2004- 2005 Grand Jury of Humboldt County Final Report

Table of Contents

Transmittal Letter from the Grand Jury to the Presiding Judge

Table of Contents 1

List of Grand Jurors 4

The Grand Jury 5

Complaint Form 7

Grand Jury Reports

2005- AF- 01 Animal Control Services 8

2005- CD- 01 An Investigation into the First Time Home Buyer

and Housing Rehabilitation Programs

in the City of Rio Dell 11

2005- CD- 02 Manila Community Services District 13

2005- HS- 01 Visit to Humboldt County’s

Family Connection Center 16

2005- HS- 02 A Review of the Charter Schools of

through Humboldt County Executive Summary

2005- HS- 09 and Introduction 17

2005- HS- 02 A Review of the Humboldt County Office of

Education’s Charter School Oversight 20

2005- HS- 03 A Review of Practices and Policies of

Arcata Elementary School District’s

Trillium Charter School 21

2005- HS- 04 A Review of Practices and Policies of the

Big Lagoon Charter School Network 21

2

2005- HS- 05 A Review of Practices and Policies of

Freshwater Charter Middle School 24

2005- HS- 06 A Review of Practices and Policies of Jacoby Creek

Elementary School ( a Charter District) 24

2005- HS- 07 A Review of Practices and Policies of Laurel Tree

Charter School, a satellite campus of the

Mattole Valley Charter School ( K- 12) 25

2005- HS- 08 A Review of Practices and Policies of

Pacific View Charter School 26

2005- HS- 09 A Review of Practices and Policies of Six Rivers Charter

School, a Northern Humboldt Union High School District’s

School 27

2005- JL- 01 Arcata Police Dept., Eureka Police Dept., Fortuna Police

through Dept., Regional Facility, Sheriff’s Work Alternative

2005- JL- 08 Program Woodlot, Humboldt County Correctional Facility,

High Rock & Eel River Conservation Camps 27

2005- JL- 09 Juvenile Hall 28

2005- JL- 10 Sheriff’s Agricultural Farm 28

2005- JL- 11 McKinleyville Sheriff’s Substation 29

2005- JL- 12 Hoopa Sheriff’s substation and holding facility 29

2005- JL- 13 Garberville Sheriff’s substation 30

2005- JL- 14 Sheriff’s Evidence Yard 30

2005- JL- 15 Sheriff’s Evidence Room 30

2005- JL- 16 Coroner’s Office 31

2005- LJ- 01 A Review of the Humboldt County

Child Abuse Services Team 31

3

2005- LJ- 02 An Investigation of the District Attorney

Criminal Division 34

2005- LJ- 03 Volunteer Patrols: A Boon to

Law Enforcement 44

2005- PW- 01 Code Enforcement 45

2005- PW- 02 Community Development 46

2005- CC- 01 Follow- up on Responses to the

Grand Jury Final Report of

2003- 2004 48

The full text of the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Final Report is also available at

http:// www. co. humboldt. ca. us/ grandjury. When the responses are received, sixty

days after publication, they will also be added to the website.

N. B. The Grand Jury thanks the CEDAR Program students at Arcata High

School for designing our beautiful new logo.

4

2004- 2005 Grand Jury of Humboldt County

Darlene Couch Marlow Foreperson

Russell Lewis Foreperson pro tem

Diane Lehman Recording Secretary

Sue Oringer Corresponding Secretary

Stacey Kaspari Sergeant- at- Arms

John Matthew Morehouse Budget Chairman

Richard E. Beller Eureka

Anne Christen Ferndale

Cindy L. H. Costa Eureka

Allan B. Edwards McKinleyville

Stephanie Head Eureka

Claudia Johnson Eureka

Stacey Kaspari Eureka

Bettie Boyce Lee Fortuna

Willa Diane Lehman Garberville

Russell Lewis Fortuna

Darlene Couch Marlow Trinidad

John Matthew Morehouse Arcata

Patricia S. Nolan Fortuna

Sue Oringer Bayside

Evon Stalker McKinleyville

Samuel B. Trumbull Arcata

5

The Grand Jury of Humboldt County

The Grand Jury is an arm of the court yet an entirely independent body. The 19 Grand Jurors are citizens

drawn from a pool of volunteers. The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, the District Attorney, the

County Counsel, and the State Attorney General all act as advisors to the Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury seeks to assure honest, efficient government in the best interests of the people. It is a

civil investigative body having for its objective the detection and correction of flaws in government.

One function of the Grand Jury is to examine all aspects of county and city government – including

special districts and joint powers agencies – to see that monies are handled judiciously, and that all

accounts are properly audited.

The Grand Jury serves as ombudsman for citizens of Humboldt County. It may receive and investigate

complaints by individuals concerning the actions and performance of public officials.

Members of the Grand Jury are sworn to secrecy and conduct most of their work in closed sessions. All

testimony and deliberations are confidential. Breach of confidentiality is a misdemeanor punishable

under the Penal Code.

Grand Jurors may act only through the Grand Jury as a body. Individually they have no official standing,

power, or authority. A Grand Juror may take no official action without the prior approval and

authorization of a majority of the Grand Jury. The foreperson is the only official spokesperson for the

Grand Jury.

In their official capacity, Grand Jurors are permitted access to inspect prisons, jails, and other government

facilities. They also have the right to review official books and records to which other citizens are denied

access, with limited exceptions. Because of their extraordinary privileges and responsibilities, Grand

Jurors have a special obligation to exercise their authority and carry out their duties in a proper and

responsible manner within the boundaries of the law.

Grand Jurors serve for one year. Some Jurors may serve for a second year to provide an element of

continuity from one Jury term to the next. Continuity is also provided by documents collected and

retained in the Grand Jury library. The Penal Code provides for the transmission of information from one

Grand Jury to the next.

To be a Grand Juror in Humboldt County, according to Penal Code 893, a person must be: a citizen of the

United States; 18 years or older; a resident of Humboldt County for at least one year; be in possession of

natural faculties, of ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment, and of fair character; and be able to speak

English.

The person cannot be serving as a trial juror in any court, discharged as a grand juror within one year,

convicted of malfeasance in office or any felony or other high crime, serving as an elected public official.

In Humboldt County, citizens volunteer by writing

Jury Commissioner Betty Finley, Superior Court

Humboldt County Courthouse, 825 Fifth Street

Eureka, CA 95501 Or by calling 707- 269- 1270

Each spring, announcements are made calling for volunteers for the Grand Jury. People who have

volunteered throughout the year are also notified. After a person volunteers to be in the pool, he or she is

interviewed by the Presiding Judge. If the person is accepted for the pool, he or she is invited to an

orientation and training program of at least one day, generally at the end of June or the beginning of July.

6

Soon after orientation and training, prospective jurors assemble in the Judge’s courtroom. Nineteen jurors

are chosen at random, less any jurors holding over from the previous jury with the Judge’s permission.

At least three alternates are also chosen, to fill in during the year should anyone chosen be unable or

unwilling to serve the entire year. Then the Judge swears the new jurors in and admonishes them about

Grand Jury secrecy, and they begin work.

Grand Jurors meet on Monday mornings from 9: 00 to noon and on Tuesdays from 9: 00 to 3: 00.

Sometimes committee work requires jurors to meet at other times to inspect a county facility or interview

a witness or gather other information. Grand Jurors are paid a stipend of $ 15.00 for every seven hours

they are in session, not counting outside interviews or report- writing. Grand Jurors also get paid mileage

from their homes to the Courthouse and back. The Grand Jury takes off the last two weeks of December

but otherwise meets every week for the year term.

Grand Jury service calls for diligence, impartiality, courage, and responsibility. Selection as a Grand

Juror is an honor. It is a unique opportunity to learn about government and to provide a valuable service

to the community.

The Grand Jury would like to have members from all over the county who have diverse backgrounds,

skills, and interests to assist with the work of helping county and local governments perform effectively,

efficiently, and ethically.

7

Citizen Complaint Form

Grand Jury of Humboldt County

Humboldt County Courthouse 825 Fifth Street Eureka, CA 95501

707- 476- 2475 http:// www. co. humboldt. ca. us/ grandjury

All information on this form is confidential. Please write legibly and be specific.

Your Name: ________________________________ Date: ___________

Address:____________________________________________________

Telephone Number and e- mail: _________________________________

Complaint about which Agency, City, District, or County Department?

Address/ Location: ___________________________________________

Does complaint involve specific official( s) or employee( s)?

Name( s): ___________________________________________________

Does complaint involve a specific event? Date: _______ Time: ____

Location: ___________________________________________________

Please state your specific complaint, including names, locations,

witnesses, and supporting facts. Use the back and attach additional

sheets if necessary.

___________________________

Your signature is required here

8

DOGS CATS

Year: 1998 2000 2003 2004

( 6 mos.) 1998 2000 2003 2004

( 6 mos.)

TOTAL

Animals

Received:

2781 1928 1391 578 3913 2191 1091 414

Grand Jury Report # 2005- AF- 01

Animal Control Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Beginning in 1998,

Humboldt County

experienced large

increases in the costs of

animal control services.

The Board of

Supervisors did not

prepare to assume

responsibility for animal control services. Relevant departments failed to respond to the Agricultural

Commissioner’s attempt to review and monitor the animal control services contract to insure the county

received appropriate services for its money. The

Grand Jury recommends more stringent

accountability and oversight in all county contracts.

WHO SHALL RESPOND:

Pursuant to Penal Code Sections 933 & 933.05,

responses to the Findings and Recommendations of

Grand Jury Report # 2005- AF- 01 shall be as

follows:

• Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall

respond to Findings and Recommendations 1, 2,

and 3.

• County Counsel shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 2.

REPORT:

In May 2004, the Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint regarding the cost of animal control services.

An investigation was undertaken to determine:

• If animal control costs had risen substantially over the past decade.

• If the process involved in contracting for animal control services was appropriate.

• If a competitive bid process was followed.

• If steps were taken to minimize contract overspending.

The Grand Jury studied Senate Bill 1785, passed in 1998, known as the Hayden Bill. It imposes

additional requirements for animal shelter facilities ( see http:// www. leginfo. ca. gov/ pub/ 97-

98/ bill/ sen/ sb_ 1751- 00/ sb_ 1785_ bill_ 19980218_ introduced. html). Although the animal control

provider, Sequoia Humane Society ( hereafter referred to as SHS), as a private non- profit organization,

does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury, the organization was helpful in providing

information and background data.

Records provided the Grand Jury showed the following:

• On February 21, 2001, SHS offered to enter into a long- term contract with the county to provide

animal control services. Although SHS had been providing such services for many years, they

gave notice to the county of their intention to become a “ no- kill” facility by 2010. SHS asked

for the county’s response no later than June 1, 2002.

• In their proposal to the county, SHS announced a surcharge of $ 14,013 to be added to the

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1998 2000 2003 2004 ( 6 mos)

Total Dogs Total Cats Total Animals

9

monthly cost of approximately $ 21,000 for animal control services, the extra money to be used

to finance the building of an enlarged and improved facility for animal control.

• In November and December 2001, SHS met with county and city representatives about the

proposed contract, and again requested a response by June 2002. As of April 30, 2002, no

response from the county had been received.

• SHS also notified the county of an increase in monthly fees from $ 20,877 to $ 21,921.

• On April 30, 2002, the Agricultural Commissioner, whose job it was to oversee the animal

control contract for the county, recommended to the Board of Supervisors that a Request for

Proposals for animal control services be developed rather than continue its relationship with

SHS. In the meantime, the county and SHS agreed to maintain a month- to- month agreement for

animal control services.

• On May 28, 2002, SHS appeared before the Board of Supervisors and cited the county’s lack of

response to SHS’s proposal for a long- term contract. SHS again reminded the Board of SHS’s

intent to become a “ no- kill” facility. Since the county appeared uninterested in entering into a

long- term contract for animal control services, SHS offered a contract from 1/ 1/ 03 to 6/ 30/ 04,

with a monthly fee of $ 21,399 plus an additional fee of $ 14,013 per month that would be used

not for a building fund, but for an enhanced spay/ neuter program.

