2005- 2006 KINGS COUNTY GRAND JURY

FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CITY OF HANFORD/ CITY MANAGER RETIREMENT AGREEMENT

HANFORD CEMETERY DISTRICT

ADDENDUM TO REPORT BY THE 2005- 2006 GRAND JURY REPORT ON THE

HANFORD CEMETERY DISTRICT

FIRST 5 OF KINGS COUNTY

KINGS WASTE AND RECYCLING AUTHORITY

CITY OF HANFORD WASTE AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS

THE DEMISE OF FORT ROOSEVELT

DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY

DISASTER PLAN FOR KINGS COUNTY

ARMONA COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT

KINGS AREA RURAL TRANSPORTATION

KIT CARSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER

KINGS COUNTY GANG TASK FORCE

BOOT CAMP VISIT

KINGS COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES

CITY OF HANFORD/ CITY MANAGER

RETIREMENT AGREEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION.

The Kings County Grand Jury began its investigation on November 21, 2005 and

completed it on May 24, 2006.

As the Grand Jury commenced its investigation of the negotiation of the

“ Employment Agreement for a Fixed Term and General Release” ( See Exhibit 2;

hereinafter referred to as the “ 2005 Agreement”) it became apparent that many

other areas of inquiry were necessary. In order to present a complete

understanding of how and why the City of Hanford comes to important decisions a

wider and deeper scrutiny had to be initiated.

The Grand Jury found that a very important document, namely a “ Letter of

Agreement” ( See Exhibit 1; hereinafter referred to as the “ 1990 Agreement”)

dated December 11, 1990 and signed by the then Mayor and the newly hired City

Manager may not have been provided to all the present City Council members

during the negotiations for the 2005 Agreement or at any prior time. This

document should have been available to them while they were attempting to arrive

at a proper and informed decision as to the terms and conditions contained in the

2005 Agreement.

It is apparent to the Grand Jury that numerous errors were made by the City

Council and its advisors on how to conduct its closed sessions and in the

reviewing and suggesting changes to the 2005 Agreement. This resulted in

violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act ( see California Government Code sections

54950 et seq; hereinafter referred to as the “ Brown Act”).

The Grand Jury also discovered that there was no formal evaluation process in

place for the City Manager, although City Council members past and present have

urged such action for many years.

The investigation also revealed that no minutes are taken in any form during

closed sessions, although they are permitted but not required by the Brown Act.

The investigation also revealed a lack of security with regard to storage and access

to city employees’ personnel files.

II. AUTHORITY.

Our authority is pursuant to of the California Penal Code § 925a, which states,

“ The Grand Jury may at any time examine the books and records of any

incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any

other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the Grand Jury may investigate

and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments,

functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city or

joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and

fit.” The Grand Jury’s mandate is “… to act as the public’s ‘ watchdog’ by

investigating and reporting upon the affairs of local government …” ( McClatchy

Newspapers v Superior Court [ 1988] 44 Cal. 3d 1162, 11760).

III. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION.

The Grand Jury enlisted the aid of the Kings County District Attorney’s Office in

establishing how to proceed with this investigation. This is allowable under

California Penal Code § 935 which states, “ The District Attorney may at all times

appear before the grand jury for the purpose of giving information or advice

relative to any matter cognizable by the grand jury, and may interrogate witnesses

before the grand jury whenever he thinks it necessary.”

It was decided that a permanent recorded transcript should be made. Therefore,

Kings Court Reporters was retained to record and transcribe all testimony, and the

District Attorney’s Office conducted the questioning of all witnesses on behalf of

the Grand Jury. All witnesses were placed under oath prior to their testimony and

admonished after their testimony not to reveal any matters discussed during their

appearance before the Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury interviewed nineteen witnesses, some of whom were interviewed

multiple times. Sixty- three exhibits were collected as evidence and examined.

The final recorded transcripts consist of twenty- one volumes containing eleven

hundred seventy- nine pages of testimony.

IV. FINDINGS.

A. THE 2005 AGREEMENT ( EXHIBIT 2).

1. The 2005 Agreement was negotiated by attorneys representing the City

Council and the City Manager over a period of weeks, and it was signed by

the Mayor of Hanford and the City Manager prior to an open session of the

City Council on November 15, 2005.

2

2. Under Paragraph 2 of the 2005 Agreement, the City Manager “ for the time

period of December 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006, will continue as City

Manager and thereafter, he will remain in paid status as Assistant City

Manager with the City providing services only as directed by the City

Council, through August 1, 2007, when he will officially commence his

retirement.”

3. Under Paragraph 3 of the 2005 Agreement, “ In the event that prior to June

30, 2006, the Hanford City Council hires a new City Manager or Mr.

Reynolds’ performance as City Manager is not consistent with the

Council’s expectations, the parties agree that he shall vacate the City

Manager position without loss of any salary and benefits and will assume

the position of Assistant City Manager. As Assistant City Manager, Mr.

Reynolds shall provide services only as directed by the City Council.”

( Underlining added)

4. Paragraph 4 of the 2005 Agreement states, “ In the event any of the actions

identified in Paragraph 3 of this agreement and release occur, Mr. Reynolds

shall vacate the position of City Manager, and assume the position of

Assistant City Manager and will be on paid administrative leave at same the

[ sic] salary and benefits, through August 1, 2007, the date upon which Mr.

Reynolds will retire from the City pursuant to the City’s retirement benefit

program then in effect.” ( Underlining added)

5. Under the 2005 Agreement, the total salary and benefits to be received by

the City Manager for the period of July 1, 2006 through August 1, 2007

will be $ 208,754. This is thirteen months times $ 12,197 monthly salary,

plus $ 3,861 monthly benefits.

