TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

GENERAL INFORMATION

Photograph of Grand Jury

The Grand Jury Oath

Foreman’s Letter to Judge GI- 1

Grand Jury Officers GI- 3

Organizational Chart GI- 5

Superior Court GI- 7

Year in Review GI- 9

ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT COMMITTEE

Photograph of Committee

Mission Statement

Kern County Return to Work Program AA- 1

Parks and Recreation Department AA- 5

CITIES AND SERVICES COMMITTEE

Photograph of Committee

Mission Statement

City of Arvin CS- 1

City of Bakersfield CS- 5

City of California City CS- 7

City of Delano CS- 9

City of Maricopa CS- 11

City of McFarland CS- 13

City of Ridgecrest CS- 15

City of Shafter CS- 17

City of Taft CS- 19

City of Tehachapi CS- 21

City of Wasco CS- 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTINUITY AND TRACKING COMMITTEE

Photograph of Committee

Mission Statement

Continuity and Tracking Review CT- 1

EDIT AND FINAL REPORT

Photograph of Committee

Mission Statement

Final Report Members EF- 1

Members of the Grand Jury Signatures EF- 3

HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Photograph of Committee

Mission Statement

A. Miriam Jamison Children’s Center HE- 1

Kern County Emergency Medical Services HE- 7

Response HE- 9

Response HE- 11

Kern County Law Library HE- 13

Kern County School Districts and School Report HE- 15

Kern County School Districts Trustees’ Compensation HE- 17

Southern Kern Unified School District HE- 21

Response HE- 25

Teen Courts HE- 35

Use of Steroids in the Schools HE- 37

Response HE- 41

LAW AND JUSTICE

Photograph of Committee

Mission Statement

Bear Valley Springs Police Department LJ- 1

Response LJ- 5

Camp Erwin Owen LJ- 9

Kern County Sheriff’s Department – Coroner Division LJ- 13

Response LJ- 17

Kern County Sheriff Kern Valley Substation LJ- 19

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LAW AND JUSTICE

Kern County Sheriff’s Property Room LJ- 21

Response LJ- 25

Response LJ- 29

Mesa Verde Community Correctional Facility LJ- 31

North Kern State Prison LJ- 33

Taft Correctional Institution LJ- 35

PUBLIC RELATIONS AND RECRUITING

Photograph of Committee

Mission Statement

Special Awards List PR- 1

Special Certificates List PR- 5

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Photograph of Committee

Mission Statement

Arsenic in Drinking Water SD- 1

Kern River Valley Cemetery Special District SD- 5

Lamont Public Utility District SD- 7

Response SD- 11

Mountain Meadow Community Service District SD- 13

North Edwards Water District SD- 15

Special Districts Survey SD- 17

West Side Recreation and Parks District SD- 23

AD HOC

Photograph of Committee

Mission Statement

Kern County Children and Families Commission AH- 1

COUNTY DIRECTORY

List of County Departments CD- 1

List of Superior Courts CD- 3

KERN COUNTY

GRAND JURY

2001 - 2002

GRAND JUROR’S OATH

THE FOLLOWING OATH IS ADMINISTERED TO

GRAND JUROR’S

“ I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR ( AFFIRM) THAT I WILL

SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED

STATES AND OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND

ALL LAWS MADE PURSUANT TO AND IN

COMFORMITY THEREWITH, WILL DILIGENTLY

INQUIRE INTO, AND TRUE PRESENTMENT MAKE,

OF ALL PUBLIC OFFENSES AGAINST THE PEOPLE

OF THIS STATE, COMMITTED OR TRIABLE WITHIN

THIS COUNTY, OF WHICH THE GRAND JURY

SHALL HAVE OR CAN OBTAIN LEGAL EVIDENCE.

FURTHER, I WILL NOT DISCLOSE ANY EVIDENCE

BROUGHT BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, NOR

ANYTHING WHICH I OR ANY OTHER GRAND

JUROR MAY SAY, NOR THE MANNER IN WHICH I

OR ANY OTHER GRAND JUROR MAY HAVE VOTED

ON ANY MATTER BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. I

WILL KEEP THE CHARGE THAT WILL BE GIVEN TO

ME BY THE COURT.”

( SECTION 911, PENAL CODE, AMENDED JUNE 2, 1983)

GRAND JURY OFFICERS

Richard L. Rutherford

FOREMAN

Evelyn A. Baxter

FOREWOMAN PRO TEM

Elaine S. Hiatt

SECRETARY

Glen A. Jackson

SGT.- AT- ARMS

Raymond A. Rowland

PARLIAMENTARIAN

Anthony W. Noce

ASST. SGT.- AT- ARMS

2001- 2002 GRAND JURY

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

FO Foreman

FOREMAN

Richard L. Rutherford

FOREWOMAN PRO TEM

Evelyn A. Baxter

SERGEANT- AT- ARMS

Glen A. Jackson

ASSISTANT SERGEANT- AT- ARMS

Anthony W. Noce

RECORDING SECRETARY

Elaine S. Hiatt

PARLIAMENTARIAN

Raymond A. Rowland

HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL

SERVICES

Anthony W. Noce - Chairman

ADMINISTRATION & AUDIT COMMITTEE

Thomas H. Hardy - Chairman

LAW & JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Frank K. Johnson - Chairman

CITIES & SERVICES COMMITTEE

Edwardo O. Ahumada - Chairman

EDIT/ FINAL REPORT COMMITTEE

Elaine S. Hiatt - Chairwoman

CONTINUITY & TRACKING COMMITTEE

Raymond A. Rowland - Chairman

SPECIAL DISTRICTS COMMITTEE

Charles C. Wright - Chairman

PUBLIC RELATIONS & RECRUITING

COMMITTEE

Barbara M. Sabovich - Chairwoman

AD HOC COMMITTEE

Evelyn A. Baxter - Chairwoman

GI- 5

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

County of Kern

ARTHUR E. WALLACE

Presiding Judge

Superior Court of California

County of Kern

TERRY McNALLY

Court Executive Officer

KAY BEAVERS

Judicial Secretary

to Presiding Judge

DEANNA P. MAXWELL

Sr. Secretary / Grand Jury

The 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Year In Review

It takes a while for a new Grand Jury to become a cohesive unit and this Grand Jury was

no exception. The Grand Jury is made up of nineteen people who, for the most part, are

strangers to one another, primarily senior citizens who live in different parts of the

county, and have worked in many diverse fields. This year’s appointees brought many

talents to the Grand Jury from the fields of education, finance, business, human services,

public relations, law enforcement, and private enterprise.

The 2001- 2002 Grand Jury would like to thank and commend the Superior Court for the

addition of a full time secretary. This has helped immeasurably in carrying out the work

of this year and has allowed the Jurors to devote much more of their time to the tasks of

investigating and report writing.

By September, 2001, the Grand Jury was immersed in committee work and like all

Americans was stunned by the tragedy of September 11th. However, just as it

strengthened the resolve of our fellow Americans, so were we. As citizens of our County

and our Country we were determined to do our part in making a difference, if at all

possible, in bringing to light some of the problems facing our particular part of the world.

During our year of service we realized how dependent our system of government is on

not only our elected and appointed officials, but also those who volunteer. There are

those who sit on boards of tax supported special districts, school boards, commissions,

and other agencies. In some cases these dedicated people receive little or no pay and very

little recognition, but without them our government could not function.

As Grand Jury members we are charged with making sure that all of these officials are

carrying out the duties of their offices and that the citizens can be assured that their tax

dollars are being properly spent. Unfortunately, many of these people are not made

aware of their duties, obligations, and responsibilities. It would seem that in too many

cases the lack of proper training and education on policy and procedures has led to

disaster. We have seen the results of bad city government, poor decisions by school

boards, lack of oversight regarding special districts, and a general disregard for the well

being of the entity which they serve. Failures that the Grand Jury has observed are:

• Failure to follow adopted policy and keep proper records as needed

• Failure to understand and observe the provisions of the Brown Act

• Too much delegation of authority over the expenditure of public funds with

insufficient controls by the board

• Failure to allow proper public participation at board meetings

• Failure of board members to avail themselves of proper training in their duties and

responsibilities

• Failure of boards to insist on proper training of all board members

• Failure to conduct meetings in proper form following “ Robert’s Rules of Order”

• Failure to use the services of attorneys at meetings

This is not to say that we are indicting all districts, all school boards, all commissions,

and all agencies. Quite the contrary! We were gratified to find that the large majority of

our elected and non- elected officials are hard working and truly dedicated to doing their

very best. Through many hours of meetings, discussions, debates, inquiries,

investigations, indictments, and hearings, we came together and achieved as a group what

none of us could do as an individual. Each of the following Final Reports is the result of

the work of this Grand Jury and it is our wish that you read them carefully. We tried to

always keep in mind that our duty was to put the best interests of the County of Kern and

all of its citizens first. Thank you for the opportunity to do so.

ELAINE S. HIATT, Editor

2001- 2002 Grand Jury

Members of the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury

FINAL REPORTS ISSUED___ 34______

CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS ANSWERED____ 88______

ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT

COMMITTEE

THOMAS H. HARDY

Chairman

EVELYN A. BAXTER

ELAINE S. HIATT

MISSION STATEMENT

ADMINISTRATION & AUDIT COMMITTEE

The Administration and Audit Committee is responsible for reviewing and overseeing

County Departments in their management, performance, and execution of fiscal

responsibilities to the County of Kern taxpayer. The Committee investigates complaints

from citizens who allege managerial or fiscal irresponsibility. Also, an extensive amount

of time was spent assisting other Grand Jury Committees with managerial and fiscal

matters.

The following pages reflect many hours of interviews, reading, discussion, researching,

and writings to compile as accurate a view as possible of the county functions that the

Committee addressed. The reports cannot capture all of the peripheral sources and effort

that individuals made to help the Committee understand and appreciate the “ whole

picture” of local government and where each department contributes to the success of the

county as a whole. While other county operations could have also been high- lighted in

these reports, time did not permit the kind of in- depth review and analysis that seems

necessary in order to present a balanced view of their contributions.

The Committee’s mission has been to improve working conditions, financial

accountability, and better management for the benefit and gain of the county, its

employees, and the taxpayers.

KERN COUNTY RETURN TO WORK PROGRAM

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

The Administration & Audit Committee of the 2001- 2002 Kern County Grand Jury

initiated an investigation based on a citizen complaint. That investigation was pursuant

to Penal Code Sections 925 and 933 and was conducted through interviews with various

staff from County Counsel, Personnel Department, Kern County Employees Retirement

Association ( KCERA), Parks and Recreation Department, and Roads Department. The

committee conducted a review of the Kern County Administrative Procedures Manual,

Disability Retirement Law of 1937, along with other applicable laws and regulations.

BACKGROUND:

In November, 1995, the Kern County Administrative Procedures Manual was modified to

establish a Return to Work Policy tied to Workers Compensation. It established specific

responsibility and reporting requirements relating to Temporary Limited Duty Program

and Modified Work Program/ Alternate Work Program where an employee who sustained

a work related injury is placed back into the work flow in a timely manner. The policy

provides employees who have suffered occupational injuries, which temporarily limit

their ability to perform normal job duties, with temporary limited duty assignments

within the department or another department. The Policy also provides reasonable

accommodation to employees who are permanently incapacitated for the performance of

their job duties ( whether or not the disability is job related), with modified or available

alternate work which is within their medical restrictions and for which they are qualified.

If not qualified, vocational training is also available.

Prior to 1995, the only Return to Work Policy addressed was in the County Employees

Retirement Law of 1937, which addressed the compensation for employees who are

established as being a Qualified Injured Worker ( QIW) determined by the KCERA

Board. The QIW can receive full disability retirement and augmentation of any salary

differences when the worker accepts another position with the county at lower pay.

Currently there are eleven individuals who are receiving augmented salaries.

An employee may decline an offer of alternate/ modified work assignment and take full

disability. However, California law has a provision that the county would not provide

vocational rehabilitation.

FINDINGS:

The cost for worker disability payments was $ 12,068,000 for calendar year 2001. This

cost continues to climb, however, the percent of increase has decreased in recent years.

The Return to Work Program is very fragmented.

The County of Kern Return to Work Policy excludes employees with non- work related

injuries from participation in a temporary limited duty program.

Personnel Action Committee ( PAC) lacks sufficient authority to administer a Return to

Work Program.

Departments perceive that the process to replace injured workers is cumbersome and time

consuming.

Employees perceive favoritism plays a role in where alternate work is offered by the

department.

Employee is not sufficiently involved in the process.

Personnel Action Committee, chaired by Risk Management, requires medical evidence

that a county employee’s injury is permanent and stationary to be considered QIW and

eligible for assistance. However, the QIW, in order to receive any augmented salary

differences, must first make application and be granted Disability Retirement by the

KCERA Board. The Board also requires independent medical evidence that the injury is

permanent and stationary.

Alternate Work Eligibility List ( Civil Service Rule 504), is not clear and has not been

universally accepted. As an example there is no priority placement of QIW over other

candidates for a county position addressed.