• On May 28, 2002, the county offered a counter proposal to SHS that did not include the

additional fee of $ 14,013. SHS rejected the county’s proposal, as it did not allow them to

become a “ no- kill” facility.

• On August 30, 2002, SHS again reminded the county that its current agreement for animal

control services would end on 10/ 31/ 02. SHS once again submitted a proposal calling for the

county to pay a fee of $ 36,297 per month for animal control services.

• On December 17, 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved a contract between the county and

SHS. The contract would run from 1/ 1/ 03 to 6/ 30/ 04, at which time the county would assume

responsibility for animal control services and SHS would become a “ no- kill” humane society.

SHS had regular independent audits to meet business and legal requirements, copies of which were

provided to the Grand Jury. Until 2001, monthly bills submitted to the county by SHS itemized census

figures on animals received, adopted, returned to owners, or euthanized. SHS continued to maintain such

records, as required by the Hayden Bill, and provided those records to the Grand Jury. However, SHS

acknowledged that those records were not provided to the county between January 2003 and June 2004.

However, the records received by the Grand Jury show that SHS charged $ 36,297 per month for the

period of January 2003 to June 2004, an increase of nearly 50 percent for services to less than half the

number of animals handled in 1998.

The Board of Supervisors, County Counsel, the Agricultural Commissioner, and the Auditor/ Controller

did not obtain a breakdown of the costs charged by SHS over the course of the last contract. County

officials did not receive monthly, quarterly or yearly figures justifying the amount charged to the county

for animal control services during this period. Discussions with the Humboldt County Sheriff’s

Department, Animal Control Division, revealed that comparisons of Humboldt County with neighboring

counties show similar costs for animal control. This may indicate that SHS’s charges were justified;

however, this is only an assumption since no one in county government other than the Agriculture

Commission received information or questioned the amount charged in order to determine whether the

county’s expenditure was justified.

During the course of SHS’s last agreement with the county, animals continued to be euthanized for a

variety of reasons, including viciousness, severe health problems, or non- adoptability. While this was

contrary to SHS’s desire to become a “ no- kill” facility, SHS continued to exterminate animals on a

regular basis. Charges included in the $ 36,297 monthly rate included: food, clean up, medical care,

paperwork, processing licenses and fines, accounting, staff expenses, extended open hours as mandated

by the Hayden Bill, training, and inventory.

10

When the county elected not to enter into a long- term contract, SHS told the Board of Supervisors that

the augmented portion of the contract funds would be used for spay/ neuter services rather than for a new

building. However, in the final contract between the county and SHS, there was no stipulation as to how

the additional monies were to be spent. Furthermore, there were no specific figures showing costs per

animal, making it impossible for county officials to determine whether costs per animal were reasonable

and justified, even though The Hayden Bill added some extra expenses. These include:

• An extensive increase in paperwork and documentation.

• More hours of public access to shelters.

• A larger volume of animals handled by animal control.

Information received by the Grand Jury indicated that since 2002, despite repeated requests for

information from SHS for an accounting of charges and expenses, such information was not provided to

the county official responsible for oversight of the contract. The Board of Supervisors approved a

contract with SHS. At the same time, the County Agriculture Commissioner was seeking an accounting

for past contracts with SHS. The Grand Jury received testimony that no one wanted to “ rock the boat”

and mount a more aggressive inquiry into animal control costs. While no allegations of misconduct on

the part of SHS are alleged, common business practices demand an accounting of charges incurred for

services rendered. Because SHS did not bill in excess of the contracted amount, the county did not audit

the contract for animal control services. Thus, the fault lies with the county for failing to develop a

contract containing specific accountability language.

Some county officials were not aware of the specifics of SHS’s contract with the county until they

reviewed it at the request of the Grand Jury, which provided copies. After reviewing the contract, the

officials believed it did not specify a breakdown of specific services for the contracted amount of the

agreement. The contract did allow for extra charges, such as $ 14 a day for quarantine fees. The county

never audited SHS because they were in compliance with the contract, which called only for a monthly

payment and did not require documentation except for quarantine fees. When the county has a contract

for a specific and set amount, an audit would not be triggered unless the contractor began charging

amounts in excess of the contract. Furthermore, the county does not audit for operational performance.

When asked by the Grand Jury, county officials answered that County Counsel always reviews and

approves all county contracts as to legality, but officials do not monitor compliance. The Grand Jury

believes monitoring for contract compliance should be the responsibility of the signatory agency. Without

monitoring, billing accuracy is difficult to determine. The Grand Jury also recommends that a clause

specifying how long past records must be maintained should be included in all contracts. No such

specifics were included in SHS’s contract with the county for animal control services.

The Grand Jury concludes that the monitoring of cost and accountability of contracts between the county

and outside providers must have a higher priority than occurred in the contract with the Sequoia Humane

Society. Significant cost increases in contracts between the county and SHS had occurred for at least

three years. Heightened oversight of contracts for goods and services paid for with public funds will

result in more resources available for other projects. The Grand Jury believes these times of budget crisis

require greater care in monitoring expenditures.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1: The final contract between the county and Sequoia Humane Society did not stipulate how the

augmented portion of the monies were to be spent, nor was there a specific cost per service or item.

Therefore, there was no way for the county to determine whether the contract costs were reasonable or

justified.

Recommendation 1: Specifics such as fees per unit of service need to be included in all contracts along

with a means to regularly monitor compliance and expenditures.

11

Finding 2: County Counsel reviews contracts for legality but not accountability or oversight

responsibility.

Recommendation 2: County Counsel should ensure that each county contract include provisions for a

specific county department to be accountable in a measurable way and include a provision for a specific

department to have oversight responsibility for the contract.

Finding 3: The Board of Supervisors failed to assume timely responsibility for animal control services,

thereby creating a situation which made it necessary to enter into a non- negotiable contract that did not

assure best value for public dollars.

Recommendation 3: The County must assure that county departments adequately track contract

expirations, so that a competitive bid process or at least negotiations can be initiated in time to insure

cost- effective services without a break.

Grand Jury Report # 2005- CD- 01

An Investigation into the First Time Home Buyer and Housing Rehabilitation Programs

in the City of Rio Dell

Executive Summary

The Grand Jury finds that the First Time Home Buyer and Housing Rehabilitation Programs are not being

adequately monitored by the City of Rio Dell.

In July 2002, the city entered into a contract with state and federal agencies to establish a revolving loan

fund of $ 500,000 to be loaned to low- income families to purchase a first home. The funds were also

available for home rehabilitation loans. The loans are to be repaid to make the funds available for others.

Although the contract states specific responsibilities for all parties, the City failed to meet the contractual

responsibilities.

The City contracted with Redwood Community Action Agency to administer the funds and manage the

projects for a fee. The City Council authorized three First Time Home Buyer loans, one a combination of

both the First Time Home Buyer and Housing Rehabilitation programs.

Problems with this combination project became apparent very soon. Alarming structural and safety issues

were ignored in favor of superficial cosmetic repairs. An investigation by the Grand Jury revealed that

the program was not being monitored. For example, termite and structural reports were not being

appropriately analyzed and corrective action was not taken. Serious health and safety issues were not

addressed. Construction was done without an approved set of plans or a permit. The contract specifically

requires both. While it is understandable that the small city finds it necessary to contract for the services

of a project manager, it is essential for the city to maintain supervision of this third party.

The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Rio Dell meet its oversight responsibilities as well as

establish and implement procedures which will assure that health and safety issues take precedence in all

home purchases and rehabilitation projects using public funds.

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of Grand Jury Report # 2005- CD- 01 shall be provided as follows:

• Rio Dell City Council shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4

• Rio Dell City Manager shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4

Report

In response to a citizen complaint, the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury conducted an investigation into the First

Time Home Buyer/ Rehabilitation Programs specifically in Rio Dell. The problems the Grand Jury found

in Rio Dell could occur in First Time Home Buyer/ Rehabilitation Programs similarly administered

12

throughout Humboldt County.

The City of Rio Dell signed a contract with the state Department of Housing and Community

Development and the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. This agreement was in

force from July 15, 2002, until March 31, 2005. The City Manager recently announced the city’s

application for a new contract with these agencies.

The contract provided for a revolving loan fund in the amount of $ 500,000. The funds were to be loaned

to low- income families to permit them to purchase and rehabilitate homes for themselves. The program

could benefit both the families and communities involved.

Rio Dell is small, and most city employees serve in a number of capacities. The city hired Redwood

Community Action Agency ( RCAA), an outside non- profit agency, to administer the program. From then

on, the City of Rio Dell allowed work to be done without plans or building permits, did not require timely

inspections, failed to monitor progress of the project, and dispersed funds with virtually no oversight,

approving without adequate review whatever the RCAA project manager proposed. Unfortunately, as a

representative of RCAA later admitted, RCAA did not have sufficient experience to perform the tasks

required.

RCAA assigned a long- time employee, a Housing Programs Manager, as project manager. This

individual had managed the two previous First Time Home Buyer projects, as well as several previous

Housing Rehabilitation projects done in Rio Dell. A representative of RCAA later pointed out that their

Housing Programs Manager had never supervised a project combining both programs. Everyone

involved underestimated the complexity of this combined project.

The project manager approved the house for the combined program and helped facilitate the purchase,

indicating that the problems of the building would be corrected under the Housing Rehabilitation

program. The buyer occupied the home as planned during the rehabilitation.

A termite inspection was done on July 22, 2003. The project manager did two work write- ups. The first,

done on July 24, 2003, was for the buyer. The project manager sent the second to the Office of Historic

Preservation, a division of Department of Parks and Recreation, state of California, on September 29,

2003, for approval of the rehabilitation of the historic dwelling. The write- ups do not mention the

extensive termite and dry- rot repair recommended by the termite report. The City of Rio Dell ignored this

important inspection, which directly relates to health and safety issues.

Cosmetic issues were the focus of both write- ups. Both include work on siding, paint, windows, doors,

wiring, floor coverings, and replacing the water heater, as well as restoring a functioning bathroom and

kitchen. In the Historic Preservation write- up, installation of a heating system was included for the first

time.

Other than the 2003 termite inspection, no structural inspection was ordered until August of 2004. The

structural inspection revealed that many of the problems in the house were long- standing: overstressed

beams, a failing post and pier foundation within the perimeter foundation, dry rot, and recurring water

damage. The house had actually been moved once in its seventy- year history. Had an adequate

investigation been done prior to the beginning of the project, the house would never have been accepted

for the program. According to a report dated September 21, 2004, from the state CDBG ( Community

Development Block Grants) Program of the Community Development Section of the Department of

Housing and Community Development of the State of California, “… if RCAA staff had done all their due

diligence at the beginning of the project, then it could not have been approved by the city loan

committee.”

Increasingly aware of health and safety issues which were not being addressed, the home buyers agitated

for further action. At their insistence, an inspection and investigation was done by two inspectors from

the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) on September 16 and 17, 2004.

13

As required by HUD’s investigation, the City of Rio Dell was directed to advance up to $ 50,000 as a

grant to the home buyers above the amount loaned. These funds were designated to clear the problems in

the lead- based paint report, clear the problems in the termite report, replace existing floor coverings,

repair the roof, install vents, install a sump pump with surface drain line, finish or repair the waste vent,

and install a forced air heating system. The grant also included the cost of an independent project

manager, all permits required by Humboldt County rather than Rio Dell, and relocation costs for the

home- buying family to vacate the house for thirty days during major repair work. This situation would

not have arisen had the City of Rio Dell required and analyzed adequate inspections prior to approving

the loan.

While this action resolved problems for the home buyer, these funds were taken from the revolving loan

fund as a grant. These funds will not be paid back; therefore, the funds will not be available for others in

the community. The funds available through these state and federally- funded programs can make a

tremendous difference to low- income families in Humboldt County. They need to be administered

judiciously.

