Ventura County Grand Jury
2020-2021
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F01:
The Grand Jury finds that VCSO provides training to its deputies that exceeds the minimum basic academy training hours recommended by POST by approximately 273 hours, or 41%.
F02:
The Grand Jury finds that VCSO conducts thorough background investigations as part of its efforts to identify bias of its recruits and past instances that may lead to the use of improper force.
F03:
The Grand Jury finds that since bias, especially implicit bias, is a result of prior influences and imprints, it cannot be completely eliminated.
F04:
The Grand Jury finds that law enforcement agencies can help to mitigate the impact of bias in their interaction with the community through policies and the enforcement of those policies.
F05:
The Grand Jury finds that training can allow an individual to identify his or her biases, become aware of the impact those biases can have on his or her perception of people and situations, and help to mitigate that impact.
F06:
The Grand Jury finds that the very nature of policing involves the possibility of the use of force and the need to make decisions under pressure.
F07:
The Grand Jury finds that VCSO’s Policies and Learning Domains appear to address the items required by California Senate Bill 230.
F08:
The Grand Jury finds that law enforcement can work to minimize the use of improper force through policies and training.
F09:
The Grand Jury finds that VCSO’s policy regarding BWCs contains an element of discretion as to when the BWC is to be turned on or off.
F10:
The Grand Jury finds that BWC information can be an important element in determining the outcome of many citizen complaints.
Related Recommendations (2)
R01:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCSO require activation of BWCs when responding to all calls for service and during all enforcement-related encounters and activities. (F-09, F-10)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends that, once a BWC is activated, whether in accordance with the previous recommendation or for any other reason, VCSO require the BWC to remain in recording mode until the conclusion of the encounter/activity or the officer has left the scene, except for limited exceptions announced while the BWC is recording. (F-09, F-10)
F11:
The Grand Jury finds that VCSO makes an internal determination of the outcome of citizen complaints filed against its deputies.
F12:
The Grand Jury did not find any pattern of bias or use of improper force in the citizen complaints reviewed by the Grand Jury for the calendar years 2018 through 2020. Policing by VCSO
F13:
The Grand Jury finds that California AB 1185 provides a vehicle for civilian oversight of county sheriffs through the authorization of sheriff oversight boards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Ventura County Board of Supervisors consider creating a sheriff oversight board with respect to VCSO as authorized by AB 1185. (F-11, F-13, F-14, F-15)
F14:
The Grand Jury finds that the BOS’s November 10, 2020 Resolution 20- 126, did not specially address AB 1185.
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Ventura County Board of Supervisors consider creating a sheriff oversight board with respect to VCSO as authorized by AB 1185. (F-11, F-13, F-14, F-15)
F15:
The Grand Jury finds that the creation of a sheriff oversight board for VCSO would benefit both VCSO and the public by increasing accountability and transparency, and would serve to provide an additional level of trust to community members who encounter deputies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Ventura County Board of Supervisors consider creating a sheriff oversight board with respect to VCSO as authorized by AB 1185. (F-11, F-13, F-14, F-15)
F16:
The Grand Jury finds that VCSO’s Citizen’s Complaint Form does not comply with the express wording and formatting requirements of PC Section 148.6(a)(2). RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCSO revise its Citizen Complaint Form to comply with the express wording and formatting requirements of California Penal Code Section 148.6(a)(2). (F-16) RESPONSES Responses required from: The following elected officers or agency heads within 60 days: Ventura County Sheriff (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-09, F-10,
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F01:
The Grand Jury finds that bus drivers are expected to do a demanding set of tasks: simultaneously drive a bus while following all the rules of the road and monitor and respond to any behavioral issues during the bus ride.
F02:
The Grand Jury finds that among special education students, autistic, emotionally disturbed, and combined loss of hearing and vision students are distinctly vulnerable populations that would benefit from increased supervisory presence on the school bus.
F03:
The Grand Jury finds that VCOE transports a significant number of County special education students, including autistic, emotionally disturbed, and those with combined loss of hearing and vision.
F04:
The Grand Jury finds that the County SELPA is a valuable resource for any family with a child who has special needs.
F05:
The Grand Jury finds that VCOE follows an established process to assign a transportation aide for special education students on the bus through an IEP.
F06:
The Grand Jury finds that VCOE transportation personnel (bus drivers and transportation administrators) are rarely included in student IEP meetings.
F07:
The Grand Jury finds that VCOE uses a case-by-case method for determining the need for a non-IEP assigned bus attendant to a school bus.
F08:
The Grand Jury finds that the current policy and practice of submission of Bus Conduct Report Forms at VCOE does not include a method for analyzing information from completed Bus Conduct Report Forms to identify and determine trends and recurring safety issues on buses for special education students.
F09:
The Grand Jury finds that the VCOE Policy and Procedures for Transportation of Special Education Students does not include a procedure regarding the use of bus attendants as suggested by the California Special Education Transportation Guidelines.
F10:
The Grand Jury finds that VCOE has no written standards, policies, or procedures by which a school administrator can evaluate the need for and request a bus attendant on a special education school bus.
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCOE adopt a procedure by which a VCOE administrator can evaluate the need for, and request, a bus attendant. (F-10, F-11)
F11:
The Grand Jury finds that having an additional adult on a school bus transporting student with behavioral problems is one of several strategies that would increase supervision and safety on buses for special education students.