COMMENTS:

All individuals interviewed agree that county employees are great assets to the county

and should be protected. They are 100% behind the “ Return to Work” program

philosophy, however, some find it very cumbersome to meet their respective mission

requirements. The 2001- 2002 Kern County Grand Jury feel that updating the existing

policy to clarify the County’s position by giving more authority and responsibility to the

PAC would enhance the efficiency of the County of Kern manpower resources.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Include employees with non- work related injuries in the temporary limited duty program.

Adopt the Integrated Disability and Absence Management Pilot Program by

incorporating it within the Return to Work Policy.

A Return to Work Coordinator should be established in writing by the department heads.

Authorization will be on file in Risk Management and displayed within the respective

departments. The designated individual would work closely with the employee and Risk

Management until resolution is obtained. This written authorization will increase

opportunities for injured employee input/ involvement/ agreement with proposed options

for continued employment within the county.

Include a member on the PAC committee who can act for the KCERA Board, which

would bring continuity to the process, saving county time and funds.

Authorize PAC to determine and administer a placement plan for permanently injured

employees applicable to both modified and alternate work and provide for a training

period ( if necessary) to allow receiving department to determine employee’s competence

in the new position. This will provide an opportunity for an employee to improve

original placement during the year.

In conjunction with coordinating Civil Service Rules, clarify the use and purpose of

Alternate Work Eligibility lists for permanently disabled employees qualified to perform

other jobs for the County and establish priority of those lists.

RESPONSE REQUIRED:

WITHIN 90 DAYS TO

PRESIDING JUDGE

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE

BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

The Administration & Audit Committee of the 2001- 2002 Kern County Grand Jury

initiated an investigation of Kern County Public Buildings, which are within the Parks

and Recreation Department. These buildings include Veterans, Senior Centers,

Community Buildings, and Recreation Buildings. The Committee received written

complaints; an investigation was initiated pursuant to Penal Code Sections 925 and 933.

BACKGROUND:

Effective July 1, 1952, the Kern County Recreation and Cultural Commission was

consolidated with the Kern County Parks Department; this established the Kern County

Parks and Recreation Department. At that time, there were 24 local parks, 2 golf courses,

and 6 general parks maintained by a staff of 64 permanent employees. Currently, the

Department administers 40 neighborhood parks, 8 regional parks, and performs landscape

maintenance at 76 county buildings. Additionally, it administers the use of 26 public

buildings and 3 county golf courses.

The Kern County Public Buildings were transferred to the Parks and Recreation

Department from General Services in 1993. The General Services Department at the

time of the transfer had a staff of 32 permanent and extra- help building services workers,

and 3 supervision building services workers. Parks and Recreation Department operated

the same facilities with a staffing of 19 permanent and extra help building service

workers and did not have a supervision building services worker until 3 years later.

FINDINGS:

There is no county policy regarding nepotism. However, in the Public Buildings Section

there is a supervisor who has direct supervision over family members.

Full time employees have worked scheduled qualifying hours for shift differential pay but

were not compensated. The department stated this would be corrected in the future by

having extra help work these hours, thereby avoiding shift differential pay.

Employee time cards were changed without being initialed by authorizing supervisor’s

approval.

All employee performance evaluations were not discussed in person when an employee is

located off site. Travel cost and supervisor’s time have been a deterrent to all

performance evaluations being conducted in person.

COMMENTS:

The findings indicate that the culture of the Public Buildings Section is affecting line staff

employees. The Grand Jury is of the opinion that county employees are a great asset to

the county. They should be properly recognized.

Since the committee’s review the following procedures have been initiated:

  All time card changes are to be initialed by approving authority.

  All employee performance evaluations are to be in person.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Public Buildings Section should avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest by not

having supervisory responsibilities over family members. Civil Service Code, Chapter

2.02, “ Conflict of Interest”, states in part that “… an officer or employee has a ‘ financial

interest’ in a decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material

financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the officer or

employee or a member of his immediate family….”

Full time employees who are scheduled to work shift differential hours should be

compensated for that time. Schedules should not be prepared where shift differential pay

is avoided at the expense of the public.

RESPONSE REQUIRED:

WITHIN 90 DAYS

PRESIDING JUDGE

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE

BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

CITIES AND SERVICES

COMMITTEE

EDWARDO O. AHUMADA

Chairman

PATRICIA L. DUFFEL

GLEN A. JACKSON

MISSION STATEMENT

CITIES AND SERVICES COMMITTEE

The Cities and Services Committee has the responsibility to oversee the incorporated

cities within Kern County as required by Penal Code 925. a. The Committee may

examine the books and records of any incorporated city located in the county.

The Committee may investigate and report on the operations, departments, accounts, and

records of the officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing

the duties of any incorporated city. If need be, the Committee will make constructive

recommendations regarding each visit and work with the cities on how to better reach

these objectives.

The eleven incorporated cities visited this year were:

Arvin Ridgecrest

Bakersfield Shafter

California City Taft

Delano Tehachapi

Maricopa Wasco

McFarland

The Committee’s goal was accomplished and reports are submitted for all of these cities.

CITY OF ARVIN

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

The annual visitation of the Cities and Services Committee of the 2001- 2002 Kern

County Grand Jury pursuant to Penal Code section 925. a was made in the fall of 2001.

HISTORY:

The city was established in 1910 and incorporated in 1960. Diverse products are grown

in the Arvin area such as, potatoes, deciduous fruit, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beets, and more.

Arvin is still one of the most cultivated crop areas in Kern County. Arvin’s population is

approximately 11,847 with 96% of the people being of Hispanic origin.

FINDINGS:

Arvin has had political unrest and controversy for a number of years. Unfortunately, this

is still the case and it is escalating. Despite that, Arvin is still a very viable city.

The city has senior housing, a good transportation system with two new vehicles being

delivered soon, and affordable housing continues to be built. Arvin is actively recruiting

business development. A new Adobe Plaza Complex has just been completed and will

attract new business to the area. Arvin has low revenue and more tax dollars are very

much needed. Until that time they continue to be stymied for more revenue dollars. A

number of buildings along Main Street are empty and this reflects in the fiscal budget as a

reduction in sales tax. Redevelopment of this area needs to be undertaken.

The Police Department has recently hired a new Police Chief who is actively pursuing

better relationships between law enforcement and the youth of the city. Because of his

efforts, the youth of the city are now able to trust and communicate more with the police

presence in town. The County of Kern furnishes fire protection.

An old migrant labor camp is no longer being used and will possibly be converted and

used as a drug rehabilitation center or other needed use.

Arvin appears to be a typical sleepy little agricultural town, but this town has many

unspoken challenges and undercurrents. Work on the inner circle of council and

managerial problems needs to be actively pursued in order for the city to come together

as a united unit. Micro managing of the city staff by the Mayor and two councilpersons

needs to be curtailed. Threats have been made against employees of the city and people

working for the city as contractors as well as ordinary citizens.

The schools appear to be improving and they even received a reward from the state for

one of the elementary schools for improving SAT scores. There is a very good program

at the high school that teaches trade skills. This is much needed for many of these high

school students to advance in the present world system.

The wastewater treatment plant has been improved and can handle twice as much waste

as before.

Since the original visit of the Committee, controversy abounds in the community.

Accusations between staff and elected officials have intensified. The City Manager has

resigned and the City Attorney left. The current Chief of Police has decided not to seek a

renewal of his contract citing duress ( he has since been put on administrative leave and

an interim Police Chief is already in place) and possibly the city clerk will be removed.

The City Manager handled money matters for the city, a job that should be handled by a

Finance Director. The Mayor and the City Council have appointed one individual from

Southern California to serve as City Manager/ City Attorney. One councilperson has been

indicted for alleged embezzlement for misappropriating tobacco money used for funding

a preschool. Allegations that the Mayor started using an unauthorized cell phone have

been made. Since these allegations have been made public, the Mayor insists he pays all

personal calls with a personal check. The Mayor now charges the Police Chief with

destroying documents pertaining to cell phone use. The Police Chief states that this was

standard procedure when he was hired because many of these phone numbers need to be

kept confidential. These actions and many more have prompted some citizens to initiate

a recall against the Mayor. A special election will soon be held in this matter.

Obviously, we have not heard the end of this controversy and it behooves us as citizen’s

of this county to pay close attention to the outcome.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Cities and Services Committee strongly recommends that the council and managerial

problems be resolved very soon for the overall good of the city and its occupants. More

commercial enterprise is needed for the city to increase Arvin’s tax base and sales tax. A

city united is more apt to attract tax dollars to enhance that economy.

Overall, continual training regarding the Brown Act for City Management, City Council,

and City employees, needs to be set in place. Arvin is a city manager form of

government; therefore, the City Manager needs to be allowed to work more closely with

city department heads and their employees without outside interference and fear of

reprisal. There has been a large amount of negative publicity regarding staff and elected

officials. This needs to be remedied. The city needs to hire a Finance Director to

properly oversee all financial matters of the city. A new Police Chief needs to be hired as

soon as possible in order to administer law enforcement in the community. The two

above positions are very essential in order for there to be order in Arvin!

The people of Arvin need to keep the continued growth of their community in mind and

continue to use their expertise to put Arvin on the map. Some good things are in place

already, but much more can be accomplished with continued dedicated community input.

RESPONSE REQUIRED:

RESPOND WITHIN 90 DAYS TO

PRESIDING JUDGE

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE

BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

Annual visitation of the Cities and Services Committee of the 2001- 2002 Kern County

Grand Jury pursuant to Penal Code Section 925. a.

HISTORY:

The first settler to build in what was then known as Kern Island, was Christian Bohna, in

1860. He sold his property to Colonel Baker in 1863 and the place became known as

Bakers Field, subsequently, Bakersfield. The city was first incorporated in 1874; in 1876

the people voted to un- incorporate; the city was re- incorporated in 1898 and has stayed as

such. Bakersfield is a Charter City. A Charter City has powers that County and General

Law Cities do not. With an overall population of 240,000 plus, Bakersfield is the largest

city in Kern County encompassing 212 square miles.

FINDINGS:

Bakersfield has survived through fire, earthquake, and flood. It continues to thrive and

grow even as this report is read. According to the City Manager’s office the economy in

the city is strong. Bakersfield’s growth pattern is at a steady 8.7 to 9.5% rate. Attributing

to this growth is residential and commercial development and good tax revenues. Last

year’s road report has been a big issue as many of the roads built in the 80’ s and 90’ s

according to specifications at that time, are now very inadequate for today’s volume of

traffic. Bakersfield, like other communities, has streets that are in need of repair or

complete reconstruction. This year by altering the proposed Freeway to a Parkway, the

city will realize substantial savings. The majority of these savings will go to improve or

recondition streets which need immediate attention. The Parkway will also alleviate the

stress now put on streets due to the volume of vehicles using the old streets. The City

Council constantly has to address this issue.

Redevelopment in the southeast is making a decided turn for the better. A new train

depot, a new supermarket project ( in progress), and new low- income housing are

contributing to this upswing. The city is continually pursuing grant monies to help in

these endeavors. One good example is the median work on Stockdale Highway. This is

mostly grant money at work.

The City Center project is still on hold. It will not be as first presented, but the city is

pursuing options more viable for the good of the citizens.

The Downtown Business Association is quite active. The new look of Chester Avenue

will continue to encompass more streets. This will include more beautification with

lighting and landscaping. The Up on the Roof- Down on the Street party held once a year

and the summer street fairs lure many people to downtown. The more this occurs the

more it will continue to grow and be used. The plan at this time is to continue the present

type of median landscaping and lighting northward to the Kern County Museum and past.

This median landscaping will also include the cross streets in the downtown area.

The question of a new ballpark is still in the air. The present ballpark is really not a

viable option for growth as it was built backwards. In order to make this present ball

park a draw to major/ minor league play it would have to be rebuilt entirely. As it stands

now the batter’s box faces the setting sun and makes it very hard to play good ball. The

parking area is also inadequate for future growth in that particular area.

Continuing in the redevelopment mode are plans for two new parks on Stockdale

Highway. A 30- acre park and a 40- acre soccer park are planned. Three rechargeable

lakes will be involved in this plan as will an eight- mile expansion of the bike path and

new horse trails. The Nature Preserve across from Cal State Bakersfield will be left as is.

Bakersfield has two or three small senior centers, most privately run. There has been an

upsurge of affordable senior housing in the downtown area. This is very needed.

Downtown has a lot to offer seniors. A small supermarket would be a boon to downtown

residents. The Downtown Elementary School is good for those working people in the

downtown area. Their children are near to them in case of emergencies and the school is

centrally located for easy access.

The Committee inquired about office space at the present City Hall. The manager stated

that due to growth the present facility is not adequate to handle today’s staff. What this

has caused is decentralization of some city services, making it very inconvenient for the

citizens to conduct city business. The cost to relocate and centralize services will be in

the millions. This could be for new buildings or acquisition of another building big

enough to accommodate all services under one roof.