The Grand Jury investigation determined that the City of Rio Dell did not exercise due diligence in the

oversight of the First Time Home Buyers and Housing Rehabilitation programs. Such oversight is

required by the contract: “ Obligations of Grantee ( the City) With Respect to Certain Third Party

Relationships The Grantee ( the City) shall remain fully obligated under the provisions of this agreement

notwithstanding its designation of any third party or parties for the undertaking of all or any part of the

program with respect to which assistance is being provided under this agreement to the Grantee."

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1: The City of Rio Dell failed to exercise due diligence in the oversight of RCAA in its role as

project manager of the First Time Home Buyers/ Housing Rehabilitation programs.

Recommendation 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council, the City Manager, and city

employees establish and implement procedures to insure that pertinent inspections, work write- ups,

contracts, permits, and invoices are reviewed and verified.

Finding 2: Project invoices were paid when no permit had been issued.

Recommendation 2: The Grand Jury recommends that a system of checks and balances be instituted

which insures that no payments are made unless and until a permit has been issued.

Finding 3: The City of Rio Dell frequently does not respond appropriately to complaints from citizens

involved in programs which should be overseen by its staff and officials.

Recommendation 3: The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Rio Dell develop and implement a

standardized citizen complaint form and procedures for appropriate response.

Finding 4: The City of Rio Dell did not periodically review the project or maintain files of the work in

progress in the city offices as required by contract.

Recommendation 4: The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council, the City Manager, and

appropriate staff periodically review these projects and maintain proper records as required by the

contract. If it is necessary to hire an outside agency to administer project, a representative of that agency

should report regularly to the City Council and the City Manager. Oversight of these projects must be a

priority.

Grand Jury Report # 2005- CD- 02

Manila Community Services District

14

Executive Summary

Manila Community Services District ( MCSD) provides and manages both water and sewer services, and

public recreation and parks. Water and sewer operations are self- supporting through the charge of user

fees to customers. Recreation and parks operations are primarily funded by government grants, charitable

donations, and fund- raising events. Recreation and parks do not charge significant user fees. Water and

sewer funds are “ loaned” to cover recreation and parks shortfalls; these “ loans” are rarely repaid. Since

water and sewer operations are vital to health and safety, greater priority needs to be given to system

replacement, updates, improvements and repairs. While recreation and parks enhance culture and quality

of life, costs and finances for such aesthetic civilities must not be allowed to overwhelm water and sewer

operations.

The Grand Jury recommends that MCSD discontinue using the water and sewer fund to subsidize

recreation and parks. The Grand Jury further recommends that MCSD establish and maintain prudent

reserves and comply with audit recommendations.

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of Grand Jury Report # 2005- CD- 02 shall be provided as follows:

• The Board of Directors of the Manila Community Services District shall respond to Findings 1

through 6 and Recommendations 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4, 5, and 6

• The General Manager of the Manila Community Services District shall respond to Findings 1 through

6 and Recommendations 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4, 5, and 6

Report

The Grand Jury conducted an investigation of the Manila Community Services District ( MCSD) in

response to citizen complaints. The MCSD was established in 1965. Among the purposes for which

MCSD was organized were water and sewage services and public recreation and parks.

As the MCSD is now organized, the water and sewer functions are funded by user fees, and are self-supporting.

These fees are designated as " Enterprise Funds." The recreation portions of the MCSD are

supported by grants, charitable fund- raisers, and rent for the community center building. These are

designated as “ Non- enterprise Funds.”

The recreation operations provide numerous programs that meet a vast array of diverse needs within the

community. The level of community spirit, commitment and volunteerism in Manila is outstanding.

Members of the MCSD Board exhibit this spirit. Unfortunately, spirit alone is not enough. Board

members need to have familiarity with practices common to non- profit public Boards: adherence to their

own policy and procedural manual, willingness to incorporate auditor’s recommendations, and ability to

maintain records adequate for auditing purposes. The turnover rate of Board members is substantially

higher than expected; often, elected Board Members resign and must be replaced with new appointments.

The recreation branch of MCSD frequently experiences budget shortfalls. These shortfalls are

sometimes covered by shifting Enterprise Funds into the Non- enterprise portion of the budget. This

means that money paid by water and sewer customers is transferred to pay for parks and recreation

programs. These budget adjustments are supposed to be temporary.

The shortfalls are most often caused by problems with grant applications and award schedules resulting in

delays in payment and lower levels of funding than budgeted. One problem with “ lending” money to the

grant- supported recreation programs is that the terms of such grants preclude their use for debt reduction.

When money does come in, it cannot be used to repay the Enterprise Funds. As a result, the only source

of repayment of the water and sewer money is from public fund- raising events.

In the past, a substantial percentage of the fund- raising income was from a concession booth at Reggae on

15

the River. MCSD has lost its Reggae on the River concession, a loss of about $ 20,000 per year. As

yet no substitute for this income has been found.

Over a period of years, the Non- enterprise programs have not returned the “ borrowed” Enterprise Funds.

This pattern of non- repayment has accumulated a debt of about $ 50,000 by recreation to water and sewer.

A permanent transfer of Enterprise Funds to Non- enterprise Funds is not allowed under California

Government Code 61000 et seq. MCSD may not authorize a gift of water and sewer money to the parks

and recreation programs.

The community center and park buildings incur utility expenses, including water and sewer fees. In July

2004, the MCSD Board forgave $ 5882 in 2003- 2004 water and sewer charges to the community center

and park funds. More recently, in a creative effort to reduce operating costs of the community center, the

Board has considered reimbursing the community center and park funds for past water and sewer charges.

The Grand Jury questions the retroactive reimbursement of several years of water and sewer charges to

the community center and park funds.

The Grand Jury finds that funds needed for maintenance and improvement of water and sewer systems are

being depleted by these fund transfers. Also, there are no formal loan documents outlining conditions of

loans and repayment, as mandated in MCSD’s policy manual Section 6000- Financial. The Grand Jury

finds that such transfers are not prudent. Recovery of these funds is difficult because the sources of

income for parks and recreation are uncertain, unpredictable, and restricted.

The fund transfers have made it extremely difficult for MCSD to establish and maintain a prudent reserve.

Population growth and aging infrastructure dictate the need to be prepared for improvements and

increased maintenance of both water and sewer systems. The continued neglect of this issue could lead to

dire consequences including astronomical rate increases.

The 2004 annual financial audit notes that MCSD “… has not complied with the requirements of the

Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) regarding user charges for the grant funded wastewater

treatment facility. The EPA requires that sewer rates include sufficient income to fund the cost of system

replacement. Approval of remaining rate increases recommended by the rate study performed previously

[ 1998] will help build reserves for sewer system replacement and insure the District’s compliance with

EPA requirements.”

MCSD responds inadequately to audit recommendations. Several annual audits have recommended

implementation of the 1998 sewer rate analysis, but have not been acted on. Action is long overdue.

Other accounting irregularities repeatedly noted in annual audits – such as improper purchasing practices

by recreation personnel, inadequately documented receipts, and insufficient checks and balances - also

remain uncorrected. In addition to giving scant attention to audit recommendations, MCSD has neglected

to monitor mid- fiscal year shortfalls. Frequent and aggressive budget analyses should be performed

periodically throughout each year. Problems should be addressed as they arise. When recreation and

park costs exceed income, their budget should be adjusted accordingly, rather than covering the shortfall

from water and sewer funds.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1 The Grand Jury finds that the MCSD has not ordered a rate analysis as recommended since

their 1998 and subsequent audits.

Recommendation 1 The Grand Jury recommends that MCSD order a rate analysis and implement

appropriate rate increases immediately.

Finding 2 The Grand Jury finds that the fiscal practices of MCSD preclude the establishment of

necessary and prudent reserves.

16

Recommendation 2a The Grand Jury recommends that recreation and parks repay all water and

sewer funds owed.

Recommendation 2b The Grand Jury recommends MCSD discontinue the practice of “ temporary”

transfers of funds from water and sewer to recreation and parks.

Recommendation 2c The Grand Jury recommends that MCSD establish and maintain prudent reserves

for water and sewer system replacement, updates, improvements, and repairs.

Finding 3 The Grand Jury finds that MCSD has neglected to monitor and failed to respond appropriately

to mid- year deficits.

Recommendation 3 The Grand Jury recommends that MCSD perform frequent and aggressive budget

analyses throughout each year. When shortfalls occur, MCSD should adjust the budget accordingly

instead of transferring water and sewer money to the recreation and park fund.

Finding 4 The Grand Jury finds that MCSD responds inadequately to audit recommendations.

Recommendation 4 The Grand Jury recommends that MCSD comply with audit recommendations.

Finding 5 The Grand Jury finds that MCSD has failed to repay “ transfers” from the water and sewer

Enterprise Funds made to the recreation and park Non- enterprise Fund.

Recommendation 5 The Grand Jury recommends that MCSD adopt a plan to reduce and eventually

eliminate the debt owed by recreation and park funds to the water and sewer fund.

Finding 6 The Grand Jury finds that some decisions of the MCSD Board of Directors suggest a lack of

familiarity with practices common to non- profit public Boards.

Recommendation 6 The Grand Jury recommends that members of the Board of Directors take special

training for board members of non- profit organizations. Training is available free or at minimal cost from

both Humboldt Area Foundation and College of the Redwoods.

Grand Jury Report # 2005- HS- 01

Visit to Humboldt County’s Family Connection Center

Executive Summary:

The Grand Jury interviewed employees and toured the Child Welfare Family Connections

Center, a facility providing supervised visits for parents whose children are placed in temporary

custody. The frequency and type of visits are determined by court order with transportation

furnished by Child Welfare, if needed. Times of visits are arranged to meet children’s and

parents’ schedules taking into consideration school and work.

The facility is child- friendly, colorful, brightly- lit and welcoming. Books, activities, toys, craft supplies,

games and comfortable furniture help provide a healthy atmosphere for the visits. Transportation of

parents and children to the facility is sometimes inconvenient when car seats and cars are in two different

locations.

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to GRAND JURY REPORT

# 2005- HS- 01 shall be provided as follows:

• No responses are required for this report

Report

Following receipt of a citizen’s complaint, the Grand Jury interviewed employees and toured the Child

Welfare Family Connections Center, a facility providing supervised visits for parents whose children are

placed in temporary custody. The frequency and type of visits are determined by court order with

transportation furnished by Child Welfare, if needed. Times of visits are arranged to meet children’s and

17

parents’ schedules taking into consideration school and work.

The facility is child- friendly, colorful, brightly- lit and welcoming. Books, activities, toys, craft supplies,

games and comfortable furniture help provide a healthy atmosphere for the visits. Transportation of

parents and children to the facility is sometimes inconvenient when car seats and cars are in two different

locations.

The Department of Health and Human Services, through its Social Services Division and Child Welfare

Services, is to be commended for establishing a safe, welcoming environment that encourages and

nurtures the child- parent relationship. By removing or lessening barriers to regular child- parent

visitation, the Family Connection Center assists families in the sometimes difficult task of reunification.

Grand Jury Reports # 2005- HS- 02 through 09

A REVIEW OF THE CHARTER SCHOOLS OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY

Executive Summary of Grand Jury Reports # 2005- HS- 02 through 09

Charter Schools -- Public Education’s Alternative

The Grand Jury’s investigation into charter schools in Humboldt County was initiated by citizen

complaints, state and national media attention on charter school effectiveness, and a general lack of public

knowledge about charter schools. 1

The Grand Jury cannot emphasize strongly enough that charter schools are public schools, open to all

applicants. Charter schools are supported by tax money and are subject to most of the laws and

regulations that govern all public schools in California, especially those laws dealing with credentials,

testing, non- discrimination, and finance. Charter schools are alternative public schools providing parents

and students greater flexibility in reaching educational goals than might be found in regular public

schools.