Related Recommendations (1)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCOE adopt a procedure that relates to strategies for assuring increased supervision and a safe environment on a school bus. Strategies could include assigning bus attendants to buses carrying students of higher risk, for example, autistic, emotionally disturbed, or deaf/blind students. Another strategy could be installing internal cameras or other innovative systems on special education school buses. (F-02, F-11, F-12, F-13) RESPONSES Responses required from: The following elected officer within 60 days: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-05, F-06, F-07,
F12:
The Grand Jury finds that installation of video cameras on a school bus is one of several strategies that would increase supervision and safety on buses for special education students. School Bus Safety for Special Education Students
Related Recommendations (1)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCOE adopt a procedure that relates to strategies for assuring increased supervision and a safe environment on a school bus. Strategies could include assigning bus attendants to buses carrying students of higher risk, for example, autistic, emotionally disturbed, or deaf/blind students. Another strategy could be installing internal cameras or other innovative systems on special education school buses. (F-02, F-11, F-12, F-13) RESPONSES Responses required from: The following elected officer within 60 days: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-05, F-06, F-07,
F13:
The Grand Jury finds that new systems for school bus monitoring and supervision are being explored and utilized by at least one County school district. RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R01:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCOE include transportation personnel in scheduled student IEP meetings when the student needs adaptive or assistive equipment, when school bus equipment is required to be modified or a when a behavior intervention plan is to be implemented for pupils exhibiting severe behavioral difficulties, as recommended by the California Special Education Guidelines. (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-05, F-06,
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCOE adopt a standardized, predictive approach of analyzing data from Bus Conduct Report Forms to identify trends in behaviors that lead to unsafe situations, with the goal of developing specific strategies to minimize those risks. (F-08, F-09)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F01:
The Grand Jury finds that during the December 17, 2019 Board meeting, the Superintendent made assertions of harassment by a Board member that were not on the agenda, thereby violating the Brown Act.
F02:
The Grand Jury finds that the Board failed to include the facts or circumstances regarding the Board’s possible exposure to litigation arising from the Superintendent’s assertions of harassment by a Board member 8 CVUSD Board Procedures in Item 1.D of the agenda for the January 21, 2020 closed session, or publicly announce them at the meeting, thereby violating the Brown Act.
F03:
The Grand Jury finds that the Board failed to include the facts or circumstances regarding the Board’s possible exposure to litigation arising from the Superintendent’s assertions of harassment by a Board member in Item 1.G of the agenda for the February 4, 2020 closed session, or publicly announce them at the meeting, thereby violating the Brown Act.
F04:
The Grand Jury finds that the Board discussed the issue of excluding a Board member from an agenda item discussion at both the January 21, 2020 closed session and the February 4, 2020 closed session. That discussion regarding excluding a member was not on either agenda, thereby violating the Brown Act.
F05:
The Grand Jury finds that the discussions of excluding a Board member from the January 21, 2020 and February 4, 2020 closed sessions were not a permissible exception from the open meeting requirements, thereby violating the Brown Act.
F06:
The Grand Jury finds no evidence that the Brown Act violations outlined in
F07:
The Grand Jury finds that there was a pattern of Brown Act violations by the Board during the period of 2018 through 2020.
F08:
The Grand Jury finds that the Brown Act training/workshops/conferences attended by the Board and Superintendent between 2018 and 2020 were insufficient to allow the Board to fully understand the Brown Act.
F09:
The Grand Jury finds that the Board and Superintendent would benefit from mandatory Brown Act training focused on how to avoid discussing topics not on the published agenda, the narrowness of the exceptions to open meetings, and the requirements for closed session agendas.
F10:
The Grand Jury finds that the additional training outlined in F-09 is most beneficial when given annually to the entire Board, and repeated when new members join the Board.
F11:
The Grand Jury finds that the Board and Superintendent would benefit from reviewing the Brown Act resources found on the California Attorney General’s Open Meetings website (https://oag.ca.gov/open-meetings).
F12:
The Grand Jury finds that the Board bylaws do not identify the parliamentary procedures that the President of the Board is charged with enforcing. CVUSD Board Procedures 9
F13:
The Grand Jury finds that, without defined parliamentary procedures, the manner of the Board’s deliberations is dependent on who is chairing the meeting.
F14:
The Grand Jury finds the Board bylaws allow the Board to develop and adopt procedures governing Board operations by a majority vote.
F15:
The Grand Jury finds that Section 4 of the Board Handbook reference to Robert’s Rules of Order does not constitute Board Policy. RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R01:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board and the Superintendent undergo mandatory Brown Act training that includes topics focused on how to avoid discussing topics not on the published agenda, the narrowness of the exceptions to open meetings, and the requirements for closed session agendas. (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08,
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends that the training referred to in R-01 be given annually to the entire Board, and repeated when new members join the Board. (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-09, F-10)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board members and Superintendent periodically review the Brown Act resources found on the California Attorney General’s Open Meetings website (https://oag.ca.gov/open- meetings). (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-11)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board adopt written parliamentary procedures, either directly or by reference, by which it will be governed. (F-12, F-13, F-14, F-15)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that, upon the adoption of such procedures, the Board undergo additional training. (F-12, F-13, F-14, F-15)
R06:
The Grand Jury recommends that each time a new member is elected to the Board, the training referred to in R-05 be repeated for all members. (F-12, F-13, F-14, F-15) 10 CVUSD Board Procedures RESPONSES Responses required from: The following governing body within 90 days: Conejo Valley Unified School District Board of Education (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04,