COMMENTS:

This Committee feels the city should actively continue seeking funding for road

rehabilitation and reconstruction. Bakersfield is a great city for family life. It is close

enough to Los Angeles and San Francisco to even be known as a “ bedroom community”.

However, those living here like to think of it as home! A place to live, love, laugh, cry,

and stay. Bakersfield will soon have it all. New growth is good for the economy. A

good economy is good for growth. Continue in this positive direction, Bakersfield. Keep

this city’s future in the forefront.

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

CALIFORNIA CITY

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

Annual visitation by the Cities and Services Committee of the 2001- 2002 Kern County

Grand Jury, pursuant to Penal Code Section 925. a.

INTRODUCTION:

Founded in May 1958, and incorporated in December of 1965, California City has

approximately 204 square miles of space. This leaves plenty of room for growth and

development. Out of that 204 square miles, 300 miles of roads are paved with about 100

miles in asphalt, the other 200 miles of reclaimed asphalt. Every house in the community

has a paved road to the home. The population is approximately 12,000 and there are

approximately 3,500 homes at this time in California City.

FINDINGS:

The Cities and Services Committee met with twelve different people representing the

City. From the City Manager, a council member, Fire Chief, Police Lieutenant, City

Clerk, Senior Center representative, Senior Housing representative, Airport Manager,

Parks and Recreation representative, Public Works person, Civil Engineer, Personnel

Person, Finance Director, and we were overwhelmed with data and input.

California City is a City Manager council of government, a general law city as it were.

The City revenues come from an additional special tax of $ 75.00 per parcel voted on by

the people. This supplements the general fund. They also have tax revenues, which each

city depends on. A private prison, housing 2,500 undocumented detainees with a base of

550 employees also adds to this revenue.

California City has three main areas of economic growth at this time; the prison, a

development called the Villages, and a 40- acre industrial park being built in the vicinity

of the airport.

The city has its own Fire Department with 11 full time fireman, 25 auxiliary firemen, 5

paramedics ( cross- trained), and a firedog. There is also a Police Department with 14

sworn officers, 7 non- sworn, 3 reserve, 5 explorers, and two trained police dogs. A brand

new Medivac helicopter is waiting on skids at the airport for the permit to allow it to fly.

The process is almost complete. This will help the citizens feel safer about emergency

treatment. The paramedics are already trained and ready to fly.

The city has an elementary school and a middle school. The high school students are

being bussed to Mojave. In the March 2002, election there is a bond measure to fund a

high school in the community. Graffiti is addressed very aggressively and eradicated as

soon as it is seen.

The Parks and Recreation Department are always busy offering many diverse activities

such as: drug prevention and cooking classes, soccer, little league, gymnastics, art

classes, Karate, playgrounds, roller hockey, a skate park, swimming, and a summer camp.

They are also pursuing grant monies to continue the preservation of Borax Bill Park.

Senior citizens are very fortunate to have a beautiful new senior housing development

called Desert Jade. Seniors constitute 12% of the overall population and are receiving

excellent care. There are three Dial- a- Ride vans available on call and each Thursday

those interested are bussed to Mojave to grocery shop. There is an eighteen- hole golf

course available to all residents run by a retired PGA pro. There is also a par three

course.

The city has eight water operators and five wells. All of the wells are in compliance as

far as arsenic level in water is concerned. Waste management of solids is handled by an

outside source. The city has met and will exceed the waste reduction mandated by

AB939.

The shortfalls of California City are the lack of a supermarket in town, adequate health

care in the city, and the lack of a high school in the city.

As these areas of shortfall are all being aggressively addressed at this time, the Cities and

Services Committee applauds California City on their continued long- range and short-range

plans. Keep up the good work!

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

DELANO

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

Annual visitation of the Cities and Services Committee of the 2001- 2002 Kern County

Grand Jury pursuant to Penal Code Section 925. a.

HISTORY:

Established in 1870 as a Southern Pacific railhead, developed as a farming town and

incorporated in 1915, Delano is a fast growing agricultural market center for Northern

Kern and Southern Tulare County farming interests. With easy access to market,

Delano benefits from its location in the center of a two- county agricultural area. Delano

is the second largest incorporated community in the county and is in the process of

annexing adjacent land to accommodate growth.

The population is approximately 40,000.

FINDINGS:

Members of the Committee visited the city on September 25, 2001. The Committee

met with the City Manager, Finance Director, Director of Community Services, Senior

Planner, and City Engineer. The staff is very knowledgeable in their field of expertise.

Delano has two project areas aimed at improving retail commercial development. One

is the downtown improvement project, which includes infrastructure improvements.

The other is development of the former Block “ H” project area, which is now known as

the Vineyard Galleria Project. It is designed to be a large retail commercial complex

adjacent to Highway 99 freeway. Both are aimed at attracting retail customers and to

keep expendable dollars in the community.

The city has Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion, street, water, and sewer line

improvement projects that will serve the growth. The residential areas are being

developed with approximately 250 homes being built annually.

Delano offers services to citizens through the senior centers and recreation activities for

the youth of the community. The Dial- A- Ride and Transit Systems offer inexpensive

transportation to the population.

Staff did state that there is the need to replace exiting employees, and to add additional

staff, to provide for the demands of the growth.

COMMENTS:

Staff and community members are developing a “ Vision Delano” project, which will be

helpful in determining the direction the city will take. In the meantime, staff continues

to work on existing projects as diligently as possible.

Delano is commended for receiving the 1998- 1999 Outstanding Financial Reporting

Award.

They recently received the 2000- 2001 Outstanding Financial Reporting Award.

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

CITY OF MARICOPA

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

Annual visitation by the Cities and Services Committee of the 2001- 2002 Kern County

Grand Jury Pursuant to Penal Code Section 925. a.

HISTORY:

Maricopa is located in the southwest corner of Kern County and was incorporated July

25, 1911. This “ Mother City” of the prolific Midway- Sunset Oil Fields is the gateway

to the Cerro Noreste/ Mt. Pinos recreation area.

Maricopa is the name applied by a Pima Indian Tribe to a neighboring tribe of Uymas

inhabiting the Gila River Valley in southern Arizona. How the name reached California

is unknown, but it was given to the oil- booming community when a station on the

Sunset Western Railroad was established there in 1903.

The real growth in Maricopa began with the Lakeview gusher in 1910. The famed

gusher helped make Kern County “ First in Oil” in the state and nation.

The population is approximately 1,111.

FINDINGS:

The Committee met with the Mayor, City Administrator, and the City Treasurer to

discuss operations. The current fiscal year budget is just over $ 500,000. The

Committee did not see any sign of city growth other than the new Museum Memorial

Park.

The city contracts with the Kern County Sheriffs Department for law enforcement with

fire protection provided by the Kern County Fire Department. The Administrator

informed the committee that he is still seeking a way to finance construction of a sewer

line to allow the homeowners to connect to the city’s sewer system.

The downtown area is in the same condition as previous years. The community

continues to keep their identity as an incorporated community in Kern County. The

community has purchased a refuse truck on a seven- year lease purchase. There is no

grocery store, causing the residents to travel to Taft or Bakersfield for grocery

shopping. There is a mini- mart at the intersection of two state highways at city’s edge

that lead to Santa Maria, where small groceries purchases may be made.

COMMENTS:

The Committee sees a need for some type of development to increase Maricopa’s tax

base. In the meantime the staff continues to operate within their current means.

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

McFARLAND

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

Annual visitation by the Cities and Services Committee of the 2001- 2002 Kern County

Grand Jury pursuant to Penal Code 925. a.

HISTORY:

Located on Highway 99, McFarland is an agricultural community. Cotton, sugar beets,

potatoes, and roses are some of the leading enterprises. An almond hulling facility and

a winery serve the area’s agriculture and economic interests. Paramount Growers, a

packing shed and cold storage facility, relocated to Delano after a fire destroyed their

former building.

Incorporated July 18, 1957, the town was named for J. B. McFarland, who with W. F.

Laird, established the town site in 1908.

Population is 10,250.

FINDINGS:

On September 25, 2001, the Committee met with the City Administrator. The

Administrator also serves as the Planning Director, Finance Director, and Public Works

Director. The city has developed a 2010 vision statement and general plan. This

includes revitalization of the downtown area and annexation of 160 acres. The city is in

the process of acquiring the McFarland Mutual Water District. This acquisition will

add five more employees to the city’s payroll.

The city contracts with the Kern County Sheriff’s Department for police services, and

fire protection is provided by the Kern County Fire Department. The city has recently

taken over the McFarland Community Center Building from the County of Kern. Water

and soil testing has been completed, and the city is now in a year- long study for air

quality. McFarland has three State Correctional Facilities, # 1 with 225 beds, Golden

State, and Central Valley, each with 550 beds.

COMMENTS:

Staff and council members work well together for the progress of the community. Staff

stays within the spending guidelines set forth in the city’s budget.

RECOMMENDATION:

McFarland is working on rehabilitating the downtown area. The city leaders need to

complete this as soon as possible to attract businesses to this location to insure

additional revenue to the city.

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

CITY OF RIDGECREST

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

Annual visitation of the 2001- 2002 Kern County Grand Jury pursuant to Penal Code

Section 925. a.

HISTORY:

Ridgecrest, nestled in the Indian Wells Valley known as the Gateway to Death Valley,

was incorporated in November, 1963. It is a general law city. Ridgecrest is located

approximately one hundred twenty miles from Bakersfield at an elevation of 2300 feet.

Ridgecrest expanded rapidly after the establishment of the China Lake Naval Ordinance

Testing Center in 1943, now known as the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division,

China Lake.

The population of Ridgecrest is over 25,000 people and encompasses the communities of

China Lake, Inyokern, Johannesburg, Randsburg, and Trona. The area is noted for its

clear blue skies and clean air.

The Cities and Services Committee traveled to Ridgecrest on a cold crisp January

morning, after passing through an amazing Pogenip Frost ( HoarFrost) in Tehachapi and a

beautiful drive through Red Rock Canyon.

The Committee met with the Chief of Police, the City Manager, the Finance Director, and

the head of the Economic Development Department.

FINDINGS:

Taking a tour of the city before meeting with the above- mentioned leaders, the

Committee was quite impressed with the overall cleanliness and positive look and feel of

the city. The City Hall complex and buildings are very impressive. The tour took in the

city as well as some outlying areas including Cerro Coso Community College. New

growth is slowly coming about with more to follow soon. Four hundred new jobs will

soon be added to the Naval Weapons Center. There is also a twenty- five million- dollar

medical laboratory waiting to be constructed at the Center. This is a very positive

development for the city. In fact, they now feel that rather than being the “ forgotten

city”, as they were formerly known, Ridgecrest is now known as a “ Regional Center”.

This has been brought about in part by an extensive medical community serving as far

away as Mammoth. The city touts cancer and diabetes centers, which are widely used.

Ridgecrest and surrounding areas are also well known to the film industry, which benefits

the city’s economy.

A major road- widening project between Ridgecrest and Mammoth will take place in the

next four years. It will provide four lanes for a much- traveled road.

The commercial growth in Ridgecrest is helping the community a lot. There is a 63- acre

business park and medical service expansion located next to the present K Mart store, an

Armament Museum at China Lake, and 26 assisted living units also under construction.

Ridgecrest has its own Police Department with 33 sworn officers and 14 civilian jobs.

Fire protection services and a Sheriff’s substation are provided by the County. An

ambulance service is also provided.

There is a plan to update the wastewater treatment plant built in 1945 and to expand it in

a phase II plan sometime after the update. This will accommodate future growth.

Habitat for Humanity is very much alive and well in Ridgecrest. The city acquired

eleven HUD homes and donated five to Habitat for refurbishing.

Numerous activities are provided for senior citizens and youth. The only golf course is

located on The Naval Weapons Center and since September 11, 2001 the security

screening of visitors has been extensive.

The Naval Weapons Center is probably the biggest developer of weapons used in the war

with Afghanistan. Because of this the center is now on a higher priority list with the

Pentagon. Henceforth 400 new jobs will soon be available.

The city now operates its own Dial- A- Ride System. An annual Balloon Festival/ Air

Show is held each year and draws hundreds of tourists.

COMMENTS:

Ridgecrest is a very viable upcoming city. The current leaders, although most new in

their positions and to the community, seem to have a finger on the pulse of the

community. They bring with them many years of experience in their chosen fields.

If there were a drawback it would appear to be a need for more vocational training.

When new growth takes place they are hard pressed to find the labor force needed among

people in the community. Most of the labor force comes from out of town due to lack of

skilled tradespeople among the residents.

Ridgecrest is a great place to visit with much recreation available. The ride is well worth

the trip and you can also continue on to other recreational areas such as Death Valley,

Mount Whitney, or Las Vegas. Ridgecrest has a good number of motels and restaurants

available.

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

CITY OF SHAFTER

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

The Cities and Services Committee of the 2001- 2002 Kern County Grand Jury visited the

City of Shafter pursuant to Penal Code Section 925. a.

