R07: The CED should educate the public on how to delete deceased voters from the voter rolls by putting information in the pre-election voter pamphlet and in the sample ballot. (C-07)

R08: The CED should ensure that policies and procedures, such as verification of Federal, State, and County data bases, are in place to purge all deceased voters from the ballot process before each election. (C-05 through C-07) Responses Responses Required From: Clerk Recorder, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-08) Responses Accepted From: Ventura County Board of Supervisors (R-01 through R-08) References Ref-01. City of Ventura Press Release dated October 7, 2008 http://www2.cityofventura.net/newsmanager/templates/?a=575&z=12 Ref-02. Election Officer Handbook for the November 4, 2008 election Ref-03. Ventura County Star, September 23, 2008, “Polling Places and Election Officers Publication” Ref-04. Ventura County Elections Division list of polling sites with voting precincts, September 9, 2008 Ref-05. Ventura County Star, October 31, 2008, “Record 425,968 registered local voters” http://www.venturacounty star.com/news/2008/oct/31/record-425968- eligible-to-vote-in-v Ref-06. Easy Voter Guide http://lwvc.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=easyvoter_home Ref-07. Ventura County Star, October 21, 2008, “Hundreds swamp Elections Division” http://venturacountystar.com/news/2008/oct/21/hunderds-swamo-elections- division/ Ref-08. Article from Ventura County Clerk Recorder website “About Elections” http://recorder.countyofventura.org/aboutelections.htm Ref-09. Ventura County Elections Division Semiofficial Reports http:/recorder.countyofventura.org/Election5Result_hdr.htm ________________________________________________________________ 6 Did Your Vote Count? Ref-10. Ventura County Star, November 11, 2008, “Provisional ballots may decide outcome for some elections” http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/nov/11/provisional-ballots- may-decide-outcome-for-some/ Ref-11. Ventura County Star, November 13, 2008, “41,000 ballots are left to count; supervisor contest still uncertain” http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/nov/13/races-still-in-limbo- as-more-votes-tallied/ Ref-12. Ventura County Star, December 10, 2008, “School trustee ousted by one vote questions results” Ref-13. 2005-2006, Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report “Absentee Ballot and Mail-In Voting Processes”

* 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.