Humboldt County has seven charter districts or networks comprised of nineteen charter school sites.

Oversight authority rests in the chartering agencies and the Humboldt County Office of Education

( HCOE). The Grand Jury interviewed representatives from all seven networks, as well as HCOE, and

found that charter schools in Humboldt County are fulfilling their mission to provide varied and diverse

education. With few exceptions, Humboldt County’s charter schools and charter networks comply with

the state Education Code.

The Grand Jury found three charter school networks needing oversight improvement in at least one of the

following areas: teacher credentials, admission policies, financial management, state testing, and/ or

required record- keeping.

One charter school network, Big Lagoon Charter School Network, raised questions in the minds of the

Grand Jurors in the areas of teacher credentialing, admission practices, irregular financial arrangements,

and record- keeping. The Mattole Valley Charter School Network and Pacific View Charter School need

to improve participation in state testing. In spite of the irregularities noted, charter school students appear

to be receiving both interesting as well as challenging educational opportunities.

Charter schools, like all other publicly funded institutions, must follow state and federal laws. Skirting

the law, regardless of the outcome for students, is not acceptable. The ends do not justify the means.

1 Grand Juror Allan Edwards voluntarily recused himself from participation in the investigation of the Big Lagoon

Charter School Network because of a perceived conflict of interest.

18

The Grand Jury recommends that:

• The Humboldt County Office of Education establish a clear and consistent method of conducting

annual oversight checks of all of the county’s charter schools.

• The sponsoring agencies of charter schools and the Humboldt County Office of Education

exercise vigilant oversight regarding the credentials held by teachers assigned to be the primary

teachers of core high school courses ( English, Math, History, Science).

• The Northcoast Preparatory Academy of the Big Lagoon Charter School Network make its

application and admission policies transparent.

• The Big Lagoon Charter School Network develop stricter guidelines for the maintenance of

student records.

• The Big Lagoon Charter School Network pay all its employees directly, deducting appropriate

taxes and retirement benefits, and pay premiums for state unemployment compensation and state

workers’ compensation.

• The Big Lagoon Charter School Network check with the Federal and State Internal Revenue

Services and the Federal and State Departments of Labor to verify the legal definition of

“ employee” and “ independent contractor.”

• The Big Lagoon Charter School Network consult with authorities to determine the legitimacy of

using a pass- through account to pay anyone who is already retired and receiving retirement

system benefits.

• The Equinox Center for Education of the Big Lagoon Charter School Network confirm the

legitimacy and legality of transforming a private school to a public school.

• The Mattole Valley Charter School and the Pacific View Charter School encourage participation

with state- recommended testing in order to achieve the 95 percent rate desired to track school

accountability.

Introduction

The 2004 – 2005 Grand Jury of Humboldt County conducted an investigation of the county’s charter

school networks in response to the following:

• Citizen complaints.

• No review ever of charter schools in the county.

• State and national concerns regarding charter schools as reflected in national and local media.

• Lack of public knowledge concerning the operation and legal requirements of charter schools.

The focus of the Grand Jury’s investigation of Humboldt County’s charter school networks was four- fold:

• Admission practices.

• Compliance with record keeping and attendance regulations.

• Teacher qualification and certification.

• Financial compliance with state funding practices and laws.

In September 2004, the Grand Jury received citizen complaints about charter schools. One complaint

alleged discriminatory admission practices and another alleged violations of the California Education

Code, which governs the maintenance of pupil assessments and records. The first complaint involved a

student’s parents, who chose not to enroll their child in a particular charter school because they were

given the impression students had to “ pass” an interview process before being enrolled. The student in

question had special learning needs.

The second complaint involved students returning to a traditional school from a charter school. The

complaint focused on the students’ cumulative records, including their Individual Educational Plans

( IEP). One set of records was not filled out and the second was missing altogether, both of which are

violations of California Education Code. Both of these students also had learning disabilities.

19

The Grand Jury conducted a series of interviews with school and county administrators, teachers,

students, and representatives from all of the charter school networks in Humboldt County.

Representatives from the Humboldt Arts Council were also interviewed.

Both the California Department of Education and the federal No Child Left Behind Act state that school

districts as well as schools must make adequate yearly progress ( AYP) in several areas, based primarily

on student performance and participation. The percent of students in each subgroup taking the tests must

meet or exceed 95 percent. Parents have the right to exempt their children from state tests.

Adequate Yearly Progress ( AYP) 2003- 2004

Perfect Score is 1000 - State goal is 800

Big Lagoon Charter Network 831 ( over state goal)

Freshwater Charter Middle School 746

Jacoby Creek Elementary School 884 ( over state goal)

Mattole Valley 634

Pacific View Charter School No scores available – not enough tested

Six Rivers Charter School No scores available – first year open

Trillium Charter School 743

Humboldt County ( total average) 726

California ( state total average) 692

History and Background of California Charter Schools

In 1992, California became second state in the nation to allow public charter schools with Senate Bill

1448. The intent of the legislation was to “ provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and

community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing

school district structure.” Charter schools provide educational experiences that can be tailored to meet the

learning preferences of our growing, diverse population while still addressing the California State

Educational Standards. It must be emphasized that charter schools are not private schools, but rather,

public schools that offer diversity in programs and school day structure for all applicants.

In July 1998, California Assembly Bill 544 ( AB544) strengthened both the independence and

accountability of charter schools. AB 544 also changed the petitioning requirements for a charter by

specifying that charter schoolteachers of core academic subjects ( English, Math, Social Science, Lab

Science) must hold certification “ equivalent to what other public school teachers are required to hold.”

Financial misconduct by a few charter schools in the state has triggered passage of more

restrictive legislation calling for increased oversight of charter schools by county offices of

education and charter school sponsors in Assembly Bill 1994. In 2003, the legislature also

increased the accountability of charter schools, requiring increased visitation and inspection of

sites by county superintendents and sponsoring agency administrators to assure compliance with

state law and the state educational code.

The state further requires that charter schools show and report a certain level of academic

performance to have their charters renewed. For existing charters, this provision takes effect after

they have operated for four years. However, beginning in 2005, all new charter schools must

comply with state- established academic performance requirements. The intent of the legislation

is to assure the state’s citizens that charter schools are safe, well equipped, and as highly qualified

as the regular public schools. It is also the intent of the legislation to protect the purpose for

which charter schools were created, namely to provide parents and students greater choice and

flexibility in the kind of education they desire.

20

GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 02

A Review of the Humboldt County Office of Education’s Charter School Oversight

WHO SHALL RESPOND:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 02 shall be provided as follows:

• Humboldt County Office of Education shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 2

After interviewing principals, superintendents, program directors, students, teachers, and parents, and

after making seven site visits to local charter schools, the Grand Jury is confident that Humboldt County’s

charter schools are sincere and diligent about providing quality education.

There are seven charter school districts or networks in Humboldt County, representing 19 charter school

sites, each with individual characteristics. These charter schools are “ alternative” public schools, funded

by public money, with enrollment in each of the networks financing the individual schools. Because

charter schools are funded by public money, they are subject to most of the same regulations as regular

public schools, specifically regarding non- discriminatory admission policies, state academic standards,

teacher credentialing, fiscal management, reporting, and record keeping. State Superintendent of

Education Jack O’Connell, in a letter dated April 14, 2005, told all superintendents in California,

“… charter schools must be held to the same high standards of accountability as all other public schools.”

The Grand Jury found that both the sponsoring agencies and county offices of education have the legal

responsibility to oversee charter schools, assuring the public that state laws and guidelines such as

Education Code 47604 ( c) are followed. While the Humboldt County Office of Education enthusiastically

supports the diversity and innovation that charter schools bring to the students of our county, it exercises

minimal direct oversight. The focus of Humboldt County’s Office of Education’s oversight is to assure

that the charter schools are solvent. Beyond that, the Grand Jury found little evidence of vigilant

oversight of teacher credentials, appropriate use of funding, background checks, non- discriminatory

enrollment procedures, or state- and federal- mandated record- keeping as Title I and Special Education

laws require.

The Grand Jury found far more qualities in Humboldt County’s charter schools that merit praise than it

found areas in need of improvement. With few exceptions, the county’s charter schools comply with the

Education Code and are both fiscally stable as well as fiscally responsible with the public’s tax money.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1: Humboldt County Office of Education exercises minimal direct oversight of charter schools.

Recommendation 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Humboldt County Superintendent of

Education exercise greater oversight of the county’s charter schools, especially concerning appropriate

credentialing, admission practices, fiscal matters, and maintenance of required records.

Finding 2: The Grand Jury found no evidence of a consistent, clear system of oversight coordination

between the individual charter schools or charter school networks and the Humboldt County Office of

Education.

Recommendation 2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Humboldt County Office of Education

establish with the charter school networks a clear and consistent method of conducting annual oversight

checks of all of the county’s charter schools regarding credentialing and appropriate teacher assignment;

fiscal compliance with the law; and pupil achievement reporting. The oversight reports should then be

sent to the County Office of Education for inspection before being sent to the California State Department

of Education.

21

GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 03

A Review of Practices and Policies of

Arcata Elementary School District’s Trillium Charter School

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 03 shall be provided as follows:

• No response is required.

Trillium Community Charter School is a K - 5th grade school in its third year of operation under the

umbrella of the Arcata Elementary School District. Its enrollment procedure is open and transparent,

accepting all applicants in a standard priority order: returning students, siblings of students attending,

students from within the Arcata School District boundaries, and then applicants from outside the district.

Financial management of state funds follows standard practices. The block grants from the state and the

Title I funds are handled through the Arcata School District’s office for a 12 percent administrative fee.

No third- party pass- through accounts are used. Over 50 percent of the students qualify for free or

reduced- price lunches.

All teachers at Trillium are fully credentialed with clear and California Language Acquisition

Development ( CLAD) credentials. One teacher is also a fully qualified Title I Resource Specialist who

maintains accurate, up- to- date Individual Education Plans ( IEP) on all students who have special learning

needs. Students with special learning needs are welcome at Trillium. The school’s calendar is identical

to that of Arcata Elementary School District ( 180 days), which means that the amount of time spent in

school exceeds by 20 percent the number of days and minutes required of charter school students.

Participation in statewide testing is strongly encouraged and the participation rate at Trillium School is

100 percent. The Academic Performance Indicators ( API scores) for the students exceeds state averages;

a large gain has been made from 2003 – 2004.

GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 04

A Review of Practices and Policies of the Big Lagoon Charter School Network

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 04 shall be provided as follows:

• Big Lagoon Union Elementary District shall respond to Findings 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and

Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6, 7.

• Big Lagoon Charter School Network shall respond to Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and

Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6, 7.

• Humboldt County Office of Education shall respond to Finding 7 and Recommendation 7.

The three schools of the Big Lagoon Charter School Network ( BLCSN) offer 220 students a wide

variety of educational opportunities. The chartering agency is the Big Lagoon Union Elementary

District. It shares its site with the K – 8 Waldorf method charter school. The other two sites of the

charter network are the Equinox Center for Education ( formerly a private school before becoming part

of the BLCSN) and the Northcoast Performing Arts and Preparatory Academy ( NPA), both located in

Arcata. Equinox serves K – 5 students and NPA is a 9 – 12 school. 2

Each of the schools brings distinctly differing programs to its students. The Grand Jury commends the

charter school network for its International Baccalaureate Program, its challenging curriculum, high test

scores ( 31 points beyond the state goal of 800 on the Academic Performance Indicator [ API]), and the

2 Grand Juror Allan Edwards voluntarily recused himself from participation in this investigation because of a

perceived conflict of interest.

22

accomplishments of its students in the areas of music, performing arts, and tennis. Also worthy of note

is the enthusiastic support of the network’s parents and students.