6. Under the 2005 Agreement, with the extension of the City Manager’s

“ employment” from June 30, 2006 until August 1, 2007, the City

Manager’s retirement benefits will increase from “ 2% at 55” to “ 3% at 60.”

Under the current plan retiring persons would receive 2% of their final

salary times the number of years of employment, starting at age 55. Under

the future plan, which takes effect on July 1, 2007, retiring persons will

receive 3% of their final salary times the number of years employed,

starting at age 60. The new retirement program greatly increases the value

of the 2005 Agreement for the retiring employee, and will also significantly

add to the expenses incurred by the City of Hanford.

7. Nowhere in the 2005 Agreement is it stated that the City Council has the

ability to “ fire” the City Manager for non- performance of duties. Its only

recourse, according to the agreement, is that the City Manager “ shall vacate

the City Manager position without loss of any salary and benefits and will

assume the position of Assistant City Manager.” ( Paragraph 3)

Paragraph 4 states he will “ assume the position of Assistant City Manager

and will be on paid administrative leave at same the [ sic] salary and

benefits through August 1, 2007, the date upon which Mr. Reynolds will

3

retire from employment with the City pursuant to the City’s retirement

benefit program then in effect.”

Therefore, according to the 2005 Agreement, the only action the City

Council can take in the event of non- performance by the City Manager is to

continue to pay at full salary through August 1, 2007 in order to insure

eligibility for the improved retirement package.

B. THE 1990 AGREEMENT ( Exhibit 1).

1. The 1990 Agreement is dated December 11, 1990, printed on City of

Hanford letterhead, and signed by the then Mayor of Hanford and the

incoming City Manager. Under the 1990 Agreement, the City Manager

was an “ at will” employee who could be terminated at any time and for any

reason. Under the 2005 Agreement, the City Manager is now an employee

for a term ending on August 1, 2007, and there is no way the City Council

can terminate him. The Grand Jury cannot understand why the City

Council signed off on such a one- sided agreement. The Council’s

explanation that it felt it had a moral obligation to be generous with its

termination settlement does a disservice to the public.

2. The 1990 Agreement contains eight numbered items listing the benefits of

employment offered to and accepted by the new City Manager.

3. Item 7 of the 1990 Agreement states, “ should the City terminate the

employee for reasons other than malfeasance or illegal acts, the City shall

pay to the employee a lump sum cash payment equal to six ( 6) months

current aggregate salary. ”

4. Although the 1990 Agreement was superseded by the 2005 Agreement,

there is no mention made of it in the 2005 Agreement.

5. The Grand Jury sent a letter to the City Clerk dated November 28, 2005

requesting copies of all agreements between the City of Hanford and the

City Manager and received copies of both the 1990 Agreement and the

2005 Agreement within seventy- two ( 72) hours.

6. There is some evidence that current and former members of the Hanford

City Council made inquiries as to the existence of an agreement between

the City and the City Manager, but it was never given to any of them.

7. The Grand Jury finds that knowledge of the 1990 Agreement may have

affected the City Council’s negotiation of the 2005 Agreement and the

terms thereof.

8. The Grand Jury finds that information regarding the existence of and the

terms of the 1990 Agreement were not provided to City Council members

during the negotiation of the 2005 Agreement.

4

9. As the official body employing the City Manager and negotiating the terms

and conditions of the 2005 Agreement, the City Council should have been

provided with a copy of the 1990 agreement upon first assuming office

after being elected.

10. The Grand Jury could find no evidence that current or former city

employees or officials had ever seen the 1990 Agreement. From 1990 until

the Grand Jury received it, the 1990 Agreement apparently remained

inaccessible to all who asked if there was such an agreement. However,

when the Grand Jury requested this information through normal channels,

it was provided within seventy- two ( 72) hours. The Grand Jury finds that

this vital document was not provided to those who requested it, even

though they had a legal right to possess it.

11. Under City Council Resolution No. 0501- R ( Exhibit 3; hereinafter the

“ Salary Resolution”), passed by the City Council on January 4, 2005 and

still in effect on November 15, 2005, the vacant Assistant City Manager’s

position has an approved salary range of $ 7,635 - $ 9,162 per month, well

below the salary stated in paragraph 4 of the 2005 Agreement. If the City

Manager were placed in the Assistant City Manager position at a salary

higher than that authorized by the Salary Resolution, it would constitute a

violation of the city’s own Salary Resolution. This potential violation was

not corrected until the passage of City Council Resolution No. 06- 02- R,

which was not passed until January 3, 2006, more than six weeks after the

new agreement was signed.

12. The Grand Jury finds that the City Council did not have all the information

and documents it needed prior to its decision to enter into the 2005

Agreement to terminate the current City Manager.

13. The Grand Jury finds that the City Manager did not provide information to

the City Council to which it was entitled and which it needed to make an

informed and appropriate decision as to the terms and conditions of the

2005 Agreement.

14. The Grand Jury finds that the City Council, instead of exercising due

diligence in the pursuit of information which it needed in order to make a

proper and informed decision, relied on the uninformed assurances of

others.

15. The Grand Jury finds that the City Attorney, who has served since 1989,

failed in providing the City Council with the proper advice related to

compliance with the Brown Act.

16. The Grand Jury finds that the City Clerk failed to follow up on requests

from City of Hanford officials for information which they needed

concerning the 1990 Agreement and the negotiations for the 2005

Agreement.

5

C. RALPH M. BROWN ACT ( CLOSED SESSIONS).

1. The Hanford City Council began holding a series of regular and special

closed sessions on July 19, 2005 to set up an evaluation process for

reviewing the job performance of the City Manager.

2. After several additional closed sessions held on August 16, 2005, August

29, 2005, September 7, 2005, September 13, 2005, September 21, 2005 ,

and on September 28, 2005, the City Council decided to terminate the City

Manager’ s employment with the City. For all meetings held through

September 28, 2005 the agenda item was correctly labeled as “ Performance

Evaluation Process ( GC 54957) – City Manager.”