HISTORY:

Named for General William ( Pecos Bill) Shafter, the city was incorporated in 1938 and

became a Charter City in 1995. Shafter is located approximately 18 miles northwest of

Bakersfield in Kern County. Shafter traces its roots to the completion of the Santa Fe

Railroad in 1898 and evolved as a prosperous farming community that today is home to

many local business and farming operations.

Shafter is host to numerous community events and festivals and is located within a short

drive of various boating, fishing, camping, and golfing facilities. Shafter boasts a strong

sense of community spirit and pride that coupled with an exceptional “ small town”

quality of life, makes the city one of San Joaquin Valley’s best kept secrets.

The population is approximately 12,000.

FINDINGS:

The Committee visited the City of Shafter on October 16, 2001, and met with the City

Manager, Finance Officer, Director of Community Development, and the Police Captain.

Shafter completed the downtown redevelopment project using Community Development

Block Funds. Shafter also has a major manufacturing location, the International

Enterprise Zone, that includes a $ 400 million dollar transportation warehouse and

distribution center. The city is embarking on an Intergovernmental Strategic Planning

plan which includes the City of Shafter, Shafter Recreation and Parks District, Minter

Field Airport District, Richland School District, Kern High School District, and Shafter

Youth Council. The object is to increase cooperative planning and service provision

among agencies, make better use of resources available to each agency by developing a

common vision and cooperative strategic plan, and establish an ongoing mechanism for

continuous cooperative planning in order to meet new issues that may arise.

Shafter has it’s own police department with 18 sworn officers. Fire protection is provided

by contract with the Kern County Fire Department. Shafter avails itself of inmate labor

from the Community Correctional Facility for some tasks in the community.

Shafter has a successful Dial- A- Ride program. Prices are reasonable and benefit young

and old alike.

COMMENTS:

The Committee noted that the staff and city council all work together in maintaining the

vision statement of 1986. Along with the current multi- agency project the community as

a whole will benefit from these efforts. The city is “ progressive” in luring new industries

to the area. Along these lines Shafter is a very well run community.

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

CITY OF TAFT

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

Annual visitation by the Cities and Services Committee of the 2001- 2002 Kern County

Grand Jury pursuant to Penal Code Section 925. a in the fall of 2001.

HISTORY:

The city of Taft is located on the western side of Kern County, incorporated in 1910,

and named after President William H. Taft. The city has served as home to many

dependent upon oil production for their means of support. Taft features an airport that

is popular with skydivers and ideal flying conditions make it a popular spot for model

airplane enthusiasts. The Buena Vista Lake recreation area and golf course is popular

with residents and visitors alike. The population of Taft is approximately 6,400

( incorporated area only).

FINDINGS:

On August 21, 2001, the committee met with the Interim City Manager, the Finance

Director, and the Police Chief, who is also the Administrator for the Correctional

Facility. The city is in the process of recruiting a City Manager ( the interim has since

been chosen to be the City Manager). There is a work force of 105 employees. Of

these, 12 are sworn police officers and 6 are fulltime firemen. The city has a mutual

response agreement with the Kern County Fire Department, which maintains county

services adjacent to the city.

The Committee discussed the following activities with the various departments. The

city has its own Transit Authority, which operates the Dial- A- Ride System. The

vehicles are helpful to the citizens in reaching their destinations. The city just

completed refurbishing the old animal shelter kennels and buildings. They constructed

12 new indoor and outdoor kennels and buildings. The downtown improvement project

has been completed. This consisted of sidewalk reconstruction and installation of

handicap ramps. Kern Council of Government provided the funds for the project. At

the time of the committee’s visit, the city was pursuing an acquisition and rejuvenation

of the railroad line that runs between Gosford Junction and Taft. The city’s thinking is

that if this rail line were brought up to standards, it would help economic development

by allowing the line to move freight in and out of the community. This acquisition has

become a very controversial subject. It has brought accusations from various corners

of city government and the community.*

The city chooses to spend their capitol outlay money later during a fiscal year. The city

has completed the requirements of AB 939 that mandated the reduction of waste being

transported to disposal sites by agencies. The Committee toured most areas of town and

found them to be abated of weeds and very clean. Also absent was graffiti, which is

commonly found in some communities.

COMMENTS:

The Committee feels that the city is being run professionally by the staff present at the

initial meeting. The Interim City Manager stated that the entire staff of city employees

has been working together to maintain a good level of service. The matter of the recall

of one council member should be resolved by publication time. **

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

* Since visiting Taft, a number of things have occurred regarding the rail spur

project. Not all of them are positive. The city has put out a great deal of money to

further this project, but at this time, the city appears to have received little in return.

Lawsuits on both sides of this issue are pending. There have been charges of

violations of the city’s policies and procedures manual regarding the procurement of

professional services by staff and elected officials. The purchasing system as

established by city government code, was violated by staff and elected officials. The

original contract for the railroad project was not put out for bid. Therefore, no

interviews or reviews of contractors was performed. No monetary limits were

established in the subsequent contracts ( two more were written) against advice from

the Taft City Attorney. All safeguards were removed and a large retainer was to be

paid . These actions occurred before the present City Manager was hired and before

the present City Council was elected into office. Most everything was set in motion

under the former council and manager.

One party is suing for alleged excessive billing and the other is suing for non-payment

for services. There have also been allegations of fraud. Possibly, by the

time next year’s Cities and Services Committee visits Taft, a resolution to these

problems will have been met.

** The recall of one councilman was accomplished with a new councilman sworn in.

Then another recall was in progress but was called off, as the party in question will

finish his term at the end of this year. There was no need to cause another large

expenditure of city money.

TEHACHAPI

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

Annual visitation of the Cities and Services Committee of the 2001- 2002 Kern County

Grand Jury pursuant to Penal Code Section 925. a.

HISTORY:

Located between Mojave and Bakersfield, the greater Tehachapi area is composed of

seven small communities and a number of ranches. With a 4,000 ft. elevation,

Tehachapi promotes itself as the “ Land of The Four Seasons”. The original community

was founded in 1876 when the Southern Pacific Railroad finally succeeded in running

rail over the mountain grades.

The railroad still remains a big part of the community even today, because of the

famous “ Tehachapi Loop” a continuous curve that brings the track back over itself.

This feat of engineering between Keene and Tehachapi attracts railroad buffs to the area

from all over the world.

Another important chapter in the history of Tehachapi is the establishment of a prison.

The first women’s prison in the state was built in Cummings Valley in 1932. A 7.7

magnitude earthquake in 1952 temporarily closed the facility and leveled many parts of

town. In 1953 the prison reopened as a men’s colony.

Population is 28,415 ( which includes prison population and surrounding communities

of Stallion Springs, Bear Valley Springs, Golden Hills, Sand Canyon, Alpine Forest

and Keene).

FINDINGS:

On August 28, 2001, the Committee met with the City Manager, Finance Director,

Airport Manager, Planning/ Economic Development Director and City Clerk. The

Committee discussed city activities with each city staff member present. There are two

newly elected councilpersons on board.

The city has adopted a five- year budget for the purpose of identifying their needs for

this time period. It will also serve as a tool to monitor operating expenses plus capital

outlay purchases and capital projects for the next five years. The city is in the midst of

a train depot restoration project. They are developing a downtown master plan. This

will include rehabilitation projects such as angle parking and facade improvements.

There is a housing subdivision planned for the east- end of the incorporated area of the

city. These homes are upscale type of housing.

Their hope is to develop freeway commercial trade with the development of Capitol

Hills.

The Airport finished the 2000- 2001 fiscal year with a surplus of money. The city avails

itself of prison inmates for use in cleanup around the city. They have good youth

programs such as the Wristwatch program, Starlight Theatre and various safety

programs. Currently they have 1870 children involved in organized sports. Their fire

department is comprised of volunteers and is assisted by the Kern County Fire

Department. One of their long- term goals is to have their own Fire Department manned

with full time personnel. The city also contracts with the Kern County Sheriff’s

Department for police protection.

COMMENTS:

The staff seems to strive in providing the best city services available to their public. The

community appeared to be very clean. Graffiti was not visible as they eradicate this

problem as soon as it appears. All of the staff assembled for the day of the Committee’s

visit appears to have a good working relationship with one another.

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

CITY OF WASCO

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

The Cities and Services Committee of the 2001- 2002 Kern County Grand Jury visited the

City of Wasco pursuant to Penal Code Section 925. a.

HISTORY:

First known as Dewey, then Deweyville, Wasco was established as a loading station on

the Santa Fe Railroad in 1897. In 1907, a colony was established by the Fourth Home

Extension on nine sections of land purchased from the Kern County Land Company.

Wasco was incorporated in 1945. The new settlement was named Wasco by William N.

Bonham, a former resident of Wasco County, Oregon that took its name from a tribe of

Oregon Indians.

Wasco is primarily an agricultural community, boasting crops such as cotton, onions,

potatoes, almonds, and is famous for roses. Each September Wasco hosts the Rose

Festival with activities such as the Rose Queen Pageant, concerts, arts and crafts shows,

rose field tours, and chili cook- off.

.

Population is approximately 21,150.

FINDINGS:

The Committee visited the community on October 16, 2001. On the tour the Committee

noted the cleanliness of the city. The Committee met with the City Manager, Planning

Director, and Finance Director.

Wasco is in the midst of a revitalization project in the downtown area. Grant monies are

being used to complete the work. The city is encouraging the businesses in the

downtown area to buy into the project and make improvements to some of the business

facades. At the east end of the downtown area is an Amtrak Railroad Station. The city is

seeking funding to construct a new station at the present site. There is plenty of new

home construction within the city. Wasco is very active in maintaining the streets and

alleys. The youth of the community are anxiously awaiting the completion of the new

skateboard park.

Wasco has one of the largest state prisons in California, housing approximately 6,000

inmates. The city uses some inmate labor for work in the community. Wasco contracts

with the Kern County Sheriff’s Department for police protection and fire protection is

provided by the Kern County Fire Department. The city is still trying to solve the

financial problems plaguing the city’s golf course. The city is looking at the property

next to the golf course to convert it to an enhanced value parcel and developing it for use.

COMMENTS:

Wasco is a community that is constantly growing and has the utilities to support the

growth. The staff is working hard at making the community a good place to live. The

city is also a recipient of an award from the California Society of Municipal Finance

Officers.

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

CONTINUITY & TRACKING

COMMITTEE

RAYMOND A. ROWLAND

Chairman

MILLIE V. CRABTREE

MISSION STATEMENT

CONTINUITY & TRACKING COMMITTEE

The main responsibility of the Continuity & Tracking Committee is the attendance at

meetings of the Kern County Board of Supervisors and the reporting of findings of the

Board. As Grand Jurors are lay people, they are representative of the average person’s

view of Kern County government.

The Grand Jury also tracks responses as to the course of action being taken and whether

the recommendations of the Grand Jury are being considered. Response to the Presiding

Judge of the Superior Court is required in a certain period of time and the Grand Jury

tracks whether this is being honored.

The Grand Jury works as a public watchdog. Tracking enables the Grand Jury to see that

the government is utilizing public monies in the most effective way.