Each of the three schools in the BLCSN has differing application and admission procedures, two of which

are transparent, straightforward, and non- discriminatory. Charter schools, like all public schools, are not

allowed to hand pick their students, but must accept all applicants. However, NPA requires a pre-enrollment

interview reflective of a private school’s standard, which the Grand Jury learned in its

investigation can have a discouraging effect on an applicant.

Charter schools shall meet all statewide standards according to the California Education Code and

conduct all pupil assessments required of any traditional school. Charter schools shall evaluate pupils in

accordance with all statewide standards authorized in the Education Code. The Grand Jury discovered

that the BLCSN failed to conduct Individual Educational Plan updates on students returning to a regular

public school. In one case, the records were missing altogether. School officials at the receiving school

did not know where to place the students, since little or nothing in the students’ Individual Education

Plans ( IEPs) had been maintained or kept current. The students had special learning needs.

The Big Lagoon Charter School Network’s block grant is managed by its sponsoring agency, Big Lagoon

Union Elementary District, for a fee of approximately nine percent. The Grand Jury learned through

witness testimony that the Big Lagoon Union Elementary District and an individual - at the request of this

individual - had made a special financial arrangement in the year 2000 concerning pay. The individual is

retired, works part time, and is receiving California Public Employee Retirement System ( CalPERS)

benefits. This individual holds management positions in both the Big Lagoon Charter School Network as

well as the business providing services to the charter school network.

According to the arrangement, the Big Lagoon Union Elementary District sent checks drawn from the Big

Lagoon Charter School Network’s block grant to the Humboldt Arts Council, a non- profit organization.

From there, the money would be passed through to a business which has no business license. This

business provides “ music, drama, art and teacher training services provided to the … Big Lagoon Charter

School Network…” Therefore, the individual receives no direct compensation from the charter school’s

block grant for services rendered to the Big Lagoon Charter School Network, but receives money from

the business.

The Humboldt Arts Council charges a four percent fee for these “ pass- through” transactions, which is

ultimately an expense paid for by taxpayers. Over the four years this arrangement with Big Lagoon

Union Elementary District has been in existence, $ 126,320 has passed through the non- profit account to

the business. The cost of this arrangement through January 2005 was approximately $ 5,100 of taxpayers’

money in fees collected by the Humboldt Arts Council.

The individual with this special arrangement is not on the payroll as are all other employees of the Big

Lagoon Charter School Network. Witness testimony indicated no payroll deductions such as state and

federal taxes and CalPERS were taken for this individual. The individual is considered by the BLCSN to

be a “ volunteer,” working over 40 hours per week. Witness testimony stated that the purpose of the pass-through

account was to avoid the red tape and paperwork necessary to pay for sub- contracted services

from artists and organizations. Evidence revealed that the Big Lagoon Union Elementary District paid for

these services directly from the charter network’s block grant.

The Equinox Center for Education, one of the two Arcata sites of the BLCSN, was formerly a private

school named Equinox which closed due to financial difficulties shortly before becoming part of the

public charter school network with public funding. 80 percent of the employees who worked for the

private Equinox school are currently working for the public charter school site. Education Code 47602

does not allow private schools to become public charter schools.

It is unclear to the Grand Jury if non- credentialed or improperly credentialed teachers are instructing

23

students, or whether non- credentialed teachers are assisting “ teachers of record” in their instruction at

the NPA site. In one case, the credential for a teacher of a core course ( math) was expired. In another

case, a teacher assigned to instruct high school science is credentialed to teach core classes “ in grades five

through eight, and to teach any of the core subjects he or she is teaching to a single group of students in

the same grade level as the core for less than 50 percent of his or her work day.” In a third case, the

“ teacher of record” of high school English has credentials only for grades 5 – 8.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1: The Grand Jury finds that the application and admission procedure of the Northcoast

Preparatory Academy is not transparent.

Recommendation 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Northcoast Preparatory Academy make

its application and admission policies transparent so that no possibility exists in the mind of an applicant

that he or she has to “ pass” an interview test before gaining admission to a public school.

Finding 2: The Grand Jury finds that the BLCSN failed to prepare Individual Education Plan updates.

Recommendation 2: The Grand Jury recommends that the BLCSN, in cooperation and collaboration

with its sponsoring agency, develop strict guidelines for the maintenance of student records, especially

IEPs, and that the Big Lagoon Union Elementary District exercise stricter oversight regarding student

records maintained by the schools of the Big Lagoon Charter School Network.

Finding 3: The Grand Jury finds no legitimate reason for the uncommon practice of using a pass- through

account.

Recommendation 3: The Grand Jury recommends that the Big Lagoon Charter School Network

immediately cease the use of pass- through accounts to pay for staff or services.

Finding 4: The Grand Jury finds the unnecessary use of a pass- through account by the Big Lagoon

Charter School Network cost the taxpayers $ 5100.

Recommendation 4: The Grand Jury recommends that Big Lagoon Charter School Network stop

wasting taxpayer money on pass- through account fees.

Finding 5: The Grand Jury finds that the Big Lagoon Union Elementary District, acting on behalf of the

Big Lagoon Charter School Network, made an arrangement with an individual to pay for staff or services

without deducting federal and state taxes or CalPERS, or paying premiums for unemployment

compensation insurance or workers’ compensation insurance.

Recommendation 5a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Big Lagoon Charter School Network pay all

its employees directly, deducting appropriate federal and state taxes and CalPERS, and paying premiums

for state unemployment compensation and state workers’ compensation insurance.

Recommendation 5b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Big Lagoon Charter School Network check

with the Federal and State Internal Revenue Services and the Federal and State Departments of Labor to

verify the legal definitions of “ employee,” “ independent contractor,” and “ volunteer” to determine who

shall have taxes and retirement deductions made, and for whom premiums should be paid for

unemployment and workers’ compensation insurance.

Recommendation 5c: The Grand Jury recommends that the Big Lagoon Charter School Network

consult with CalPERS to determine the legitimacy of using a pass- through account to pay a person who is

already retired and receiving retirement system benefits.

Finding 6: Equinox, now a part of the Big Lagoon Charter School Network, was a private school with

the same name on the same site and with most of the same teachers before it became a charter school.

Recommendation 6: The Grand Jury recommends that the Big Lagoon Charter School Network check

with the California State Department of Education, Charter School Division, to confirm the legitimacy or

legality of this metamorphosis.

Finding 7: The Grand Jury found conflicting evidence regarding teacher assignments and the

24

appropriateness of the teachers’ credentials.

Recommendation 7: The Grand Jury recommends that either the sponsoring agency ( Big Lagoon

Union Elementary District) or the Humboldt County Office of Education exercise vigilant oversight

regarding the credentials held by teachers assigned to be the primary teachers of the core high school

courses of English, Math, History, and Science.

GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 05

A Review of Practices and Policies of Freshwater Charter Middle School

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 05 shall be provided as follows:

• Freshwater Charter Middle School shall respond to Finding 1 and Recommendation 1.

Freshwater Charter Middle School has served 7th and 8th graders from the Freshwater District for four

years under the umbrella of the Freshwater Elementary School District. Its enrollment procedure is open

and transparent, accepting all applicants in a standard priority order: those in the Freshwater School

District, those who attended the 5th and 6th grades at Freshwater; and any other student. The admission

application states clearly that there will be no admissions tests, tuition, “ nor any discrimination against

any applicant on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, or socio- economic status.”

Instruction and assistance are available for students with special learning needs. The educational program

serves students who desire and would benefit from the nurturing environment of a small school with high

expectations for its students. The school is housed at Freshwater Elementary School, and has modern

facilities.

Financial management of state funds follows standard practices, and the financial transactions are handled

through the Freshwater District’s business office. No third- party pass- through accounts are used.

Financial oversight of public funds from its sponsoring agent is consistent with standard education code

practices. All teachers at Freshwater Charter Middle School are fully credentialed. Counseling and

special education resources are available on site. The school’s calendar is consistent with the Eureka City

Schools District calendar ( 180 days), exceeding by 20 percent the number of days and minutes required of

charter school students. Participation in statewide testing is strongly encouraged and participation rate

meets the state’s recommended 95 percent.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1: Freshwater Charter Middle School has a reported ratio of 10.8 students per computer.

The state average is 5 and the county average is 4.1. Today, computer knowledge is essential to basic

education.

Recommendation 1: The Grand Jury recommends that Freshwater Charter Middle School invest in

computer technology to the extent of its budget limitations.

GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 06

A Review of Practices and Policies of Jacoby Creek Elementary School ( a Charter District)

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 06 shall be provided as follows:

• No response is necessary.

Jacoby Creek Elementary School is a charter district serving 415 students from K - 8th grade. Fifty

percent of the students come from outside the district borders. Jacoby Creek’s application and admission

25

procedures are completely transparent and non- discriminatory. Students with learning needs are not

discouraged from applying; more than ten percent of its students have special learning needs.

Jacoby Creek School has eighteen regular education teachers, ten classroom aides, one speech/ language

specialist, one counselor, one special education teacher, one librarian, one administrator, one technology

aide and six special program teachers including remedial reading, vocal music, instrumental music,

Spanish, Gifted and Talented, and an artist- in- residence. All teachers are appropriately credentialed and

teaching at the appropriate grade level or subject area.

The Grand Jury commends Jacoby Creek Elementary School for its outstanding work and

prestigious awards. Not only has Jacoby Creek School been recognized for the past four years by the

California State Department of Education for being a distinguished school, but it has also been named a

national blue ribbon school. This award is given only to one- half- of- one- percent of the schools

nationwide.

Financial management at Jacoby Creek School follows standard practices, and the financial transactions

are handled through its business office. No third- party pass- through accounts are used, although there is a

non- political, non- profit fundraising organization. The Jacoby Creek Children’s Foundation is comprised

of parents and community members, and was established to provide financial assistance for the

enhancement of a superior educational environment within the Jacoby Creek School and community.

GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 07

A Review of Practices and Policies of Laurel Tree Charter School,

a satellite campus of the Mattole Valley Charter School ( K- 12)

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 07 shall be provided as follows:

• The Mattole Valley Charter School ( K- 12) shall respond to Finding 1 and

Recommendation 1.

The Laurel Tree Charter School of Arcata serves 60 students in grades K – 2 and 5 – 12. The site also

supports an after- school language program. Laurel Tree Charter School is one of ten satellite schools of

the Mattole Valley Charter School Network.

Laurel Tree’s admission policies and procedures are open and transparent, accepting in priority order its

returning students, siblings of current students, and thereafter in accordance with a state- recommended

first- come, first- served lottery system. There are no admissions tests, tuition, nor any discrimination

against any applicant on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, educational level, disability, or

socio- economic status. Instruction and assistance are available for students with special learning needs

through one of three special education teachers employed by the network. Financial management of state

and local funds follows standard practices and is handled by the Mattole Unified School District’s

business office. No third- party pass- through accounts are used. Financial oversight of public funds from

its sponsoring agent is consistent with standard education code practices.

All teachers at the Laurel Tree site are fully credentialed and qualified to teach their assigned courses.

The school’s hours are consistent with a standard school day, and the school calendar exceeds the

minimum required number of days and minutes for charter schools. The Laurel Tree Charter School

meets the 95 percent participation rate for state testing. However, the Mattole Valley Charter School

Network does not. Soon, failure to achieve 95 percent participation in state testing will result in reduced

funding. Parents have the right to exempt their children from state tests.

26

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1: The Mattole Valley Charter School Network fails to meet the 95 percent participation

rate for state testing.

Recommendation 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the director of the Mattole Valley Charter

School Network encourage its staff to discuss with parents the importance of tracking measurable

progress, encouraging them to allow their children to participate in the state- recommended testing

program in order to achieve the 95 percent rate desired to track school accountability.

GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 08

A Review of Practices and Policies of Pacific View Charter School

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 08 shall be provided as follows:

• Pacific View Charter School shall respond to Finding 1 and Recommendation 1.