3. It was also decided at the September 28, 2005 meeting to retain outside

counsel to guide the City Council in its negotiations with the City Manager.

As of the next meeting the item labeling “ Performance Evaluation Process

( GC 54957) – City Manager” became inappropriate under the Brown Act

because the discussions of performance had ended and a discussion of a

proposed termination settlement for the City Manager began. During

subsequent closed session meetings with its negotiator, the agenda item

identifying the closed sessions should have cited Government Code section

54957.6 and should have stated “ Negotiations with Unrepresented

Employee – City Manager”.

4. The agenda item labeling for all closed sessions was supplied by the City

Attorney.

5. Government Code § 54957( b)( 4)(“ Brown Act”) states explicitly, “ Closed

sessions held pursuant to this subdivision shall not include discussion or

action on proposed compensation except for a reduction of compensation

that results from the imposition of discipline.” The Grand Jury finds that

when the City Council approved the 2005 Agreement, it clearly had no

intention of reducing compensation as a result of the imposition of

discipline. Therefore, since the agenda item identified the closed sessions

held subsequent to September 28, 2005 as “ Performance Evaluation

Process ( GC 54957) – City Manager”, all such meetings which included

discussions of compensation violated the Brown Act.

6. The Grand Jury finds that if the closed sessions held subsequent to

September 28, 2005 had been properly labeled as “ Negotiations with

Unrepresented Employee – City Manager” and had properly cited

Government Code section 54957.6, compensation could have been

discussed in closed session, but the City Council could not have taken final

action on such compensation in closed session. The Grand Jury further

finds that the 2005 Agreement was approved by the City Council in closed

session on November 15, 2005, and it was executed by both the Mayor and

the City Manager prior to the City Council returning to open session on that

same date. Therefore, it is clear that the City Council took final action on

6

the City Manager’s compensation in closed session in violation of the

Brown Act.

7. The Grand Jury finds that the Hanford City Council should have received

better guidance to insure they operated within the rules of the Brown Act.

8. The Grand Jury believes the City Council was attempting to act in a fair

and judicious matter.

D. EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS.

1. City Manager. As to the City Manager and the City Manager position the

Grand Jury finds all of the following:

( a) At no time has there been a formal evaluation and review

process in place for the person serving as City Manager.

( b) A formal annual evaluation and review process for the City

Manager is essential for the proper functioning of City government

but one has not been implemented by the City Council.

( c) While many discussions among many City Councils over

many years have taken place, thus far, no City Council has

established an annual review process for the City Manager.

( d) Without an established annual review process in place, the

City Council cannot measure the performance of the City Manager

from year to year.

( e) Without an established annual review process, the City

Manager will not have the opportunity to improve his or her

performance and to provide the kind of leadership which the City

needs.

( f) Until June 30, 2005, the City Council as a body expressed no

concerns about how the City Manager conducted city business.

( g) As of July 2005, the City Council decided to review the City

Manager’s performance.

( h) After years of benign neglect, the City Council apparently

agreed they should take control of the actions of the City Manager.

( i) Therefore, when the City Council decided it wanted to

terminate its relationship with the current City Manager, they had no

written evaluations from prior years to fall back on.

2. City Clerk. As to the City Clerk and the City Clerk position, the Grand

Jury finds all of the following:

( a) The City Clerk answers directly to the City Manager and in

addition serves as the City Manager’s secretary.

( b) Under the current system, the City Clerk is in the position of

having to serve two masters, the City Manager on one hand and the

City Council on the other.

7

( c) This system could, under certain circumstances, place the

City Clerk in the very difficult situation of having to decide whose

interest outweighs the other’s.

3. City Attorney. As to the City Attorney and the City Attorney position, the

Grand Jury finds all of the following:

( a) The current City Attorney has served the City of Hanford

since 1989.

( b) As far as the Grand Jury can ascertain, the performance of the

City Attorney has never been reviewed by the City Council.

E. MINUTES OF CLOSED SESSIONS.

1. The City Council does not keep minutes of its closed sessions in any form,

either written or recorded.

2. When asked to recall under oath what transpired at the closed sessions

regarding the City Manager’s situation, varying statements were made by

the witnesses as to what happened during those sessions.

3. The Grand Jury believes that each of these witnesses was doing his/ her very

best to recall actions and decisions made at these closed sessions

accurately. The passing of time since those closed sessions simply made

consistent and accurate recall extremely difficult.

4. Keeping recorded or written minutes would have greatly helped the

witnesses in giving their testimony.

F. PERSONNEL RECORDS.

1. At the present time personnel files are kept behind the receptionist’s desk in

the offices of the City Manager and City Clerk.

2. As far as the Grand Jury can ascertain, the files are left unlocked during

normal working hours.

3. During the course of an average working day, the files are left unattended

while city employees working in this area go about their business.

4. While these files are unattended, anyone, whether authorized or not, could

access these files.

5. There is no system for tracking documents removed from personnel files

for legitimate use within the office.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS.

1. The City Council should take whatever steps it deems appropriate and

necessary to ensure that when negotiating employment contracts with its

employees, it has access to all relevant documents, including, but not

8

limited to, the current contract and the employee’s prior written

evaluations.

2. The City Council should receive training on compliance with the Brown

Act and should take whatever additional steps it deems appropriate and

necessary to ensure that it receives appropriate advice from the City

Manager’s office and the City Attorney’s office related to compliance with

the Brown Act.

3. The City Council should establish and implement an annual performance

evaluation process for all employees and officers for which it has direct

hiring and firing authority, including, but not limited to, the City Manager,

the City Attorney and the City Clerk.

4. The City Council should keep written or recorded minutes of its closed

sessions.