2001 – 2002 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY

TRACKING REPORTS

APPROVED

BY GJ

SUBJECT OF REPORT

RESPONSE

COMMITTEE

PUBLISHED

BY GJ

RESPONSE

DEADLINE

RESPONSE

RECEIVED

10- 01- 01 Kern River Valley Public

Cemetery District Special Districts 10- 01- 01 No Response No

10- 18- 01 Sheriff’s Property Room Law & Justice 10- 18- 01 Response 01- 08- 02

10- 18- 01 Mountain Meadow

Community District Special Districts 10- 19- 01 No Response No

10- 22- 01 City of Tehachapi Cities & Services 10- 22- 01 No Response No

10- 22- 01 City of Maricopa Cities & Services 10- 22- 01 No Response No

11- 05- 01 North Edwards

Water District Special Districts 06- 26- 02 Response

90 Days

11- 08- 01 City of Delano Cities & Services 11- 08- 01 No Response No

11/ 26/ 01 City of McFarland Cities & Services 11- 26- 01 No Response No

12/ 03/ 01 City of Wasco Cities & Services 12/ 03/ 01 No Response No

12/ 03/ 01 City of Shafter Cities & Services 12/ 03/ 01 No Response No

12/ 03/ 01 Lamont Public

Utility District Special Districts 06/ 26/ 02 Response

90 Days

12/ 12/ 01 Use of Steroids

Kern High School District

Health, Education,

& Social Services 12/ 12/ 01 Response 3/ 15/ 02

12/ 12/ 01 Kern County Emergency

Medical Services

Health, Education,

& Social Services 12/ 12/ 01 Response 2/ 11/ 02

12/ 12/ 01 Southern Kern Unified School

District

Health, Education,

& Social Services 12/ 12/ 01 Response

90 Days

01/ 23/ 02 Kern County Sheriff’s

Coroner Division Law & Justice 01/ 23/ 02 Response 03/ 18/ 02

01/ 16/ 02 West Side Recreation

& Parks District Special Districts 06/ 26/ 02 No Response No

01/ 30/ 02 Kern County Law Library Health, Education

& Social Services 06/ 26/ 02 No Response No

02/ 13/ 02 City of Ridgecrest Cities & Services 06/ 26/ 02 No Response No

02/ 21/ 02 Kern County School Districts

Trustees Compensation

Health, Education,

& Social Services 06/ 26/ 02 No Response No

03/ 10/ 02 Bear Valley Springs

Police Department Law & Justice 06/ 26/ 02 Response

90 Days

03/ 10/ 02 Kern County Return

to Work Program

Administration

& Audit 06/ 26/ 02 Response

90 Days

03/ 15/ 02 City of California City Cities & Services 06/ 26/ 02 No Response No

03/ 18/ 02 North Kern State Prison Law & Justice 06/ 26/ 02 No Response No

03/ 25/ 02 Mesa Verde Community

Correctional Facility Law & Justice 06/ 26/ 02 No Response No

APPROVED

BY GJ

SUBJECT OF REPORT

RESPONSE

COMMITTEE

PUBLISHED

BY GJ

RESPONSE

DEADLINE

RESPONSE

RECEIVED

03/ 25/ 02 Taft Correctional Institution Law & Justice 06/ 26/ 02 No Response No

03/ 25/ 02 Camp Erwin Owen Law & Justice 06/ 26/ 02 Response

90 Days

04/ 03/ 02 City of Bakersfield Cities & Services 04/ 03/ 02 No Response No

04/ 04/ 02 Teen Courts Health, Education,

& Social Services 04/ 04/ 02 No Response No

04/ 04/ 02 Kern County School District

and Schools Report

Health, Education,

& Social Services 04/ 04/ 02 No Response No

04/ 04/ 02 Parks and Recreation

Department

Administration

& Audit 06/ 06/ 02 Response

90 Days

04/ 04/ 02 Special District Survey Special Districts 04/ 04/ 02 No Response No

04/ 10/ 02 Kern County Sheriff

Kern Valley Substation Law & Justice 04/ 10/ 02 No Response No

04/ 10/ 02 Arsenic in Drinking Water Special Districts 04/ 10/ 02 No Response No

04/ 11/ 02 A. Miriam Jamison Children’s

Center

Health, Education

& Social Services 04/ 19/ 02 Response

90 Days

04/ 18/ 02 City of Taft Cities & Services 06/ 26/ 02 No Response No

04/ 18/ 02 Kern County Children and

Families Commission Ad Hoc 05/ 01/ 02 Response

90 Days

04/ 23/ 02 City of Arvin Cities & Services 06/ 26/ 02 Response

90 Days

2001 – 2002 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINAL REPORTS TRACKING REPORTS

DATE

EDIT COMMITTEE

COUNTY

COUNSEL

JUDGE

CLERK OF

THE BOARD

RELEASE

DATE

10- 01- 01 Kern River Valley Public

Cemetery District 10- 03- 01 10- 15- 01 10- 24- 01 10- 24- 01

10- 18- 01 Sheriff’s Property Room 10- 19- 01 10- 22- 01 10- 30- 01 12- 17- 01

10- 18- 01 Mountain Meadow Community District 10- 19- 01 10- 22- 01 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

10- 22- 01 City of Tehachapi 10- 23- 01 10- 24- 01 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

10- 22- 01 City of Maricopa 10- 23- 01 10- 24- 01 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

11- 05- 01 North Edwards Water District 11- 12- 01 11- 13- 01 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

11- 08- 01 City of Delano 11- 12- 01 11- 13- 01 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

11- 26- 01 City of McFarland 11- 29- 01 12- 04- 01 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

12- 03- 01 City of Wasco 12- 03- 01 12- 04- 01 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

12- 03- 01 City of Shafter 12- 03- 01 12- 04- 01 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

12- 03- 01 Lamont Public Utility District 12- 03- 01 12- 04- 01 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

12- 12- 01 Use of Steroids KHSD 12- 13- 01 12- 17- 01 12- 18- 01 12- 21- 01

12- 12- 01 KC Emergency Medical Services 12- 13- 01 12- 17- 01 12- 21- 01 12- 21- 01

12- 12- 01 Southern Kern Unified School District 12- 17- 01 12- 17- 01 12- 21- 01 12- 21- 01

01- 23- 02 Kern County Sheriff’s Coroner Division 01- 24- 02 01- 24- 02 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

01- 16- 02 West Side Recreation & Parks District 01- 17- 02 01- 18- 02 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

01- 30- 02 Kern County Law Library 02- 04- 02 02- 04- 02 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

02- 13- 02 City of Ridgecrest 02- 14- 02 02- 20- 02 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

02/ 21/ 02 Kern County School District’s

Trustees Compensation 03/ 21/ 02 03/ 28/ 02 06/ 13/ 02 06/ 26/ 02

03- 10- 02 Bear Valley Springs Police Department 03- 15- 02 03- 18- 02 03- 20- 02 03- 25- 02

03- 10- 02 Kern County Return to Work Program 03- 15- 02 03- 18- 02 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

03- 15- 02 City of California City 03- 15- 02 03- 20- 02 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

03- 18- 02 North Kern – State Prison 03- 19- 02 03- 22- 02 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

03- 25- 02 Mesa Verde Community

Correctional Facility 03- 27- 02 03- 28- 02 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

03- 25- 02 Taft Correctional Institution 03- 27- 02 03- 28- 02 06- 13- 02 06- 26- 02

03/ 25/ 02 Camp Erwin Owen 03/ 28/ 02 06/ 13/ 02 06/ 26/ 02

DATE

EDIT COMMITTEE

COUNTY

COUNSEL

JUDGE

CLERK OF

THE BOARD

RELEASE

DATE

04/ 03/ 02 City of Bakersfield 04/ 05/ 02 04/ 08/ 02 06/ 13/ 02 06/ 26/ 02

04/ 04/ 02 Teen Courts 04/ 05/ 02 04/ 08/ 02 06/ 13/ 02 06/ 26/ 02

04/ 04/ 02 Kern County School District

and Schools Report 04/ 08/ 02 04/ 09/ 02 06/ 13/ 02 06/ 26/ 02

04/ 04/ 02 Parks and Recreation Department 04/ 08/ 02 04/ 09/ 02 06/ 13/ 02 06/ 26/ 02

04/ 04/ 02 Special District Survey 04/ 08/ 02 04/ 09/ 02 06/ 13/ 02 06/ 26/ 02

04/ 10/ 02 Kern County Sheriff

Kern Valley Substation 04/ 15/ 02 04/ 15/ 02 06/ 13/ 02 06/ 26/ 02

04/ 10/ 02 Arsenic in Drinking Water 04/ 15/ 02 04/ 15/ 02 06/ 13/ 02 06/ 26/ 02

04/ 11/ 02 A. Miriam Jamison Children’s Center 04/ 15/ 02 04/ 15/ 02 04/ 19/ 02 04/ 22/ 02

04/ 18/ 02 City of Taft 04/ 23/ 02 04/ 25/ 02 06/ 13/ 02 06/ 26/ 02

04/ 18/ 02 Kern County Children’s and Families

Commission 04/ 23/ 02 04/ 25/ 02 04/ 26/ 02 05/ 01/ 02

04/ 18/ 02 City of Arvin 04/ 23/ 02 04/ 25/ 02 06/ 13/ 02

FINAL REPORT COMMITTEE

EDIT COMMITTEE

MISSION STATEMENT

EDIT COMMITTEE

The main function of the Edit Committee is the preparation of the Final Report of the

2001- 2002 Kern County Grand Jury. This Final Report is a compilation of all the work

accomplished by the Grand Jury during the year. This includes editing, rewriting, proof-reading,

photography, layout, computer input, and selection of content.

This year the Edit Committee has elected not only to produce a Final Report book, but

also a supplement to be placed in the Bakersfield Californian newspaper.

The Edit Committee would like to acknowledge and thank the following people who

helped in the preparation of this Final Report: Deanna Maxwell, Grand Jury secretary;

Ed Villalobos, reprographics department; Marianne Logan, Greg Nichols and David

Vanderpool, Bakersfield Californian.

KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY

2001- 2002

FINAL REPORT

PUBLISHER

2001- 2002 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY

EDITOR

Elaine S. Hiatt

EXECUTIVE EDITOR

Richard L. Rutheurford

SECRETARY

Deanna P. Maxwell

EDIT COMMITTEE

Elaine S. Hiatt – Chairman

MEMBERS

Evelyn A. Baxter

Binnie S. Callender

Patricia L. Duffel

Sharon I. Garland

Thomas H. Hardy

Patrice S. Kline

HEALTH, EDUCATION AND

SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

ANTHONY W. NOCE

Chairman

BINNIE S. CALLENDER

RAYMOND R. MORTIMER

BARBARA M. SABOVICH

MISSION STATEMENT

HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES

COMMITTEE

The Health, Education & Social Services ( HESS) Committee, pursuant to California

Penal Code 914, is charged with the specific responsibility to investigate and report on all

aspects of county government under their jurisdiction, including responding to citizens’

complaints.

It is the mission of the HESS Committee to conduct those investigative inquiries as

appropriate to safeguard the public interest. Due to this broad scope of responsibility and

the number of opportunities for review, this committee chose those topics it considered to

be the greatest general concern for review.

The committee also investigated citizen complaints, examined budgets, researched city,

county, state and federal topics, conducted interviews, met with both management and

staff, toured facilities and attended public presentations.

It was the committee’s concern not only to make the citizens of Kern County aware of

their findings, but also to make long- range positive and economical recommendation,

whenever possible, that would benefit the community as a whole.

Agencies, departments, and subjects selected for investigation and reports as part of the

2001- 2002 Kern County Grand Jury HESS Committee’s final report were:

Southern Kern Unified School District Jamison Children’s Center

Kern County Emergency Medical Services Kern County Law Library

Kern High School District Teen Courts In Kern County

Kern County School Districts/ Schools Kern County School District’s Board of Trustees

In addition, the agencies reviewed and/ or inspected were:

Department of Human Services Youth 2001 Summit

Arvin Union School District Di Giorgio School District

Panama- Buena Vista Union School District Edison School District

Taft City School District Taft Union High School District

Di Giorgio School Arvin High School

Fairfax School District Foothill High School

Earl Warren Junior High School Fairfax School

Tevis Junior High School Haven Drive Middle School

Virginia Ave. School Orangewood School

Edison Middle School

We were cordially received and would like to thank everyone for their cooperation

throughout the year.

A. MIRIAM JAMISON CHILDREN’S CENTER

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is pursuant to California Penal Code 925, to follow up on

previous Grand Jury recommendations ( there have been six previous Grand Jury Reports

on Jamison Center), to respond to a citizen’s complaint regarding possible child abuse by

Jamison Center staff, to review budgets and to research topics relative to the

investigation. It is also to describe the results of the investigative inquiry regarding the

services provided by the Kern County Department of Human Services, relative to the

Jamison Center. The findings and recommendations reported are based on Jamison

facility visits and interviews with the following individuals and departments:

  Kern County Department Human Services

  Director, Jamison Center

  Former Director, Jamison Center

  Assistant Director, Jamison Center

  Doctor of Record, Jess Diamond Assessment Center

  Director, Kern County Department Mental Health ( KCMH)

  Unit Supervisor, KCMH

  Patient’s Rights Advocate, KCMH

  Licensing Analyst, California Department Social Services

  Principal, Jamison Center School

  Complainant

  Director, Community Connection Child Care

  Kern County Department Public Health Services

  California Department Public Health Services

  Kern County Law Librarian

  California Field Representative, Department Social Services

  Kern County Deputy Sheriff Assigned to Missing Persons Department

  Cafeteria Director and Assistant

  Registered Nurse Assigned to Jamison Center

BACKGROUND:

The A. Miriam Jamison Children’s Center was established in 1981 as a solution to a

growing number of child abuse cases. The Center is Kern County’s only emergency

shelter for abused, neglected, and exploited children. It is a 24 hour, short term

emergency shelter facility, now licensed ( since July 31, 2001) to operate under Title 22 of

the California regulations as a Group Home by the State of California’s Department of

Social Services. Its license is granted solely upon: “ Emergency Shelter for Children, 56

clients ages 6- 17, 4 clients under age 6. Male and female clients, ambulatory only” basis.

Jamison Center is intended to be an emergency shelter for children aged 0 to 17.

Although most children spend just a few days in Jamison Center before being placed in

foster homes or returned to their own homes, others are there for extended stays. The

average length of stay is nine days. Children are placed there through no fault of their

own; instead, most of the children are victims of family emergencies and/ or various types

of child abuse.