The Pacific View Charter School serves 216 students through a variety of programs in grades K – 12,

including classroom- based education and independent study programs. Pacific View’s admission policies

and procedures are open and transparent, accepting in priority order its returning students, siblings of

current students, and thereafter in accordance with a state- recommended first- come, first- served lottery

system.

There are no admissions tests, tuition, nor discrimination of any kind. Instruction and assistance are

available for students with special learning needs through one of two special education teachers employed

by the network to work at the Eureka site. It is evident from enrollment figures that Pacific View Charter

School welcomes students having special educational needs. Of its 216 students, 37 ( 17 percent) have

been identified as having special learning needs.

The Loleta School District’s business office handles financial transactions following standard educational

accounting practices. No third- party pass- through accounts are used. Financial oversight of public funds

from its sponsoring agent is consistent with standard education code practices.

Pacific View Charter School does not meet the 95 percent participation rate for state testing. Soon,

failure to achieve 95 percent participation in state testing will result in reduced funding. Only about 20

percent of Pacific View’s students took the state tests. Parents have the right to exempt their children

from state tests.

All of Pacific View’s teachers are credentialed and qualified to teach their assigned courses. The school’s

required number of days and minutes meets state requirements for charter schools ( 80 percent of the

regular schools’ requirement), which is consistent with a standard school day, and the school calendar

exceeds the minimum required number of days and minutes for charter schools.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1: Pacific View Charter School district fails to meet the 95 percent participation rate for

state testing.

Recommendation 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the director of the Pacific View Charter

School encourage its staff to discuss with parents the importance of tracking measurable progress,

encouraging them to allow their children to participate with the state- recommended testing program in

order to achieve the 95 percent rate desired to track school accountability.

27

GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 09

A Review of Practices and Policies of Six Rivers Charter School,

a Northern Humboldt Union High School District’s school

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- HS- 09 shall be provided as follows:

• No response is required.

Six Rivers Charter School is a 9th - 12th grade school in its first year of operation under the umbrella of the

Northern Humboldt Union High School District ( NHUHSD). Its enrollment procedure is open and

transparent, accepting all applicants interested in attending either a classroom based or non- classroom

based academy. Students with special learning needs are welcome at Six Rivers Charter School. The

school offers a comprehensive high school education that focuses on the development of each individual

student by creating a four- year study plan tailored to the students’ wants and needs. It is housed on the

Arcata High School campus and because of that can offer its students courses and experiences common to

larger schools. Six Rivers Charter also works closely with the nationally recognized EAST Project

( Environmental And Spatial Technology), where students receive project- based education using the most

modern technology available. Financial management of state funds follows standard practices, and the

financial transactions are handled through the NHUHSD’s business office 12 percent administrative fee.

No third- party pass- through accounts are used. Financial oversight of public funds from its sponsoring

agent ( NHUHSD) is strict. All teachers at Six Rivers Charter School are fully credentialed with clear and

CLAD credentials. Counseling and special education resources are available through Arcata High

School. The school’s calendar is identical to that of the NHUHSD ( 180 days), which means that the

amount of time spent in school exceeds by 20 percent the number of days and minutes required of charter

school students. Participation in statewide testing is encouraged strongly and participation rate in state

testing is 100 percent. API scores have not been posted because this is the school’s first year. They will

be available for the public in July 2005.

Grand Jury Reports # 2005- JL- 01 through 16

Humboldt County’s Jails and Holding Facilities

Executive Summary

Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 919( b), the Grand Jury inspected each prison, jail, and holding

facility within the county. Eleven such facilities are addressed in the reports referenced above. Four

additional facilities, Sheriff’s Agricultural Farm, McKinleyville Sheriff’s substation, Sheriff’s Evidence

room and yard, and Coroner’s office, were also inspected and are mentioned in these reports.

Grand Jury Reports # 2005- JL- 01 through # 2005- JL- 08 and 2005- JL- 11 & 16

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of Grand Jury Reports # 2005- JL- 01 through # 2005- JL- 08 and # 2005- JL- 11 & 16

shall be provided as follows:

• No responses are required for Grand Jury Reports # 2005- JL- 01 through # 2005- JL- 08 and 2005- JL- 11

& 16

These eight facilities were inspected and found to be clean, well maintained, and in good repair. No

Findings or Recommendations are warranted.

Arcata Police Department inspected August 16, 2004

Eureka Police Department inspected August 19, 2004

Fortuna Police Department inspected August 23, 2004

28

Regional Facility inspected August 30, 2004

Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program ( SWAP) woodlot inspected September 18, 2004

Humboldt County Correctional Facility inspected November 15, 2004

High Rock Conservation Camp inspected November 23, 2004

Eel Rock Conservation Camp inspected December 21, 2004

Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 09

Juvenile Hall

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of Grand Jury Reports # 2005- JL- 09 shall be provided as follows:

• The Humboldt County Probation Department shall respond to Finding 1 and recommendation 1.

• The Humboldt County Department of General Services shall respond to Finding 1 and

Recommendation 1.

Juvenile Hall was inspected on August 30, 2004. Students receive individual instruction in preparation

for high school graduation. Each classroom is staffed with one teacher and one aide. If more than 26

students are present, a second aide is brought in. The Grand Jury commends the Juvenile Hall teacher,

Cheryl Baer, for her rapport, skills, and eleven years of dedicated, innovative service to Humboldt County

youth at the facility.

There is neither an elevator nor a ramp inside Juvenile Hall to go between the lower floor, which contains

the gym and the high school classroom, and the upper floor which has the eating, sleeping, and living

areas. A basketball court and a vegetable / flower garden are outside.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1: The facility does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA) because there is

no wheelchair access between floors.

Recommendation 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the building be made ADA compliant.

Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 10

Sheriff’s Agricultural Farm

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of Grand Jury Reports # 2005- JL- 10 shall be provided as follows:

• The Sheriff shall respond to Finding 1 and Recommendation 1

The Grand Jury inspected the Sheriff’s Agricultural Farm on September 20, 2004. It is located near

Fortuna on Airport Road. The Farm provides work for the Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program ( SWAP)

inmates and food for the Humboldt County Correctional Facility ( HCCF). The Farm has animals and a

large garden, which produced 1,200 pounds of vegetables and 9,850 pounds of pork in 2004. The farm

tractor still lacks the bucket recommended by previous Grand Juries. A tractor bucket would be useful for

Farm operations.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1: The Farm needs a bucket for its tractor.

Recommendation 1: The Sheriff obtain a bucket for the tractor from surplus inventory of the federal or

state government.

29

Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 11

McKinleyville Sheriff’s Substation

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of Grand Jury Reports # 2005- JL- 11 shall be provided as follows:

• No response is required to Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 11.

The Grand Jury inspected the station on September 27, 2004. While it contains no holding facilities, it

does provide space for Sheriff’s Deputies. It also provides room for Sheriff’s Citizens on Patrol ( SCOP).

The building was funded by the community and built by students at McKinleyville High School building

trades classes; the conference room is available to community groups. The Grand Jury commends the

community for building this facility.

Grand Jury Report 2005- JL- 12

Hoopa Sheriff’s substation and holding facility

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 12 shall be provided as follows:

• The Sheriff shall respond to Finding 1 and Recommendation 1.

The Grand Jury inspected this facility on October 7, 2004. The Hoopa facility has two holding cells. The

Grand Jury notes that the Sheriff and the Humboldt County Department of General Services installed the

stainless steel toilet- sink units recommended by previous Grand Juries. There is no receptionist, secretary,

or clerk. A deputy transports arrestees directly to Humboldt County Correctional Facility ( HCCF) in

Eureka. Roundtrip transport requires three to four hours of deputy time.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1: When one deputy is transporting an arrestee to HCCF, the other deputy is left to cover the

whole area.

Recommendation 1: An officer be hired to answer telephone calls and transport arrestees to HCCF.

Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 13

Garberville Sheriff’s substation

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 13 shall be provided as follows:

• The Sheriff shall respond to Finding 1 and Recommendation 1

The Grand Jury inspected the Garberville Sheriff’s substation on October 21, 2004. The Grand Jury notes

that the deputy in charge has cleaned up the long- term storage area, disposed of miscellaneous items, and

organized the remainder as recommended by previous Grand Juries. Usually someone is available to

answer the telephone. Transporting arrestees to Eureka to the HCCF takes four to five hours roundtrip.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1: When one Deputy is transporting an arrestee to HCCF, the other is left to cover the entire

area.

30

Recommendation 1: An officer be hired to answer telephone calls and transport arrestees to HCCF.

Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 14

Sheriff’s Evidence Yard

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 14 shall be provided as follows:

• No responses are required for Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 14

The Sheriff’s Evidence Yard was inspected March 21, 2005. Items needed by the volunteer search- and-rescue

team are stored at the yard. Evidence is labeled or tagged. Confiscated materials are warehoused

until no longer needed in the justice system. Surplus materials are then sold at auction or on the Internet.

Garden pots and plant- growing materials are contributed to local school programs. Surplus and

abandoned clothing is donated to charitable programs.

Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 15

Sheriff’s Evidence Room

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 13 shall be provided as follows:

• The Sheriff shall respond to Finding 1 and Recommendation 1 and 2.

The Sheriff’s Evidence Room was inspected on March 21, 2005. It contains thousands of items of

evidence collected over many years, each piece of evidence then tagged and inventoried. Fingerprint

cards are filed in numerous cabinets. Items can be discarded only with the Court’s permission. Evidence

in murder cases must be retained indefinitely. There is also a computer to scan fingerprints and send

them to national databases, including the FBI’s.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1: In years past, the department had up to three full time sworn Deputy evidence specialists and a

clerk. Now the department is staffed by one part- time Property Technician, a full- time Evidence

Technician, and a part- time Property Assistant – none of whom is a sworn Deputy.

Recommendation 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff add staff when finances permit.

Recommendation 2: The Sheriff eliminate duplicates in the fingerprint file.

Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 16

Coroner’s Office

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 16 shall be provided as follows:

• No responses are required to Grand Jury Report # 2005- JL- 16

Coroner Frank Jager invited the Grand Jury to visit the Coroner’s facility on October 25, 2004. The

offices are efficiently run, clean, and well- organized. Autopsies which need the services of a forensic

pathologist are sent out of the county, as no forensic pathologist practices in Humboldt County. The

office receives money from Homeland Security for disaster supplies. The Coroner can provide estate

services for people who die intestate, whose executors cannot be located, or whose heirs request services.

31

These services provide $ 105,000 in additional revenue to the Coroners office, which also receives

$ 201,098 in state tax money and $ 158,436 in county funding. The total budget is $ 464,534. The Grand

Jury commends the Coroner’s office for its efficiency.

Grand Jury Report # 2005- LJ- 01

A Review of the Humboldt County Child Abuse Services Team

Executive Summary:

A child who may have been sexually molested or physically abused may be seen by the Child Abuse

Services Team ( CAST). Team members, who are from the District Attorney’s office, law enforcement,

and social service agencies, observe from behind one- way glass as a trained interviewer talks with the

child. Team members can tell the interviewer to ask particular questions through an ear microphone. The

child, whose answers are video- and audio- taped, sees only the interviewer in a bright room filled with

toys. Everyone agrees that CAST is valuable in increasing successful prosecution of child abusers,

reducing trauma to abused children, and helping support families. Money is available for CAST.

However, the program is faltering. Fewer cases are referred to CAST by law enforcement. The District

Attorney has diminished CAST’s effectiveness by failing to attend Governing Board meetings, failing to

send Deputy District Attorneys to child interviews, and reducing staff.

The Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney make CAST a priority by attending the Governing

Board meetings, appointing a Deputy District Attorney to the leadership position, and restoring staff

levels to ensure that a qualified Deputy District Attorney is present at all child interviews. The Grand

Jury also recommends that law enforcement agencies provide training in CAST procedures to new hires

with regular “ refreshers” to long- term employees.