5. The City Council should establish and implement an effective system for

ensuring the security and confidentiality of its personnel records.

VI. RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS.

Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agency is required to

respond within 60 days to the findings and recommendations contained in this

report.

• Hanford City Council

9

HANFORD CEMETERY DISTRICT

SYNOPSIS:

The Grand Jury received Request For Investigation from concerned citizens

regarding the operations of some cemeteries in Kings County. Under Penal

Code section 933.5 the Grand Jury is empowered to: investigate all branches

of county, city and special district government to be assured they are being

administered efficiently, honestly and in the best interests of its citizens and

to issue reports on the needs and operation of all the departments…

The Grand Jury visited the Hanford Cemetery where the Grand Jury was

impressed by the appearance of the grounds. Staff explained the operational

procedures that were utilized to manage the cemetery district. After the visit

the Grand Jury reviewed information received, including the blue bound

booklet that will be discussed further in this report, and questions some of

the information that they received from staff.

The complaints that were received contained concerns that some cemetery

district property was being converted to private use and that the management

of the cemetery district was inefficient, mismanaged, unsafe, and

discriminatory. After diligent investigation using documents provided by

the cemetery district, interviews with cemetery district employees, board

members, and other interviews many concerns were noted.

BACKGROUND:

Most of the people that the Grand Jury talked to either are or have been an

employee at the Hanford Cemetery District. Each employee expressed

contentment working there. In their own means of expression they showed

self- fulfillment by being in a position to help those that were in one of life’s

extreme traumas and mourning.

Employees made statements that they needed the Grand Jury’s help to

eliminate the suppression by management and some of the working

conditions that they were dealing with daily.

FINDINGS:

I. When visiting the Hanford Cemetery on 10/ 2/ 05, the Grand Jury was

given a blue bound booklet of information sheets. The report was read aloud

1

by a staff member and each point was expounded on and explained to the

Grand Jury.

1. It is the obligation of the Board of Trustees to see that the cemetery runs

properly. In reference to the Board of Trustees, the blue bound booklet

states, “ The Hanford Cemetery District has a five member Board of

Trustees who oversee the management of the District. They establish

policy and procedures required for the daily operation of the district

cemeteries. Their function is to receive and review complaints and inquires

( sic) from the public and advise the District Manager.” The Grand Jury

finds that it is the obligation of the Board of Trustees to be accountable for

the operation of the Hanford Cemetery District. They can delegate some of

the responsibilities of the operation but not their control. It is vital that

such a small district board is open to the employees.

1. A statement is made, “ The District Manager visits each cemetery a

minimum of eight times per day to assure smooth operation and advise

the foreman of any work requirements that need to be handled”. In this

book it states the Cemetery District consists of Calvary, Hanford,

Lakeside, and Kings River Cemeteries. This statement was not only

written in the booklet but was read to this Grand Jury. None of the

people the Grand Jury interviewed could remember any more than one

funeral at the Lakeside and Kings River cemeteries within the last ten

years.

II. The Grand Jury finds that the management staff has been disrespectful to

families of deceased members on numerous occasions. Public relations are

paramount in this type of business because you are dealing with people

under much emotional distress.

III. One of the concerns the Grand Jury has is in regards to safety and the

lack of shoring equipment utilized by the cemetery district.

a) The Grand Jury finds that California Occupational Safety and Health

Administration ( Cal- OSHA) regulation 1541.1 Requirements for Protective

Systems states:

“( a) Protection of employees in excavations.

( 1) Each employee in an excavation shall be protected

from cave- ins by an adequate protective system designed in

accordance with Section 1541.1( b) or ( c) except when:

( A) Excavations are made entirely in stable rock or

2

( B) Excavations are less than 5 feet in depth and examination

of the ground by a competent person provides no indication of a

potential cave- in”.

The Grand Jury was informed during their on- site visit to Hanford Cemetery

that the employees used plywood and 2X4 timbers to shore the grave

excavations, but no one was able to show the Grand Jury members this

equipment. In a Cemetery Board meeting where two ( 2) members of the

Grand Jury were present the Board was informed that cemeteries were

exempt from any shoring requirements. When the Grand Jury asked for the

documentation on the exemptions for shoring requirements for cemeteries,

the Grand Jury was provided with a copy of Cal- OSHA’s exemption for

excavation in stable rock. There is no stable rock on the San Joaquin Valley

floor per Kings County Public Works engineers.

b) The Grand Jury did not observe any use of hearing protect

tion by the employees of the cemetery district and the district could be

opening themselves for hearing loss claims.

c) The Grand Jury did not observe an eye wash station at the Hanford

Cemetery and questions if there is one available while the employees are

working at the Calvary, Lakeside, and/ or Kings River sites.

d) The Grand Jury observed during its visit that the safety and employee

rights postings were old, outdated, and very difficult to read and find. These

postings were placed behind cemetery equipment. The Grand Jury has since

been told that the posters at Hanford Cemetery were updated and placed on

the refrigerator after the visit but there were no postings at all at Calvary

Cemetery. The Grand Jury was told that there was no need for posters at

both sites because the foremen and/ or leadmen came to Hanford Cemetery

twice a week for staff meetings, which does not adequately inform the other

employees as to their rights or safety matters.

e) The Grand Jury questioned staff during their on- site visit regarding

safety meetings and was told that they were held once a month. However,

the newest, recently written revision to the Board policies that the Grand

Jury received in the mail five ( 5) weeks after the request was made, states

that safety meetings will be held every six ( 6) months.

f) Equipment training is lacking in adequate supervision. It is not in the

best interest of the employees to take large equipment out on their lunch

hour and teach themselves to operate cemetery equipment. This policy, or

lack thereof, could be an explanation for the high cost of repairs to Cemetery

District equipment and employees should not be blamed.

g) Employees working at remote sites have no access to District owned

cellular phones.