FINDINGS:

  Since receiving licensing in July 2001, the facility receives visits unannounced by the

Community Care Licensing Branch of California Department of Social Services and

receives a report of deficiencies and non- compliance issues. Citations for

deficiencies are issued with a plan of correction established, and waiver requests are

accepted. These waivers are subject to review and modification or termination by the

licensing agency at any time. There were three waivers granted in October 2001:

( 1) forms which transfer custody of clients to Kern County Department of Human

must be on file and clients shall be accepted on an emergency basis

( 2) no more that two clients are to sleep in one bedroom in some wings

( 3) the facility is not to exceed licensed capacity

Failure to comply with these conditions may result in termination of the waiver.

Any changes in existing conditions must be reported to the licensing agency

immediately.

  The A. Miriam Jamison Children’s Center Foundation is a foundation of Kern County

citizens who have contributed significantly by providing assistance monetarily and

by volunteering many hours to add to the well being and pleasure of the children who

are brought to the center.

  The facility is licensed to house 56 children. However, it is not unusual for the

facility to house 90 children. Because the law prohibits any type of restraint,

( Welfare and Institutions Code 206) it is commonplace for the children to run away.

Jamison Center reported that the yearly average of 498 run- aways is projected to

reach 800 this year. This happens on a regular basis and the children may attempt to

return to their homes or walk the streets until they voluntarily return. It is a

requirement of Jamison Center staff to notify the Sheriff’s Department and file a

missing person’s report when children leave the premises without permission. As a

result, there is a high potential for disaster and problems. On some occasions, children

call the Sheriff’s Department for a return ride to the Center, resulting in a large

number of calls for assistance to that Department.

  Children requiring longer stays and high- risk children are sent out of the area since

Kern County does not have its own facility to care for these children.

  Because the facility is very old and over- crowded, there are many occasions when

third beds are installed in very small bedrooms designed to hold just two beds. This

makes for wall- to- wall beds in rooms which are austere and cell like.

  California State law requires that all school age children be provided the means to

continue their studies and certified teachers are on site for that purpose. This school is

under the jurisdiction of the Kern County Superintendent of Schools. Children

entering Jamison are tested and instructed according to their diagnosed reading level.

Since their stay is often short, many do not have the opportunity to make any

significant progress in learning.

  The center provides on site laundry and kitchen facilities. The Grand Jury was

dismayed to discover that California State law has exempted these types of facilities

from the Health and Safety Code, ( Article 20, Section 114470 of the Retail Food

Facilities Law) which regulates food handlers’ activities, on the basis of “ adverse

effect”. However, subsequent to this Committee’s review and to the credit of the

California Department of Health Services and the Kern County Department of

Human Services, the Jamison Center staff has now undergone and successfully

passed physical examinations and testing for tuberculosis and hepatitis.

  The legislature expects the State Department of Social Services to consult with the

State Department of Health Services and the State Department of Education to

develop appropriate, separate, statutory food preparation provisions for these

facilities. These recommendations were to be submitted to the legislature by the State

Department of Social Services no later than January 1, 1991. To the knowledge of

this Committee, this has not been accomplished.

  The Medical Director for Jamison Center spends little time at the Center’s Jess

Diamond Center, since he is employed by Kern Medical Center and also has a private

practice. As a result, only 200 physical examinations of Jamison Center children who

are admitted are performed each year. This is in sharp contrast to the 1300 physical

examinations accomplished each year in the recent past. This results in many of the

children admitted to Jamison not receiving a complete physical examination,

including appropriate tests and immunizations in a timely fashion. It is not unusual

for these routine examinations to reveal previous and undiagnosed serious physical

problems, as well as evidence of past and/ or current physical and sexual abuse.

  There appears to be inadequate and untrained mental health staff or social worker

staff to properly monitor and supervise the care and well being of the children in

Jamison who are subsequently placed in foster care.

  The facility is grim, depressing, institution like, crowded, sterile, and not at all child

friendly. The walls are white without benefit of color or children’s artwork.

  The Department of Human Services and the Department of Mental Health do not

communicate adequately relative to optimal approaches to troubled and/ or problem

children and deficiencies as noted by State regulatory agencies.

  The designated recreation room appears to be devoid of substantial stimulating,

educational, or creative activity opportunities for the children’s enrichment.

  Funding for the operation of Jamison Center does not appear to be a high priority for

the Department of Human Services. Rather, small amounts are deducted from the

other regular programs’ budgets on an informal and unscheduled basis.

  The committee found no evidence of abuse to the children by Jamison Center staff.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

  The Department of Human Services should seek a solution that will protect the run-aways’

safety and well- being. These children are the direct responsibility of the

Department of Human Services while under the care of the Jamison Center..

  Funds should be found to build a new Children’s Shelter complex that would include

an increase in the capacity level of the facility in compliance with the Kern County

Fire Department regulations and to facilitate a more protective environment.

  The Department of Human Services should plan for and acquire funding for its own

high- risk children’s center.

  The Department of Human Services should make a request of the State of California

Department of Social Services to follow up on the mandate to develop special

provisions relative to the Health and Safety Code, ( Article 20, Section 11470 of the

Retail Food Facilities Law) which exempts Jamison Center from that regulation.

  Department of Human Services should make a concerted effort to cooperate with

such government agencies as the Community Connection for Child Care, Kern

County Superintendent of Schools, the Department of Mental Health Services, and

other service clubs and organizations such as Bakersfield Museum of Art, A. Miriam

Jamison Foundation, Kiwanis, Lions, Elks, which are noteworthy for their interest

and concerns for the welfare, education, and enrichment of the children’s lives.

These agencies could assist in developing a strategic plan to correct an environment

which is woefully non- conducive to the psychological well being of the children.

  The Department of Human Services should include the Mental Health Department as

a partner in correcting deficiencies found during State evaluation visits that pertain to

emotional or psychological problems of the children.

  The Department of Human Services should consider repainting and refurbishing the

facility to make the quarters for children more inviting and less depressing.

  The Department of Human Services should find and provide services, which increase

the present level of monitoring the quality and continuity of care for children who are

subsequently placed in foster care.

  The Department of Human Services should make application to the Kern County

Children and Families Commission for funds to improve the lives of the children who

through no fault of their own become the “ family” of the Jamison Center and who

have historically been overlooked by other programs for children.

  The Department of Human Services should provide for an increased level of time the

physician spends on site to more efficiently monitor children’s health and safety

needs.

  Jamison Center’s volunteers and others who are not employed by the Department of

Human Services should also submit to and pass tests for tuberculosis and hepatitis.

RESPONSE REQUIRED

WITHIN 90 DAYS

PRESIDING JUDGE

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE

BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301

KERN COUNTY

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

To describe the 2001- 2002 Kern County Grand Jury Health, Education, and Social

Services Committees’ results of an investigative inquiry of the Kern County Emergency

Medical Services Department ( EMS) pursuant to Penal Code Section 925.

INTRODUCTION:

The Emergency Medical Services Department is the lead agency for the emergency

medical services system in Kern County and is responsible for coordinating all system

participants in the County. Participants include the public, emergency service providers,

and hospitals throughout the County. The Department provides various training

programs for emergency medical services such as certification and recertification for

local EMS personnel.

FINDINGS:

  The EMS Department, previously under the auspice of the Kern County Fire

Department and the Kern Medical Center, is presently under the direct supervision of

the Kern County Board of Supervisors.

  Paramedic training is done at the EMS facility by the EMS staff.

  The rate of failure to pass certification for those trained outside the County is between

20- 30%, while those trained within the County is 1- 2%.

  The Interim Director does not meet the standard set by Kern County for the position

of Director of EMS. The Interim Director lacks adequate formal education by not

possessing a Bachelor’s Degree in Management or Health related field.

  The Interim Director of EMS is an Adjunct Professor of Bakersfield College

instructing Emergency Medical Technician students. There have been occasions

when the Interim Director utilized the EMS Facility for training students.

Certification tests are maintained at this site. Interim Director monitors and certifies

this program as well.

  EMS Interim Director has not presented a California Form 700 Disclosure Statement

revealing that he is a general partner with BP Technologies who perform training for

oil company personnel.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

A Director should be hired for the Kern County Emergency Medical Services Department

who meets the job classification required by the County.

The EMS Department should be reviewed regarding the staffing pattern and equipment

usage to ensure an efficient operation.

The EMS Department, acting as an independent department under the Board of

Supervisors, should be placed under the Fire Department or the Department of Public

Health as are the majority of California’s other EMS Departments.

Initiate an investigation into the conflict of interest involving the current Interim Director

and his involvement as an Adjunct Professor for Bakersfield College, monitoring the

training program, and certifying the students.

RESPONSE REQUIRED:

WITHIN 90 DAYS

TO PRESIDING JUDGE

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE

BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

SUPERVISORS

Jon McQuiston ................ D istrict 1

Steve A. Perez ................. District 2

Barbara Patrick ............... District 3

Kenneth W. Peterson ...... District 4

Pete H. Parra ................... District 5

Arthur Wallace, Presiding Judge

Kern County Superior Court

1415 Truxtun Avenue

Bakersfield, CA 93301

DENISE PENNELL

CLERK OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Kern County Administrative Center

1115 Truxtun Avenue, 5th Floor

Bakersfield, California 93331

Telephone 661- 868- 3 585

TTY Relay 800- 735- 2929

February 5,2002

Dear Judge Wallace:

Transmitted herewith is the Board of Supervisors’ response to the findings and recommendations

within the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury’s Final Report on the County’s Emergency Medical Services

Department.

The Board of Supervisors thanks the Grand Jury for its review and report on this County

department.

Sincerely,

Steve A. Perez, Chai

Kern County Board of Supervisors

SP: ACK: POLGJEMSA. doc

Attachment

HE- 9

Kern County Board of Supervisors .

Response to Grand Jury Final Report

KERN COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Response to Findings:

The Board of Supervisors notes that the findings are

Emergency Medical Services Department ( EMS) has never

Department ( Finding No. 1).

subbstantially correct, except that the

been under the auspice of the Fire

EMT Certification

The EMS Department’s Medical Director, Dr. Robert Barnes, is responsible for certifying

individuals as EMTs- emergency medical technicians, a certification that is recognized

statewide. Those with access to training in Kern County for this certification may take classes at

any community college- Taft College, Bakersfield College, Cerro Coso College, and from

private schools, such as San Joaquin Valley College. The EMT program curriculum at these

institutions is designed and taught in accordance with the standards established by the State; Dr.

Barnes certifies the coursework as to meeting the State's standards. Individuals satisfactorily

completing this coursework receive a Certificate of Completion by the educational institution.

To apply for EMT certification, the individual brings the Certificate of Completion to the EMS

Department and completes an application. The application is reviewed, and if the applicant meets

the established criteria, Dr. Barnes issues an EMT certification. It is noted that no further testing

is required; the Certificate of Completion from a local program is determined to be prima facia

evidence that the individual possesses the necessary knowledge and skills. A certification will

not be issued if the applicant does not meet other criteria, for example, if the applicant has a

felony conviction record. The number of students not completing an EMT course or failing to

satisfactorily complete a course is unknown.

Kern County’s ability to process EMT applications more quickly

areas of the State leads individuals to apply for certification here.

County, it takes between 60 and 90 days to process an application.

takes less than 7 days. Because the EMS Medical Director has not

of the County, applicants participating in these programs are

that the applicant’s knowledge and skills can be verified.

the EMS. Department's facility and each exam session will have

attending.

Olive Drive Training Center

Bakersfield College offers a Fire Technology program, for which an EMT class is required

coursework. The classes for this program are taught almost exclusively at the Olive Drive

Training Center, a joint City of Bakersfield/ County of Kern facility. When this facility is at

capacity, other County facilities are put into use. Many County facilities are used for training

purposes, including the building housing the EMS Department, where paramedic training is

conducted. As public buildings, it is appropriate that County facilities be available for these

purposes.

and less expensively than other,

For example, in Los Angeles

ation. In Kern County it usually

certified EMT courses outside

required to take an examination so

The exams are offered twice a month at

between 10 to 40 applicants

HE- 11

Kern County Board of Supervisors

Response to Grand Jury Final Report

Emergency Medical Services Department

Page 2

Outside Employment

The Grand Jury correctly notes that the Interim EMS Director is employed as an adjunct

instructor for Bakersfield College and teaches EMT classes. While many County employees are

employed as instructors by local colleges, the concern expressed by the Grand Jury was the

possibility that a conflict of interest existed between the Interim Director’s work responsibilities

and the teaching responsibilities. This matter has been reviewed by County Counsel, which has

opined that no conflict is present.

According to the records available from the Auditor- Controller- County Clerk, Russell Blind,

Interim EMS Director, is listed as a general partner in the business concern of B/ P- Tec. When

this business was established in 1997, Mr. Blind consulted with County Counsel as to whether a

conflict of interest would be created by his involvement in this business venture. At that time,

County Counsel opined that a conflict did exist. Mr. Blind has stated that since his 1997

consultation with County Counsel he has had no involvement with B/ P- Tec, that he has no

investment in the company, and has not received any revenue or payment from the company. Mr.