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of the GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- LJ- 01 shall be provided as follows:

• The District Attorney shall respond to Findings 1, 2, and 3 and Recommendations 1a, 1b, 2, and 3

• The CAST Governing Board shall respond to Finding 1 and Recommendations 1a and 1b

• The Department of Health & Human Services shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 3

• Humboldt County Sheriff shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Arcata Police Department shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Arcata City Council shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Blue Lake Police Department shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Blue Lake City Council shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Eureka Police Department shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Eureka City Council shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Ferndale Police Department shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Ferndale City Council shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Fortuna Police Department shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Fortuna City Council shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Hoopa Tribal Police Department shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Hoopa Tribal Council shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Rio Dell Police Department shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Rio Dell City Council shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Trinidad Police Department shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

• Trinidad City Council shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 4

32

Report

CAST began in Humboldt County in 1997, and was recently re- accredited by the National Children’s

Alliance. CAST is a multi- disciplinary team consisting of 29 separate agencies involved in the

investigation and prosecution of offenders against children. Law enforcement agencies, the District

Attorney, the Department of Health & Human Services, Native American organizations, and community-based

organizations are partners in the CAST process. Written guidelines and by- laws are available from

CAST to explain the local team process and the roles that the various agencies play.

CAST has several purposes:

• For law enforcement agencies, CAST provides forensic interviews that may enable a complete

report to be forwarded to the District Attorney for possible prosecution.

• For the District Attorney, CAST delivers an audio- and videotaped interview of the child victim

by an expert in child forensic interviews, allowing more informed decisions to be made as to what

charges to file against the alleged perpetrator.

• For the Public Defender, the audio and videotaped interview may lead to an acceptance of a plea

bargain, once the alleged perpetrator realizes the weight of the evidence against him or her.

• For Mental Health and Child Welfare Services, CAST minimizes the trauma to child victims of

physical or sexual abuse by having the child undergo fewer interviews, and by conducting the

interviews in a child- friendly environment where the child can feel safe in disclosing what has

happened.

All CAST interviews are audio- and videotaped and are conducted by a Child Welfare Social Worker,

specially trained in forensic interviewing of child victims. Other team members - including a Deputy

District Attorney, a District Attorney Investigator, a representative from the law enforcement agency

involved in the investigation, a Mental Health clinician, and a victim’s advocate - may be present in an

adjacent room with a one- way mirror into the interview room. Ideally, each forensic interview would

include all of the team members listed above. If the evidence gained in the forensic interview supports the

allegation of abuse, the Deputy District Attorney assigned to CAST prosecutes the case with CAST team

support.

Law enforcement makes referrals to CAST, sometimes at the behest of child welfare agencies, medical

facilities, and other mandated reporters. Funding for CAST comes from the Department of Health &

Human Services ( DHHS) and is set at a maximum of $ 280,000 annually. This funding provides for two

Deputy District Attorneys, a District Attorney Investigator, and a Senior Legal Office Assistant as well as

overhead costs such as rent and supplies. DHHS also provides a social worker trained as a specialist in

child forensic interviewing and a half- time Mental Health clinician. In addition, the District Attorney's

Office receives a grant to partially fund a Deputy District Attorney to vertically prosecute child abuse

cases. Vertical prosecution means the same attorney follows the case from referral to prosecution and

sentencing.

Two strongly committed and experienced Deputy District Attorneys who were assigned to CAST have

left the District Attorney’s Office in the past year. Witnesses interviewed by the Grand Jury indicated the

loss of these attorneys negatively impacted the CAST program. Current vacancies include one Deputy

District Attorney position ( vacant since June 2004) and a Senior Legal Office Assistant ( vacant since

March 2005). Top administrators of DHHS said they are committed to CAST and do not anticipate any

changes in funding at this time. However, there is no contract or Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU)

for the funding which DHHS provides the District Attorney’s Office. With only one Deputy District

Attorney assigned to CAST at this time, it is very difficult for the Deputy District Attorney to be at all

CAST interviews and to follow each case using vertical prosecution. Often, other Deputy District

Attorneys have to fill in on child abuse cases with little time to prepare.

The Grand Jury conducted over 20 interviews relevant to CAST. Support for CAST and its mandate to

33

vigorously prosecute offenders is overwhelming among all individuals and agencies involved. The

law enforcement agencies said that CAST is one of the best programs they have seen and it has their

whole- hearted backing. Four law enforcement agencies stated that their new officers need more training

from the CAST child interview specialist. College of the Redwoods also offers law enforcement training

in child abuse in the police academy program. In the past, detectives or officers from law enforcement

agencies were specifically assigned to child abuse or molestation cases, a luxury not presently afforded in

these budget- crunch years. At this time, any law enforcement officer, trained or not, may have to respond

to reports of child abuse and molestation. An untrained officer may inadvertently make prosecution

difficult or impossible. Although the number of referrals to CAST has dropped during the past two years,

no specific reasons were given to account for this decline by the various law enforcement agencies.

Statistics from 2002- 2004 by witnesses revealed:

• CAST cases dropped from 98 in 2002 to 58 in 2004, a 40 percent drop.

• Prosecution of CAST cases declined from 2002 to 2004.

• Except in 2004, when both a Deputy District Attorney and a DA investigator were present during

the interviews, the number of cases in which prosecution resulted is significantly higher than

when only one representative from the DA’s office is present. This suggests that is it important

for both a prosecutor and an investigator from the DA’s office to participate in CAST interviews.

• Deputy District Attorney attendance at CAST interviews dropped precipitously from 85 percent

in 2002, to 46 percent in 2003, and to 25 percent in 2004.

During its recent compliance review of CAST, the National Alliance for Children recommended that a

leadership person be named to improve communication and to oversee all CAST operations and

decisions. At present, CAST has an Executive Board, a Governing Board, and an Advisory Board. The

District Attorney, who is a member of the Governing Board, has failed to regularly attend meetings as

documented by testimony, statistics, and meeting minutes. In the past, a Deputy District Attorney filled

the leadership position by virtue of his commitment to the program. His departure in July 2004 left a

leadership void detrimental to the effective operation of the program. The compliance review was

generally favorable, and Humboldt County’s CAST program was again certified and the $ 10,000 annual

grant was continued.

Findings and Recommendations:

Finding 1: There is a consensus within the CAST organization, augmented by a recommendation of the

National Children’s Alliance, that a leadership person is needed to coordinate and make decisions about

CAST with recommendations from the Executive, Governing, and Advisory Boards.

Recommendation 1a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Cast Boards create a leadership position

Recommendation 1b: The Grand Jury recommends that a Deputy District Attorney with experience in

and a commitment to CAST fill the leadership position.

Finding 2: Members of the CAST organization have identified a need for two Deputy District Attorneys

and a Senior Legal Office Assistant. Current funding provides for these positions and is incorporated in

the guidelines for CAST.

Recommendation 2: The Grand Jury recommends that two Deputy District Attorneys and a Senior

Legal Office Assistant be assigned or hired and that CAST cases be the priority caseload for the attorneys

assigned to CAST.

Finding 3: There is no Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) for funding or time – tracking between the

District Attorney’s Office and DHHS for CAST.

Recommendation 3: The Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney’s Office and DHHS arrive

at a MOU for funding CAST. This MOU must include a method of tracking of CAST cases so that the

DA’s Office can properly bill DHHS for the costs of staffing CAST. A simple time study format -

already a standard practice of DHHS - could provide this information.

34

Finding 4: Law Enforcement officials cited the need for continuing and timely training in forensic

interviewing of child abuse victims by the Child Forensic interview specialist assigned to CAST.

Furthermore, law enforcement agencies prefer to assign a trained and experienced officer to investigate

child abuse cases and participate in CAST.

Recommendation 4: The Grand Jury recommends that training occur at least yearly and more often as

needed for new officers, and that a trained and experienced officer from each law enforcement agency be

assigned to child abuse cases.

Commendation: The Grand Jury would like to commend all members of the team for their outstanding

service and support for all of our child victims. CAST has truly created a network of collaborating

agencies whose focus is on protecting children and preventing future harm. Participating agencies

include:

Arcata Police Dept. Karuk Tribe of California

Bear River Band of the Rhonerville Rancheria North Coast Rape Crisis Team

Big Lagoon Rancheria Rio Dell Police Dept.

Blue Lake Police Dept. Sexual Assault Response Team

Blue Lake Rancheria Trinidad Police Dept.

Court Appointed Special Advocates Trinidad Rancheria

Dept. of Health and Human Services Two Feathers Indian Child Welfare

Eureka Police Dept. Victim Witness Office

Ferndale Police Dept. Yurok Council

Fortuna Police Dept.

Hoopa Health Services

Hoopa Tribal Council

Hoopa Tribal Police Dept.

Humboldt County District Attorney

Humboldt County Probation Dept.

Humboldt County Sheriff’s Dept.

HSU Police Dept.

Grand Jury Report # 2005- LJ- 02

An Investigation of the District Attorney Criminal Division

Executive Summary

The Grand Jury investigation of the District Attorney’s Criminal Division was prompted by citizen

complaints and the fact that there had been no formal Grand Jury review of any Division of the DA’s

office in ten years. 3

The past two- and- a- half years have been stressful for the DA’s office. Staff has had to adjust to a newly-elected

DA with no experience as a prosecuting attorney, who was not accustomed to administering a

complex department with many employees, and whose management style is radically different from that

of the previous DA. The department experienced severe budget cuts, was decimated by a disastrously

high rate of staff turnover, and was seriously disrupted by a recall election. In spite of all this, the Grand

Jury found the staff to be very hard- working and dedicated to the service they perform for the community.

However, the informed, well- organized, diligent leadership essential during difficult times is missing.

Operations are neither as efficient nor as effective as they must be.

Processing and prosecuting thousands of cases each year requires high- level legal skills including years of

courtroom experience. The process generates an immense volume of paperwork. The work of the 13

prosecutors, including the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney, is supported by seven

3 It is to be noted that Grand Juror Stephanie Head voluntarily recused herself from any direct participation in the

final consideration of this report because of a perceived conflict of interest.

35

investigators, a business manager, and 15 legal/ clerical staff, the bare minimum necessary to carry on

the work.

The Grand Jury found a shortage of staff creates backlogs in processing as well as major scheduling

problems in providing prosecutors to cover trials and other courtroom appearances. A severe drop in the

number of experienced, senior- level Deputy District Attorneys has left the office short of qualified people

to handle the charging of cases and to cover special grant- funded assignments as well as limiting vertical

prosecution. Experienced replacements for vacant Deputy District Attorney positions are extremely

difficult to attract. The “ at will” status increases the difficulty of recruitment. The District Attorney has

shown a willingness to eliminate positions held by experienced Deputy District Attorneys and to replace

them with newly graduated attorneys, and he has fired a long- term experienced prosecutor with no

comparable replacement available.

The Grand Jury also found that weak leadership and poor managerial practices have led to problems in

communication within the office itself, and, more seriously, with law enforcement agencies, the Board of

Supervisors, and the general public. The District Attorney has failed to educate himself thoroughly in

office operations and procedures, and does not employ many common, useful managerial tools: he does

not meet regularly with the supervisors who oversee his staff; he does not meet regularly with Deputy

District Attorneys; he does not meet regularly with law enforcement agencies; he does not provide “ at

will” employees with formal performance evaluations; he has no policy and procedures manual for the

office; he has no written training documents for new hires. Finally, the Grand Jury found that Penal Code

Sections 1192.6 and 1192.7 require that when plea bargains are negotiated by prosecutors of serious

felonies, the reasons for the plea bargains must be contained in the record. The Grand Jury found that

these reasons were not accessible in court minutes. Although not legally required to be placed in the

court minutes, the Grand Jury finds that to make this information readily available to the public and

media, it would be beneficial to place the reasons for the plea bargain in the court minutes.

The Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney:

• hire more experienced prosecutors and clerical staff

• expand and improve communications with law enforcement

• develop and implement written policy and training manuals on handling communication with the

public, especially victims of crime

• meet regularly with department heads

• develop a procedures and policy manual for the division

• improve the office answering system for off- hour calls

• provide written performance evaluations for “ at will” employees

• refrain from firing long- term experienced prosecutors – or anyone – except for cause, unless a

comparable replacement has been identified and retained

• reclassify “ at will” prosecutors to provide them with more job security

• require prosecutors to request that the reasons for plea bargains be reflected in the court minutes of

cases

Who Shall Respond:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and

Recommendations of the GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005- LJ- 02 shall be provided as follows:

• The District Attorney shall respond to Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and

Recommendations 1a, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9a, and 10

• The Board of Supervisors shall respond to Findings 1 and 9 and Recommendations 1b, 1d, and

9b.

Report

Since no formal review of the District Attorney Criminal Division has been conducted by a Grand Jury

36

since 1995, the Grand Jury undertook an investigation of the entire Criminal Division. The Grand Jury

also looked into a number of complaints from citizens and agencies concerning the DA’s office. During

the investigation Jurors listened to nearly forty hours of testimony, interviewed more than two dozen

witnesses, and reviewed many documents. The Grand Jury interviewed the District Attorney,

supervisors, clerical support staff, investigators, and prosecutors as well as complainants, law

enforcement personnel, and staff of other divisions that report to the DA.

As of May 3, 2005, the staff of the Criminal Division included the District Attorney ( DA), the Assistant

District Attorney ( ADA), and 11 Deputy District Attorneys ( Deputy DAs) who prosecute the majority of

the cases. In addition to prosecutors, the office includes a Business Manager, seven Investigators

including the Chief, two Clerical Supervisors, and a variety of 15 additional support staff. Among the 15

are two who log in police reports, a person who issues subpoenas, another who provides technical

support, and one who prepares and enters complaints into the computer.

Process from Police Report to Court

As a group of lay people, the Grand Jury had much to learn about the workings of the criminal justice

system in order to proceed intelligently with the investigation. The Grand Jury began by touring the

office. The primary job performed by the DA’s office is very complex. The process of moving a case

from an initial police report to a trial or some other kind of resolution involves many decisions and reams

of paperwork. The thousands of police reports received each year are sorted by type ( felony or

misdemeanor) and logged into the computer. At every step, priority must be given to “ in custody” reports

because a person who has been arrested can be held for only 48 hours maximum before being taken

before a judge. Failure to meet this deadline could result in the release of a dangerous felon.

Once reports have been logged, they are distributed to various Deputy DAs who review and evaluate each

one to decide if it contains enough information and admissible evidence to warrant filing a criminal

complaint. Many police reports don’t get beyond this point and are sent to the desk where rejections are

logged. When a charge is filed, the case is sent to a legal office assistant who prepares the legal

complaint and logs it into the computer. Staff must deliver the complaint to the Court before the strict

11: 00 a. m. deadline, which can effectively shorten the 48- hour in- custody time limit.

The job of charging – making the filing decision – is a critical one, requiring the ability to weigh many

variables and recognize cases which have a realistic chance of resulting in a guilty plea or conviction.

Charging requires both expert knowledge of the law and years of courtroom experience. A case that is

filed and later dismissed often represents a waste of money and staff time, both of which are in short

supply.

Some cases are sent for charging to particular deputies who specialize in handling certain crimes such as

child abuse, green dope ( marijuana), and white dope ( methamphetamine or cocaine). These special

assignments are usually at least partially funded by grants and are intended to provide a single expert

prosecutor to handle such cases from filing of charges on to final resolution. This is called vertical

prosecution and is the most effective and efficient way to handle a case. It avoids duplication of effort

and provides continuity of prosecution by a single Deputy DA who knows the background of the case,

has a clear idea of what would be an appropriate disposition, and is able to provide consistent and

responsive services to victims. Unfortunately this ideal arrangement often is not possible in a small,

understaffed department like Humboldt’s.

From January 1, 2003, until May 10, 2005, general felonies were charged by the Chief Charging Deputy,

a title to which a great deal of responsibility was attached but no extra compensation. On May 10, 2005,

the Chief Charging Deputy was promoted to Assistant District Attorney, with the associated raise in

salary. His title changed but his duties, including those described later in this report, remain the same.

He must deal with a huge volume of reports covering a wide range of offenses. Misdemeanors are

generally routed to the misdemeanor deputies, but because of the shortage of experienced misdemeanor

prosecutors, the Chief Charging Deputy is also responsible for charging a considerable portion of the

37

misdemeanor cases.

When a felony complaint is filed, a case evaluation is completed by the Deputy DA who charged the case.

The evaluation includes a summary of the case, the criminal history of the defendant, a non- binding

recommendation for disposition of the case, and a subpoena roster for the preliminary hearing. This case

evaluation then accompanies the file; a copy is also sent to the DA for review and comment.

The first court appearance of the defendant is the arraignment, where he or she hears the charges and has

the opportunity to obtain counsel. In a felony case, dates will be set for a felony intervention hearing and

a preliminary hearing. At the intervention hearing, the Judge, the Prosecutor, and the Defense Attorney

meet to try to resolve the case. This is essentially a plea- bargaining session. If the intervention hearing

does not settle the matter, it then goes on to the preliminary hearing at which evidence is actually

presented before a judge. If the Judge concludes there is enough evidence, the defendant is bound over

for trial, technically “ held to answer.” At the preliminary hearing, the Judge can also reduce the charge or

completely dismiss the case.

If the defendant is held to answer, a second arraignment is set and the DA’s office has a limited amount of

time to file additional paperwork. At this time, new charges may be added as a result of evidence

presented at the preliminary hearing. Following the second arraignment, a pre- trial conference and a trial

confirmation hearing are scheduled. Both are opportunities to settle without going to trial. If after all of

this there has been no resolution, the case is set for trial. The work involved in a trial requires the

Prosecutor to generate volumes of paperwork and to make many more appearances in court than just

those for the trial itself. In a case that is not handled vertically, the Prosecutor to whom the case is

assigned often has very little time to become familiar with the case and prepare to present it.

If the defendant is found guilty at the trial, or has pled guilty at some earlier stage, the case is sent to the

Probation Department. After considering the defendant’s prior criminal history, listening to input by

victims, and weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, the Probation Department issues a report and

recommendation for sentencing. A sentencing hearing is held before a judge where both prosecution and

defense present arguments for an appropriate sentence. Victims also have a right to appear at this

hearing. The Judge takes all this into consideration and makes the final decision as to the sentence. By

the time the initial police report has progressed to this point, the process has amassed piles of paperwork

and required many appearances by prosecutors.

One of the greatest challenges faced by the office is scheduling. Under the current DA, this daunting task

had been handled by the Chief Charging Deputy until May 10, 2005, when his title was changed to

Assistant District Attorney. Since his promotion to Assistant DA, his duties remain the same. Acting as

“ Chief of Staff,” he handles many administrative duties: overseeing the production and flow of legal

paperwork, representing the DA’s office at numerous meetings, organizing and producing multiple

schedules, and assigning cases to prosecutors. His job is greatly complicated by the way the Humboldt

County Superior Court system is organized. Trials are held in the morning and prosecutors must be

scheduled to cover all of them. Cases are randomly assigned to courtrooms. Therefore, a prosecutor may

have cases scheduled simultaneously in different courtrooms. In such situations, vertical prosecution is

not possible. This requires a second prosecutor to be appointed on short notice. The unpredictability of

the length of trials and the limited number of felony prosecutors are constant scheduling problems.

Each week, the Chief Charging Deputy posts a jury trial schedule, a list assigning Deputy DAs to

preliminary hearings, and a schedule for calendars which the Courts handle in the afternoons. Calendars

include procedural and non- evidentiary matters such as hearings on motions, setting dates, deciding bail,

and otherwise managing cases. There are five departments or courtrooms as well as juvenile court. Each

must be covered by prosecutors five afternoons a week. Every week, each department hears two days

each of felony and misdemeanor calendars and a miscellaneous calendar on Friday. Two prosecutors, one

felony and one misdemeanor, are usually assigned to alternate days in each courtroom, with Fridays

generally being covered by the felony prosecutor. This system is complicated by the fact that attorneys

38

are sometimes out of the office for such things as mandatory continuing legal education, sickness,

compensatory time, or vacation. For a senior- level Deputy DA, vacation and compensatory time alone

can add up to six weeks a year away from the office, or as much as ten weeks when vacation time has

been carried over from a prior year. The Department does not have enough Deputy DAs to cover all the

courtrooms without constant disruptive juggling of staff.

Matters concerning dozens of different cases may be dealt with during a single afternoon calendar session

in any courtroom. The file for each case needs to be on hand for the prosecutor to refer to and to record

what actions are taken. The files scheduled for action in each courtroom are taken from their filing

cabinets upstairs and packed into a large rectangular plastic tub or “ bucket” to be transported to the

appropriate courtroom. The packing and unpacking of these buckets and re- filing of all the cases is a

huge job for the clerical staff.

Lack of Leadership and Managerial Skill

Rather than remaining behind the scenes, focusing mainly on administrative duties as did his predecessor,

the current DA performs the more prominent role of a trial prosecutor. For the most part he chooses what

cases he will handle. He prefers to prosecute murder cases but, at the request of the Chief Charging

Deputy he takes on other kinds of cases when scheduling difficulties demand it. The DA does not usually

assist with charging, but he receives copies of the felony case evaluations and writes comments about

how he wishes them to be handled.

The staff reports that the DA is pleasant and accessible. The DA frequently stops by their desks to ask

how things are going. During its initial tour, the Grand Jury saw an office buried in mounds of file

folders but humming with energy and purposeful activity. However, it appears to the Grand Jury from the

testimony of various witnesses and from the examination of the office that the DA lacks the global

perspective needed to keep the department operating efficiently. Although department staff members

consistently speak of themselves as a team, the team is not effectively coached. Implicit in all evidence

gathered by the Grand Jury – including interviews with the DA - is the unfortunate truth that the DA

exhibits a limited understanding of how things are done in the department. As one staff member

expressed it, “ The DA does not fully understand the functionality of many of the things we do here.”

Moreover, from witness testimony and our own examination of the office, the Grand Jury finds the DA

fails to foresee the ways that a problem or even a subtle change in one part of the office can have

ramifications for other parts, for the department as a whole, and for its interactions with other agencies

and the public.

Poor Communication Within the Department

The DA does not hold regular meetings with his office supervisors at which he could acquaint himself

with problems as they arise and help provide a coordinated approach to finding solutions. Instead, each

section of the office is – to some extent – unaware or misinformed about the workings of other sections.

Staff members report that when problems arise they usually devise solutions on their own. Problems are

dealt with on an ad hoc basis, and staff does not receive or seem to expect direction from the DA, even on

policy decisions.

Lacking guidance from the DA, staff members must depend on themselves. There is no procedure and

policy manual to which staff can refer for guidance. DAs’ offices in other counties in California have

manuals that could serve as a model for such a document.

Poor Communication With Law Enforcement

One area of difficulty faced by the office is in trying to meet the needs and expectations of agencies and

individuals who interact with the DA’s office. Our investigation shows that among law enforcement and

victims of crimes, there is frequently frustration with delays caused by backlogs at the logging desk. The

problem is especially severe at the misdemeanor desk; some cases sit for as long as six months before

moving on to be charged. Sheer volume causes delays in charging as well, even though the Deputy DAs

who handle charging put in many unpaid overtime hours. Their Memorandum of Understanding does

39

provide token payment in the form of 80 hours a year of compensatory time off in lieu of overtime

pay. For people who routinely work ten hours or more of overtime in each week, 80 hours is scant

compensation.

Although the causes of delays are often understandable, it is important that law enforcement receive

prompt feedback on cases that have been rejected so further action may be taken. Each week

representatives of law enforcement agencies meet with the Chief Investigator and Clerical Supervisor. At

this meeting, the agencies that attend are informed about felony reports that have been rejected – and

why. Some of