3

IV. The next concern this Grand Jury had was in the area of employee

relations. Using the aforementioned authority ( Penal Code 933.5) and the

same methods of investigation we noted the following:

a) The Board policy manual states that the District Manager is to maintain

good relations with the employees. It is the findings of the Grand Jury there

are strained relations between management and staff.

b) The Grand Jury has found that management has made discriminatory

remarks on several occasions. These types of remarks should not be made at

all even in jest.

c) The Grand Jury finds that management has engaged in inappropriate

personal behavior. This is unprofessional behavior and should not occur.

d) Witnesses report that management undercuts the authority and

credibility of some of the foremen. Management will frequently change the

employee work assignments after the work orders were received by the

foremen. Management will wait until jobs are assigned by the foremen and

then go directly to the employees and tell them to do something different and

deny asking the foremen to assign the original task.

e) Employees are intimidated and in fear of losing their jobs if they voice

any concerns to the Board or this Grand Jury. Several potential witnesses

expressed fear over their employment if management discovered they were

unhappy. Employees are not only discouraged from voicing concerns and

complaints to the Cemetery Board, but are openly prevented from doing so.

It is impossible for employees to voice complaints to the board with the

present system of having the District Manager:

( 1) Take the minutes of all meetings

( 2) Set all items to be presented to the board

( 3) Present the complaining employee to the board

( 4) Require the employee to obtain the District Manager’s permission to

address the board.

The Grand Jury finds that employees may have been disciplined and

retaliated against for making complaints. Indeed, it was noted after

appearing before the Grand Jury several employees were singled out for

criticism with regard to their job performance in subsequent minutes of the

Board of Trustee meetings.

f) Employees do not know about grievance procedures because the new

procedures have not been provided to them.

g) Overtime is another point of contention for the employees. It is not

assigned on an equal basis.

h) The Board’s policy states that employees will have an annual pay

increase, but some employees have had no increase for three ( 3) or more

4

years. Some employees have been told that there is no money in the budget

for increases while others have received pay increases. This is not an

evenhanded way to manage employee pay raises. The binder that was

distributed to the Grand Jury states that each employee is given a yearly

performance evaluation and raises are based on this evaluation. Some

employees have not had an evaluation for several years as evidenced by

employee provided records.

i) Employee evaluations are made with no input from their direct

supervisor/ foreman.

j) The Grand Jury found some part time employees are receiving vacation

and holiday pay against Board policy.

V. This Grand Jury is concerned about the potential for abuses in the area of

some expenditures.

a) One of them is fuel and the lack of locking devices on the four fuel tanks

to deter unauthorized usage. There is no measuring equipment on the tanks

to measure the amount of fuel being dispensed or remaining in the tanks.

Gravity flow measuring equipment can be purchased for under $ 200.00

each. An accounting procedure should be initiated to record fuel usage for

each piece of equipment. All indications are that as fuel prices increase

more fuel is being purchased. The increase in fuel purchases is being made

without any changes in operation. The Grand Jury is puzzled as to why.

b) Card/ lock fuel purchases are used to purchase gasoline for the District

Manager’s District vehicle. The Grand Jury requested random warrants for

the period between 6/ 8/ 05 and 10/ 13/ 05. The Grand Jury noted that omitted

in the billings were vehicle numbers, odometer readings, and miles per

gallon. Of the nine ( 9) warrants pulled in the item above, Board members

signed only three ( 3). The other six ( 6) warrants were approved by only the

District Manager and not by any of the Board of Trustees. It should also be

noted that fuel delivered to the two ( 2) District locations is more expensive

than fuel being bought at one of the card/ lock stations.

c) When this Grand Jury visited the Hanford Cemetery on 10/ 2/ 05, we were

told there were four credit cards used to make purchases. The cards

consisted of: Smart and Final, The Home Depot, Staples, and Orchard

Supply Hardware. The Grand Jury requested six ( 6) random warrants from

the period of 6/ 13/ 05 through 9/ 15/ 05 for our review. The Grand Jury found

that of those six ( 6) warrants Board of Trustees had signed only two ( 2) for

approval. The other four ( 4) contained only the signature of the District

Manager. The person making the purchase should not be the only person

approving the purchase. This might give the appearance of impropriety.

5

d) This Grand Jury found no evidence that an auditing procedure was used

to verify the merchandise bought was received and used at the Cemetery

District.

e) The Grand Jury questioned the finance charges on two of the billings

( Staples and OSH).

f) The statement from Orchard Supply Hardware was not under the name

of the Cemetery District but was under the name of an employee.

VI. The Board Policy Book is completely outdated and our findings are that

it should be revised.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The Board of Trustees should be fully accountable for the operation of

the Hanford Cemetery District.

2. The Board of Trustees should update the Board Policies and adhere to the

same policies. All documents should be dated.

3. The Board of Trustees should curtail the eight ( 8) daily visits to each

cemetery, especially the Lakeside and Kings River Cemeteries.

4. The Management and staff should be aware of the needs of bereaved

families and more aware of good public relations.

5. Shoring equipment should be used at every gravesite excavation of 5” or

more, per Cal- OSHA requirements.

6. The Board of Trustees should provide all employees with and require the

use of hearing protection.

7. The Board of Trustees should provide an eyewash station at all locations

when and where legally required, including outlying cemetery locations.

8. The Board of Trustees should provide the employees that are working at

a remote site with a cell phone to use in case of emergency.

9. The Board of Trustees should place, maintain and update safety

information as well as employee rights information at all locations that have

permanent employees.

10. The Board of Trustees should consider holding safety meetings more

than semi- annually. A more realistic schedule would be a minimum of

every other month.

11. The Board of Trustees should establish a training program to teach

employees to use the equipment that does not include them “ going out back

on their lunch hour and digging holes”.