Blind noted that the proper paperwork officially converting B/ P- Tec from a general partnership

business to a sole proprietorship was not completed as it should have been in 1997. When this

was brought to his attention via the Grand Jury’s report, Mr. Blind took steps to remedy this

technical issue.

Response to Recommendations:

Recommendation # 1: The County is preparing to open a recruitment to fill the EMS Director

position with a permanent appointment. This employment opportunity will be widely marketed

and it is expected that this recruitment will result in a large pool of candidates.

Recommendation # 2: As the Grand Jury is aware, the County constantly strives to improve the

quality of service provided to its customers. The County engages in frequent reviews of

departments’ organizational structures and functions to assess the most effective way a

department can provide services. It is fully expected that the permanent appointee to the director

position will thoroughly evaluate the department’s operations and organizational structures, and

will make recommendations for changes accor

Recommendation # 3: When the EMS Department was established as an independent, stand- alone

departmenta significant amount of study and an in- depth review of the options available to the

Board was conducted. This study provided the basis for the decision to establish the EMS

function as a separate department. Addressed in the study was full consideration of the conflicts

of interest that may arise with other County departments that respond to medical emergencies,

such as the Fire Department, and the need for the EMS function to operate objectively and

independently in dealing with private medical emergency responders.

Recommendation # 4: As noted above, Mr. Blind’s employment with Bakersfield College has

been reviewed- by County Counsel and no conflict with Mr. Blind's work responsibilities was

identified.

HE- I2

KERN COUNTY LAW LIBRARY

PURPOSE:

Pursuant to California Penal Code 925 the Health, Education, and Social Services

Committee of the Grand Jury is making this report to follow up on previous grand jury

recommendations. The Grand Jury is also reviewing the current status of the Kern

County Law Library.

It is the function of the Law Library to provide current legal materials which promote

knowledge of law to Kern County citizenry. This collection is maintained in good order

and is accessible to all users. Public service is provided to assist in the utilization of

library materials.

BACKGROUND:

The Kern County Law Library, located at 1415 Truxtun Avenue, Rm. 301 is an

independent public corporation organized under the California Business and Professions

Code, Section 6300 et seq. The Board of Trustees membership consists of five Superior

Court Judges, two attorneys, one of whom is selected by the Kern County Bar

Association. The Law Librarian serves as secretary to the board. Library staff members

serve at the will of the Board of Trustees.

Previous recommendations made in the 1994- 95 and the 1995- 96 Grand Jury final reports

that additional methods of funding, security improvements, additional staff, and CD/ Rom

and Fax systems were needed. All of these recommendations have been accomplished.

The law library provides the following services: the use of a photocopier, typewriter,

computers ( with internet access), self- help inter- library loan access, microfiche tapes,

“ Virtual Law Library”.

In addition, within the past four years the library has self– funded and completed a major

remodeling project. This has resulted in a facility of which Kern County residents can be

proud and is continuing to move forward as a leader in the State of California’s Law

Library community.

RECOMMENDATION:

The County Board of Supervisors, Board of Law Library Trustees of Kern County, Law

Librarian and staff can be applauded for a job well done.

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED:

KERN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND

SCHOOLS REPORT

PURPOSE:

One of the responsibilities of the Health, Education and Social Services Committee

( HESS) is to review budgets, programs, and activities of Kern County Schools on a

regular basis.

The HESS committee of the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury’s priority was to visit school districts

and schools that had not been visited in recent years and to seek successful programs that

could be suggested to other school districts for possible implementation.

FINDINGS:

The following programs are offered at several of the school districts visited:

  The Accelerated Reading Program which introduces young students to the world of

books and computers.

  Student, parent, and community on- site recycling programs, which teach

responsibility for the environment as well as support for school activities.

  The community supported Manufacturing Academy, which brings business and

students together in a positive learning experience.

  The Exploring Technology Program, where students have a hands- on experience with

high- tech projects such as building rockets.

  The Video Experiences Program, where skills in production can be beneficial to both

the students and schools in the communication fields.

  The involvement of student activity in the physical beautification and care of the

school grounds, including the planting of trees and installing exterior fixtures on- site

such as benches, etc.

  The Oil- Technology Academy, which introduces students to careers in the petroleum

and technology industries vital to our community.

  Special Education Programs, that ensure equal opportunity for every child in a safe

and nurturing environment.

  Programs similar to the Parent Resource Center, where parents learn to become more

involved with their children’s educational needs.

  Day Care Programs, that allow children to be in a safe and healthful environment

while their parents are being productive and responsible citizens in their community.

  Programs such as the SB65 ( School- Based Public Motivation Program), enabling

students who might otherwise be expelled, to return to their regular classrooms.

  Programs such as the BTSA ( Beginning Teacher Support & Assessment Program)

which assists new teachers.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

  Make technology a priority, enabling children to compete in today’s job market.

  Increase the availability of Manual Arts classes at the high school level.

  Improve planning for population growth in the schools to eliminate the necessity for

re- zoning in building additional schools.

  Smaller schools districts could benefit by meeting and sharing information with other

small school districts.

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

KERN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS

TRUSTEES’ COMPENSATION

PURPOSE:

This report is submitted pursuant to California Penal Code 925, to follow up on a

Bakersfield Californian article of March 25, 2001 entitled “ Taxpayers foot bill for trustee

perks”, and to respond to a citizen complaint alleging possible abuse of taxpayer funds.

The 2001- 2002 Kern County Grand Jury submitted copies of a survey to 47 Kern County

School Districts. The survey requested information relative to the number of students per

district, number of trustees serving, benefits provided to trustees, yearly cost to the

district per trustee, benefits to trustee family members, and duration of benefits provided.

BACKGROUND:

It is the function of school trustees to set district policy and oversee the educational

system in accordance with Federal and State Policy. Primary responsibilities of school

trustees are to set direction for the district, provide a structure by establishing policy,

ensure accountability, and provide community leadership on behalf of the district and

public education.

The practice of offering school board trustees health benefits and stipends is a relatively

recent phenomenon. Other than allowances for expenses related to attending conferences

and training sessions, trustees in the past considered their membership on school boards a

public service. Gradually, trustees began to receive various types of benefits.

The California School Boards Association, which represents nearly 1000 school boards

statewide, reports that board member compensation is determined at the discretion of the

individual school district. However, California State Government Code, Sections 53201

and 53205, limits these amounts and restricts conditions under which school boards may

provide benefits to retired board trustees. More specifically, subdivision ( a) of

government code, section 53201 authorizes the district to provide health and welfare

benefits to its officers, employees, and retired employees who elect to accept the benefits.

Section ( c) states that districts providing benefits to former members may not continue to

provide these benefits to any person first elected to a term of office that began after

January 1, 1995.

Education code 35120 ( 5) states that school districts with average daily attendance for the

previous year of 10,000 or less, but more than 1,000, may provide stipends to trustees

who attend all meetings, a sum not to exceed $ 240.00 in any month. By contrast, Section

( 6) of the same code provides that in any school district with average daily attendance of

less than 150 for the previous year, trustees may be paid a stipend not to exceed $ 60.00 a

month.*

FINDINGS:

  Recent practices of Kern County School Boards include the provision of extensive

insurance benefits such as: health, dental, vision, psychological, cancer, life, and

prescription drugs to school board trustees. In addition, some districts have added a

monthly or per meeting stipend.

  In almost all cases, health benefits are extended to trustees’ family members.

  The duration of these benefits ranged from trustees’ terms in office to lifetime

benefits.

  Costs for insurance benefits on a yearly basis, range from $ 67 to $ 64,165 per district.

  In seven school districts, no benefits and no stipends were offered.

  In four school districts, school boards received only a monthly stipend ranging from

$ 3,600 to $ 24,000 each year, with no insurance benefits.

  In four school districts, school board members receive both a monthly stipend and

insurance benefits.

  California State law allows trustees to vote their own benefits as long as they fall

within the parameters of the law.

  The provision of stipends and expensive benefits to school trustees seems to have

become the rule rather than the exception. There appears to be little relationship

between the size of the school district and the amount of benefits trustees receive.

  If school board members followed the example of the seven Kern County School

Districts who performed their duties without benefits, a savings of $ 1,420,511 would

be realized.

  Trustees serving the districts of Belridge, Blake, Caliente Union, General Shafter,

Kernville Union, Linns Valley- Poso Flat, and Rio Bravo- Greeley are to be

commended for serving with no stipends and no health and welfare insurance.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

  The Kern County Superintendent of Schools should encourage individual school

districts to consider oversight of the amounts of money being spent on school

trustees’ benefits in proportion to amounts spent per student.

  Voters need to be more involved in the election of school district trustees. They also

need to be more aware of the qualifications and character of the candidates. It is

important for the voters to know candidates’ views on important issues and

motivations for seeking office.

  Trustees should give serious consideration to declining acceptance of compensation

and consider their role to be public service as their predecessors did.

* Some trustees may decline benefits.

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

  The wide variation in trustee compensation and benefits is illustrated in the following

table:

SCHOOL DISTRICTS ADA *

# TRUSTEES

YEARLY

STIPEND

TOTAL**

YEARLY

BENEFIT

TOTAL**

Arvin Union 2,538 5 None $ 40,898.00

Bakersfield City 25,607 5 None $ 43,413.00

Beardsley 1,515 4 None $ 35,376.00

Belridge 35 2 None None

Blake 13 3 None None

Buttonwillow Union 360 5 None $ 27,575.00

Caliente Union 121 5 None None

Delano Union 6,585 5 $ 14,400.00 $ 42,090.00

Delano Joint Union High 3220 3 of 5 None $ 26,172.00

Di Giorgio 216 2 None $ 13,808.00

Edison 772 4 None $ 67.00

El Tejon Unified 1390 5 $ 14,400.00 None

Elk Hills 73 5 $ 3,600.00 None

Fairfax 1310 5 None $ 42,876.00

Fruitvale 2,743 5 None $ 38,375.00

General Shafter 208 2 None None

Greenfield Union 6,232 5 None $ 36,386.00

Kern High 32,036 4 of 5 None $ 29,432.00

Kernville Union 949 5 None None

Lakeside Union Elementary 1,105 5 None $ 44,081.00

Lamont 2,680 5 None $ 41,658.00

Linns Valley- Poso Flat 60 5 None None

Lost Hills Union 492 5 $ 6,000 $ 38,040.00

Maple 254 3 None $ 25,745.00

Maricopa 360 5 None $ 44,960.00

McFarland Unified 2584 5 None $ 41,370.00

McKittrick 52 3 None $ 28,041.00

Midway 100 3 None $ 32,452.00

Mojave Unified 2,405 5 $ 14,400.00 None

Muroc Joint Unified 2,299 5 $ 12,000.00 None

Norris 1,580 5 None $ 38,830.00

Panama- Buena Vista 13,231 5 $ 24,000.00 $ 43,750.00

Pond Union 165 5 None $ 43,518.00

Richland 2,393 4 None $ 35,692.00

Rio Bravo- Greeley 731 5 None None

Rosedale Union 3,797 4 None $ 39,256.00

Sierra Sands Unified 5,500 7 $ 20,160.00 $ 64,165.00

Semitropic 275 3 None $ 26,208.00

South Fork Union 354 4 None $ 34,756.00

Southern Kern Unified 3,004 5 None $ 58,300.00

Standard 2,600 4 None $ 33,204.00

Taft City 1,977 5 None $ 47,275.00

Taft Union High 830 5 None $ 52,620.00

Tehachapi Unified 4,675 7 None $ 47,103.00

Vineland 820 5 None $ 39,845.00

Wasco Union 2,573 5 None $ 42,070.00

Wasco Union High 1,200 5 None $ 42,830.00

Kern County Board of Education 3,030 7 $ 6,720.00 $ 58,274.00

TOTALS 147,049 215 $ 115,688.00 $ 1,420,511.00

* ADA= Average Daily Attendance ** Yearly totals include all costs for all trustees and families

SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

SOUTHERN KERN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

To report the results of an investigative inquiry of the Special Education Program of the

Southern Kern Unified School District pursuant to Penal Code Section 925. Numerous

parents’ complaints were received regarding the manner in which the school district

identifies and provides appropriate educational intervention for special education

students.

INTRODUCTION:

The intent of the state legislature provided through Educational Code ( EC) Section

Number 56300, Chapter 4, Article I, “ districts shall systematically seek out all

individuals with exceptional needs in school through age 21 who reside in the district

through a ‘ continuous child find system.’ It must then provide for assessment of that

individuals needs, followed by a plan to meet those needs. Provision is further made by

which parents must receive written notification of all parental rights in this section: EC,

Part 30, Special Education Programs, Chapter I of General Provisions Article I,

beginning in EC § 56000, states in part: ‘ The legislature finds and declares that all

individuals with exceptional needs have a right to participate in free, appropriate, public

education to meet their unique needs.’ ”

Questions Developed:

  Does the Southern Kern Unified School District’s Plan for Special Education

effectively, properly, and legally identify students with exceptional needs?