12. The Board of Trustees should institute a method for the employees to

voice complaints and concerns to them directly.

6

13. The Board of Trustees should review the Kings County Employee

Handbook and should create and provide a similar one for District

employees, which includes explanations of benefits and grievance

procedures. A signed dated receipt should be required of each employee.

14. The Board of Trustees should establish a fair and impartial policy of

assigning overtime so that all employees may be included.

15. The Board of Trustees should confirm that annual performance

evaluations are conducted and appropriate pay increases awarded.

16. The Board of Trustees should install measuring devices and locks on all

fuel tanks. They should also initiate an accounting procedure for recording

fuel usage.

17. The Board of Trustees should adopt a procedure of buying most fuel

with a card/ lock if and when it is economically advantageous to do so.

18. The Board of Trustees should require odometer reading, vehicle

numbers and miles per gallon be listed on all card/ lock purchases.

19. The Board of Trustees should require more than one signature on all

warrants and require that the purchaser not be one of the signers.

20. The Board of Trustees should institute a procedure whereby purchases

are checked to insure that all the order has arrived and is being used in the

proper manner.

21. The Board of Trustees should review all part time employee pay records

to determine if improper wages were paid for vacation or holiday.

22. The Board of Trustees should audio record all Board of Trustees

meetings and hold the recordings for 6 months before destroying.

RESPONSE REQUIREMENT:

Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 ( c) the following agency is

required to respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this

report within 90 days.

􀂃 Hanford Cemetery District Board of Trustees

7

Attachments:

Copy of Blue Bound Booklet handed out to the Grand Jury on their visit

October 2, 2005.

( All personal identifying information has been deleted from this

attachment.)

Copy of Kings County Employee Handbook dated June 2005

8

ADDENDUM TO REPORT BY THE 2005- 2006

GRAND JURY REPORT ON

THE HANFORD CEMETERY DISTRICT

The Hanford Cemetery District responded to the preliminary report on the

Cemetery District issued by the Kings County Grand Jury on January 18, 2006.

The Grand Jury wishes to clarify some of its findings and some of the misleading

responses by the Cemetery District.

1. The Board response stated, “ The Board also takes exception to the manner

in which they were interrogated by the Grand Jury at the District Attorney’s

office. The Grand Jury would like to point out that the Grand Jury

scheduled the appointment for the interviews with the Board members at

the convenience of the Board members. The Grand Jury gave the Board a

list of 5 ( five) possible dates to conduct the interviews. The Board chose

the date that was convenient to them. The Grand Jury requested the use of

the District Attorney’s office in order to keep from inconveniencing the

Board members. There was never at any time the intention to “ interrogate”

the Board members but to simply gather information. The interviews

proved very useful to the Grand Jury, in spite of the circumstances.

Unfortunately, the incident that the Board refers to in its response

concerning rude and demanding remarks did happen. What the Board fails

to mention in its response is that another member of the Grand Jury was

there and immediately apologized to the Board member and the entire

Board and quickly assured the Board that the Grand Jury did not work in

that fashion and had no intention of directing the Sheriff or anyone else to

compel their cooperation.

2. The Board responded that “ the Grand Jury was not willing to listen to its

responses during the interview process and made its findings and reached

its conclusions based entirely upon what the complaining witnesses told

them.”

The Grand Jury not only listened to what each Board member had to say

but even wrote down each and every response and has that record in its

files. Each Board member responded to the exact same questions. The

Grand Jury referred to those responses in not only writing its report but for

this addendum as well.

3. The Board responded, “ The Report clearly implied that the Board and/ or its

management staff were ‘ stealing’ from the District and the public.” That

was not the intention of the Grand Jury nor did the Grand Jury wish to

47

imply that the Board or management was “ stealing”. What the report said

was, “ The Grand Jury is concerned about the potential for abuses in the

area of some expenditures” ( italics and underline added). It was the desire

and intention of the Grand Jury to assist the Board in protecting itself from

the appearance of impropriety.

4. Quoting from its response, the Board states, “ The District Board is open

and available to all the District employees.” The interviews conducted by

the Grand Jury with the members of the District Board indicated otherwise.

Our interviews found that 3 ( three) out of the 5 ( five) Board members flatly

stated that they would have NO contact with employees of the District. The

Grand Jury recommended that all the Board members be available to

District employees-- not the minority of its members.

5. The Board’s response to the District Manager visiting each cemetery a

minimum of eight times a day states, “ When the Grand Jury questioned the

Board about the quoted statement, the Grand Jury was told that it was

misprint and that obviously the District Manager cannot visit each of the

four cemeteries eight times a day.” When the Grand Jury was provided

with the blue bound booklet the District Manager read aloud each and every

page with the vice- chairman of the Board present. Neither of them

corrected this statement. When the Grand Jury interviewed the Board

members the responses to that particular question ranged from, “ I’m sure he

does” to “ That’s must be a misprint”.

6. The Board response concerning the number of funerals per year at Lakeside

and Kings River cemeteries averaging two to three a year does not appear

consistent with the Grand Jury’s field observation of only 3 ( three) possible

burials at Kings River since 2000 and only 1 ( one) possible at Lakeside.

7. The Board responded that it investigated the finding that “ management staff

has been disrespectful to families of deceased members on numerous

occasions” and determined that “ District management staff had not been

discourteous or disrespectful of families or friends of the deceased on any

occasion, let alone on numerous occasions.” The Grand Jury would like to

know the Board’s method of investigating this finding. Our investigation

indicated otherwise.

8. “ The Board acknowledges the requirement for shoring in graves that

exceed sixty inches in depth. The District will contact other districts in the

area to determine what is the best method of providing such shoring and

shall provide it in the future.” The Grand Jury finds that the District should

be contacting Cal- OSHA not other districts for Cal- OSHA requirements.

This shoring should be implemented immediately not in the future since

approximately one- half of the graves are 60” or deeper according to the

District’s own staff.

9. The Board investigated the assertion that the employees were trained by

sending employees out on their lunch hour to learn by trial and error and

48

did not determine this to be true. The Grand Jury arrived at this finding by

witness interviews stating that all employees desiring training on the back-hoe

were told to use their lunch hour to teach themselves by digging and

refilling holes in the back portion of the cemetery.

10. “ The Board will establish a policy that employees working at remote sites

without telephone service will have access to either a personal cellular

phone or a District- owned cellular phone.” The Grand Jury responds that

personal cell phones should not be required for communication on

company time unless the District will a pay a portion of the employee’s

bill.

11. The Board stated that it investigated the finding that “… after appearing

before the Grand Jury several employees were singled out for criticism

with regard to their job performance in subsequent minutes of the Board of

Trustee meetings.” And found “ the District Manager has done nothing to

intimidate employees or to…” One of the District Board members stated to

the Grand Jury that they were aware that the District Manager did write a

reprimand on one employee for addressing concerns directly to the Board.

The Grand Jury noted that the minutes of the Board meetings reflect

criticism of employees that appeared in front of this Grand Jury and the

criticism appears directly after their appearance. The Grand Jury does not

believe this was coincidence.

12. The Board stated, “ There has been no such increase in fuel consumption”

in response to the Grand Jury’s findings that “ All indications are that as

fuel prices increase more fuel is being purchased. The increase in fuel

purchases is being made without any changes in operation.” The Grand

Jury requested and received invoices indicating increases fuel

consumption. The Board has access to these same invoices.

The Board states it “ is unaware of the cost of gravity- flow measuring

devices” yet the Grand Jury was able to obtain this information with only

one visit to Silva’s Oil.

13. In regard to the Grand Jury finding concerning card/ lock fuel purchases,

lack of vehicle numbers, odometer readings, and miles per gallon

information on invoices as well as increased cost of delivered fuel vs. fuel

bought at card/ lock locations, the Board does not disagree. The Grand Jury

would like to know what action will be taken and when.

14. The Board does not disagree with the Grand Jury finding concerning only

the signature of the purchaser on the warrant to be paid appearing to be

improper. The Grand Jury would like to know what action will be taken

and when.

15. “ The Board does not disagree with the finding that the Grand Jury did not

find an auditing procedure.” The Grand Jury would like to know what

action will be taken and when.

49

16. “ The Board disagreed with the finding that the OSH credit card account is

in the name of a District employee. All four of the District’s credit card

accounts are in the name of the District with the manager’s name for ID

purchasing.” The Grand Jury is concerned that when the Board members

were interviewed three members of the Board were unaware of any District

credit cards and two members thought that the credit cards were kept in the

office, not carried by the District Manager in his wallet. All 5 ( five)

members thought that all warrants were approved by the Board but the

Grand Jury obtained warrants from the District that had only the signature

of the District Manager.

17. The Board disagrees with the finding that the Board Policy Book is

completely outdated and that it should be revised.” The Grand Jury wishes

to cite just a few examples that led to the conclusion that the Policy Book

needs revision. The Board Policy Book that the Grand Jury was provided

contained an outline of the office manager’s duties. There is no longer an

office manager only a clerk. The Policy Book speaks of the District

Superintendent instead of a District Manager, it calls for a 3 ( three) member

Board instead of the present 5 ( five) member board, it clearly states that the

Board Members are to receive no compensation vs. the $ 50.00 per meeting

now in place. These are just a few examples of the Policy Book being old

and outdated.

COMMENT:

The Grand Jury would like to assure the District Board that it is not their intention

to harass or accuse any of the Board members. It is the intention of the Grand Jury

to point out areas that the Grand Jury feels would help improve the services

provided to the public. The Grand Jury would like to assist the District Board

Members in avoiding all appearance of impropriety in order to spare the members

the embarrassment and inconvenience of defending themselves when it could be

avoided. The public has little thought for the District except in the worst of

circumstances. The Grand Jury acknowledges that the job of the District Board is

largely difficult and unrewarded.

RESPONSE TO ADDENDUM:

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 933.05 the following agency is

required to respond to this addendum to the report.

• Hanford Cemetery District Board of Trustees

50

FIRST 5 OF KINGS COUNTY

SYNOPSIS:

The Kings County Grand Jury appreciates the work and effort that First 5 has

expended toward improving services to the children 0- 5 of Kings County.

Additional opportunities for growth have been provided by the seven ( 7) Family

Resource Centers (“ FRC’s”) located in Armona, Corcoran, Hanford ( 2), Home

Garden, Kettleman City and Lemoore.

As stated in the First 5 Kings County Report to the Community:

First 5 Kings County Children and Families Commission was

established as a result of the passage of Proposition 10 which

levied a $. 50 sales tax on all tobacco products. The majority of

the revenues generated by this tax is distributed to local

commissions to fund services to children and their families.

Each county commission is tasked with establishing where

funding will be most effective. First 5 Kings County Children

and Families Commission has set forth a number of Local

Initiatives to best address the needs of children and families of

Kings County. The Local Initiatives include: Family Resource

Centers, Childcare Accreditation, Children’s Health, School

Readiness and Special Projects. All services funded through

First 5 Kings County fall within one of these areas and seek to

provide considerable impact through identified strategic result

areas.

AUTHORITY:

The Kings County Grand Jury’s authority to investigate is pursuant to California

Penal Code § 925 which states, “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the

operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments or functions of the

county including those operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative

district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which the

officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity of the districts.”

51

WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:

The Kings County Grand Jury investigated as a follow up to the 2004- 2005 Grand

Jury report.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

Interviews were conducted, visitations made and documents researched.