  Does the Special Education Plan provided by the District offer adequate intervention

assistance as provided for in the Education Code?

  Is the high number of special education students ( 298) transferring to other districts a

reflection of parents’ lack of confidence in their children’s progress?

  Has the Special Education Local Plan Area ( SELPA) Director provided adequate

opportunities to the Director of Special Education at Southern Kern Unified School

District for adequate training in special education?

  Have all non- compliance issues found by the State Department of Education during

their review of the program been resolved?

PROCEDURE:

Inquiry procedures included an on site visit with members of the administration,

interviews with parents, County Superintendent of Schools, Director of Special

Education, Assistant Superintendent of Kern County Schools, Administrator of Kern

County Superintendent’s Special Education Division, Assistant Superintendent of Kern

County Schools, SELPA representative, Southern Kern Unified School District

Administration, and a review of the schools’ special education budget.

FINDINGS:

  District is operating its own Special Education Program with no direction by the

County Superintendent of Schools Special Education Director.

  It was reported that 20- 25% of IEP’s ( Individual Education Program) were not being

implemented as agreed upon by parents, teachers, and Administrators.

  During inquiry at school site it was found that the District had difficulty finding

qualified special education teachers.

  While mediation process was underway parents felt isolated and did not understand

the process in which they were involved.

  Parents became alienated from the school’s process of fulfilling the special needs of

their children’s education.

  Parents have removed their children from the District and elected to follow a home

teaching program to provide for their child’s identified special needs.

  Parents have been denied their established rights to their children’s IEP records.

  There are students currently receiving only intermittent assistance due to the lack of a

specialized classroom as required by the statute referenced in this report.

  Parents have appealed to:

The Office of Civil Rights

The California State Department of Education’s Special Education Department

Kern County Superintendent of Schools

Southern Kern Unified Schools Board of Trustees, Superintendent, Principal,

and its Director of Special Education.

Complaints Management and Mediation Unit, Special Education Funding for

the Special Education Program was considered adequate for this State and

Federally funded program and has recently been awarded additional funds.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

  The Board of Trustees should initiate a review of the process used in the mediation

and Individualized Education Program plan meetings, to assure a non- adversarial

atmosphere with good communication and translation ( when needed) for all parties,

parents, psychologist, teachers, and administration as required by: Public Law 94-

142; Ed. Code Articles; Title V, Division I- Articles 1- 8 1 & 2 ( 56000 and 56020

inclusive) California Code of Regulations.

  The Board of Trustees should initiate action to schedule and hold an Individualized

Educational Program meeting for all cases identified as in need, with an annual date

for review ( or more if parent requests) being set at the first IEP meeting.

  The Superintendent of the Southern Kern Unified School District should monitor

implementation of IEP plans, a responsibility of the Districts’ Special Education

Director, on a monthly basis.

  The Southern Kern Unified School District contact the Kern County Network for

Children for possible training of their advocates to better assist parents in

understanding IEP’s. Also include literature in every school to inform parents of the

Kern County Network for Children and the help it can provide special education

student families.

RESPONSE REQUIRED

WITHIN 90 DAYS

PRESIDING JUDGE

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE

BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301

SOUTHERN KERN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

P. O. Drawer CC

Rosamond, CA 93560

( 661) 256- 5000 Fax ( 661) 256- 1247

March 15, 2002

Presiding Judge

Kern County Superior Court

141 5 Truxtun Avenue

Bakersfield, CA 9330 I

Dear Sir:

Enclosed is the district response to the Grand Jury Preliminary Report regarding

the Special Education Program in the Southern Kern Unified School District.

Sincerely,

Rodney ? h n N Noorrmmaann

Interim Superintendent

HE- 25

March 15, 2002

In the summer of 2001, the Grand Jury County of Kern Health, Education, and Social Services

Committee undertook an investigation of the Special Education Program in the Southern Kern

Unified School District. On December 21, 2001, the Grand Jury submitted a report to the Board

of Supervisors and provided the district with a copy.

The three- page Grand Jury committee report consisted of an introduction, five questions

developed, eight findings, and four recommendations. The District will respond to each section.

QUESTIONS DEVELOPED:

With the exception of one question, the District agrees the questions developed were formulated

toward providing a fair and balanced investigation of the matter. The question the District does

not agree was valid was: “ Is the high number of special education students ( 298) transferring to

other districts a reflection of parents’ lack of confidence in their children’s program?”

Prior to releasing the report to the media, the Committee telephone the District offering the

District an opportunity to correct any glaring inconsistencies in the preliminary report. The

District responded that the 298 figure was inaccurate and had been provided to the Committee in

a totally different context. At the time, the District had only 291 special education students so it

would have not been possible for 295 special education students to leave. In fact, the number of

special education students who transferred out was 4 or less than 2%. The 298 referred to all

District students, regular education and special education, transferring to other districts.

Rosamond is a predominantly commuter or “ bedroom” community with most jobs located

outside the community. For over two decades about 10% of the Districts’ students have

transferred out to be near their parents place of employment. About 85% of these students

transfer to schools on Edwards Air Force Base ( AFB). Discounting Edwards AFB, the number

of students transferring into or out of the district is about the same. The District asked that this

inaccuracy be corrected in the preliminary report but the Committee stated the District should

address the issue in its response.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Following is a detailed response to the reports findings and recommendations. In accordance

with Penal Code 933.05, the District has indicated whether it agrees, partially agrees, or

disagrees with each finding and the present status of each recommendation.

The District agrees that communication between parents and staff was in need of improvement.

Some parents indicated that they found it difficult to work with administrative staff toward

resolution of concerns. District agrees that some parents had difficulty working with

administrative staff Admittedly, the number of complaints from District parents has increased.

Generally however, working relationships and communications between parents and teaching

staff were good.

Grand Jury Response

H E- 27

Information from the California Dept. of Education Complaints Management & Mediation Unit

indicates that across the State of California, the number of complaints has increased from 356 in

1995/ 96 to 1191 in 2000/ 01. Interestingly, the number of special education students has

increased from 571,000 in 1995/ 96 to 651,000 in 2000/ 01. That means that the special education

population has increased by about 1 4%, w hile the number of complaints filed with the State have

increased by over 300%. District is aware of the increasing desires of special education students

and their parents. District is committed to working with students and parents to provide FAPE

( free and public education).

In striving to reach that goal, there have been numerous changes within District’s Special

Education program since late fall 2001. Some of these changes were not incorporated into the

preliminary report, such as District’s appointment of a new coordinator of special education and

the establishment of monthly District CAC ( community advisory committee) meetings to

increase District’s accessibility. To better respond to this Preliminary Report, specific responses

to each Finding are listed below:

> District operating its own SpeciaI Education program with no direction from Kern

Co. Supt. of Schools Special Education Director - District partially agrees with the

finding

o District does have the responsibility to operate its own programs. These programs

include, but are not limited to RSP, SDC, SDL ( severe disorders of language) and

speech. However:

District is one of 45 participating districts in the Kern County Consortium

SELPA ( Special Education Local Plan Area) ( See attached information)

SELPA provides member districts with services such as program

specialists who can assist with curriculum development, resource

identification, teacher/ staff/ parent support and professional

development. SELPA also provides assistance in placements for

students with severe disabilities or Inter- SELPA placement.

District is participating in professional development sponsored by

SELPA ( example - IEP teacher trainings held within District, IEP

administrative staff trainings, sending teachers to SELPA

sponsored training)

District operating its own Special Education program with no direction from Kern

CO. Supt. of Schools Special Education Director ( Cont’d)

District works with Kern Co. Supt. of Schools Office ( KCSOS) which is

the administrative unit for the Kern County Consortium SELPA.

Through KCSOS and District partnership, KCSOS provides such

DIS ( designated instructional services) as Adapted Physical

Education, Occupational Therapy and Visual/ Orientation &

Mobility services for eligible students.

District has special education students in KCSOS special education

classes that provide services for students with severe/ low incidence

kinds of disabilities.

KCSOS also provides transportation services for some of District’s

students who are attending KCSOS classes.

*

Grand Jury Response

HE- 28

> Report that 20- 25% of IEP’s were not being implemented as agreed upon by

parents, teachers, and administrators - District disagrees partially with finding

o It is difficult to verify the 20- 25% figure because District was not given the Grand

Jury’s source of information. As of December 1,2001, the count of students

receiving special education services was 29 1.

9 When reporting data to County and State in December 2001, 49 items of

non- compliance were found. Non- compliance, on this December report, is

defined as annual and/ or triennial IEP's not documented as held by their

due date. In several cases, more than one timeline non- compliance was

reported for a single student ( 8 students in this category). This means

14.1% were non- compliant as to timeline regulations. These timeline

errors are being, corrected. Timeline non- compliance does not necessarily

mean students were not receiving the program outlined in the IEP.

o If this refers to the complaints filed by parents, complaints may be filed by

parents regarding almost any concern. Complaints filed by parents may contain

one or more complaints. Frequent reasons for complaints were listed in the

introduction of this response document. The number of complaints filed by

District’s parents has increased, just as complaints have increased across the state.

In 2001, District’s parents filed six complaints. Several families have filed more

than one complaint. District has worked through these complaints, making

changes where necessary. State indicates there have been no new complaints

filed by District’s parents since December 2001.

o If this refers to requests for parents requesting due process in the form of

mediation, there have been five mediations. Some of these mediations included

the same families that filed complaints.

‘ r. District’s difficulty finding qualified special education teachers - District agrees

with finding

0

0

0

0

District, similar to most other school districts in California, does have

difficulty finding special education teachers. There is a shortage of fully-qualified

special education teachers throughout the state.

District has advertised at universities/ colleges and recruited in and out of state

for qualified teachers.

District uses available resources to train teachers who are currently on staff.

SELPA resources have been used for trainings. District has monthly staff

meetings to discuss procedures, new information, etc.

District is committed to providing FAPE ( free and appropriate education).

For example, District has contracted with a non- school agency in order to

provide speech therapy services, because qualified speech therapists could not

be found.

Grand Jury Response

HE- 29

P Parents report that they ( parents) felt isolated and did not understand mediation

process that they ( parents) initiated - District partially agrees with finding

o Mediation is a process that can be initiated by parents or school districts when

parents and the district cannot agree on placement/ services, etc.

o Parents or the school district can elect to try mediation before proceeding to a Due

Process Hearing. If mediation is selected, a mediator is selected through the

Special Education Hearing Office ( SEHO). Mediation is encouraged by SEHO.

Districts are informed that Mediation/ Due Process has been initiated by SEHO.

Once mediation has been initiated, the mediator contacts parents and District.

The mediator facilitates mediation and works with the parents and District to

mediate, or solve, the differences between parent and district. To date, all

mediations requested through SEHO have been initiated by parents.

o In the parents’ rights, given to parents by District, mediation is summarized.

When parents request mediation from SEHO, SEHO explains mediation to

parents.

o The district is willing to answer parents’ questions regarding mediation. The

District’s appointment of a different special education coordinator is also trying to

increase communication with parents. However, the mediator, selected by SEHO,

is certainly a “ major player” who can help parents through the process that they,

the parents, have initiated.

o In an effort to increase communication between parents and District, District has

established its own CAC ( community advisory committee). The CAC began

meeting on a monthly basis in October 2001. At the February meeting, three

parents attended.

Other efforts to increase communication between parents and District are in

process. For example:

o

m CAC members are going to develop a parent interest survey so that parent

information/ trainings next school year will address expressed interests of

parents

Written notices have been sent home to parents regarding CAC meetings @

> Parents report that they ( parents) felt isolated and did not understand mediation

process that they ( parent) initiated - District partially agrees with finding

( Con t’d)

m Parents of special education students will be asked if they would like to be

on an e- mail listing, in order to receive timely information. Several CAC

members have already gut their names on the e- mail listing.

Grand Jury Response

HE- 30

0 Parents have removed their children from the District and elected to follow a home-teaching

program to provide for their children’s special education needs - District

partially agrees with finding

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

District is aware of one ( 1) family who has voluntarily removed their child from

District. In this instance District met numerous times with family and the

family’s advocates regarding services. ‘ District had been providing student with

services and was willing to continue services. Disagreements arose around issues

including, the identification of the student’s disability. Family refused to have

child identified as having a disability. Special education requires students to meet

eligibility criteria, including requiring students to have an identified disability.

District has looked into Inter- District transfers for the 2001/ 02 school year. As of

this date, 325 Inter- District transfers have been approved for the 2001/ 02 school

year. Out of these Inter- District transfers, four are identified as special education

students.

Of the four, one was moving with family to Lancaster, so was included as

an Inter- District .

m The remaining three list reason as “ parent workplace in other district’’

District does not have a listing of students who 1eft district and did not complete

an Inter- District transfer.

Compared to December count ( 291 students in special education), District

currently has 314 students enrolled in special education.

District does have 8 students attending Kern County Supt. Of Schools ( KCSOS)

severely handicapped programs. Programs for these students are not available

within the District.

District does have 7 seve