FINDINGS:

1. The Consent For Release of Information and Authorization To Refer To

Community Resources form is written in English on one side and Spanish

on the back side. The required signatures are on the English side even

when the client speaks only Spanish.

2. First 5 staff visits to Family Resource Centers are structured with an agenda

created by the First 5 staff.

3. Most communication initiated by First 5 is via e- mail.

4. Even with the extensive effort made by First 5 to inform the Kings County

community of the programs available, the message is not getting out.

5. Many Family Resource Center staff members are not properly trained in the

use of the computer program and in the creation and retrieval of required

reports.

6. In reviewing the financial statement provided by the Accounting

Department of Kings County, the Kings County Grand Jury found that

more than 23% of the First 5 income from the State was expended for

administrative costs. This amount is calculated on the figures provided by

the county as to administrative costs. First 5 includes grants the State of

California mandates be distributed directly by First 5, and First 5 has no

discretion in the expenditure of these funds, thus lowering the percentage of

administrative costs-- First 5 is strictly a pass through agency on behalf of

the State of California for those funds. This makes it appear that

administrative costs are lower than they actually would be based strictly on

funds allocated directly to First 5.

7. Prospective grantees have reported difficulty with the grant application

process used by First 5. It creates barriers for worthy agencies applying for

funds. In researching First 5 websites from other counties we find

significant help with the application process which is not available through

Kings County First 5. One very successful and viable FRC recently

severed ties with First 5 because of the difficulty of dealing with the ever-changing

requirements of the local agency.

8. The current Grand Jury continues to be concerned about the makeup of the

First 5 Commission. The Grand Jury agrees that the appointments made by

52

the Board of Supervisors were “ lawful” ( per response to the 2004- 2005

Kings County Grand Jury Report) but question their appropriateness ( per

response to the 2004- 2005 Kings County Grand Jury Report). It would

obviously be beneficial both to the community and the Commission to have

input from recipients of the services provided by First 5.

9. Financial pressure by First 5 caused Family NetworKings to dissolve,

eliminating the assistance to the FRC’s in finding and writing grants and

facilitating meetings among the FRC directors.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. All forms should be printed in both English and Spanish with self carbonized

paper used as needed. Signatures should be on the same side of the form which

includes the written answers.

2. Informal visits should be made by First 5 staff ( including the Executive

Director) to the FRC’s. There should not always be an agenda but be an

opportunity for Directors to express their needs for help.

3. Communication should be a two way person- to- person relationship which

promotes questions and a better understanding.

4. Special emphasis should be placed on creating additional outreach for potential

clients and their families, such as:

a. Public announcements should be made on radio and television stations

( both Spanish and English). These would be of help in communicating the

services and programs available to Kings County residents.

b. Flyers should be written in both English and Spanish using words that are

easily understood. These should be made available at churches, doctor’s

offices, etc.

c. All communications should make clear that the programs are for all

children 0- 5, regardless of income.

5. A more effective program of in- service training should be developed for

computer program use and form completion.

6. More money should be spent on funding programs than on administration costs.

7. Find ways to fund worthy projects, not throwing up artificial roadblocks which

encourage applicants to withdraw from the First 5 application process.

8. It is the Kings County Grand Jury’s recommendation that private citizens be

added to the First 5 Commission. It would obviously be beneficial to both the

community and to the Commission to have input from beneficiaries of the

services to be provided by First 5. Other counties have done this with much

success. Examples include Inyo, Glenn, Lake, Monterey and Siskiyou.

9. First 5 should establish a system to help the FRC’s with writing grants. This

could be accomplished by locating grant writing firms and sharing the

information or by developing an “ in house” grant writing system.

53

COMMENTS:

An article from the San Diego Union Tribune dated June 11, 2006 stated:

The agency established by Reiner’s previous initiative [ Prop. 10,

The California Children and Families Act] has spent $ 230 million on

advertising and public relations consultants since it was established

in 1999. The Legislature has talked about fixing First 5. Forcing the

agency to spend its money directly on helping kids would be a great

first step.

The continued scrutiny of the $ 700 million bureaucracy created by the poorly

drafted Prop 10 is an invitation for waste and fraud. First 5 at the state level is

currently under investigation and an audit is due to be completed in late August

First 5 Kings County needs to set the highest possible standards for the wise use of

funds to benefit the children of Kings County.

RESPONSE REQUIREMENT:

Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agency is required to

respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report.

• Kings County Board of Supervisors

54

KINGS WASTE AND RECYLING AUTHORITY

INTRODUCTION:

The Kings Waste and Recycling Authority (“ KWRA”) was formed in 1989 as a

Joint Powers Authority (“ JPA”) in order to comply with California Integrated

Waste Management Act ( the “ Act”; California Public Resources Code § 40000 et

seq). The JPA consists of Corcoran, Lemoore, Hanford and unincorporated Kings

County., The Act requires all California cities, counties and regional agencies,

such as KWRA, to reduce the amount of garbage ( in the form of recyclable

material), going to local landfills, by 50% by the year 2000.

At the present time, Kings County is at approximately 47% of the state recycling

goal. It is anticipated that the 50% goal will be achieved when the Lemoore

recycling program begins later this year. There is a consideration that the State of

California will raise this requirement to 75% in the near future.

Avenal elected not to join when the JPA was formed and reports its recycling data

and diversion percentage directly to the California Integrated Waste Management

Board.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

The Grand Jury met with the Executive Director of KWRA for an orientation brief

and a tour of the entire facility. In addition, the Grand Jury met with a

representative from the Hanford Public Works Department and a member of the

Hanford City Council.

FINDINGS:

1. The Material Recovery Facility (“ MRF”) opened on November 21, 1995.

KWRA receives no subsidies from JPA cities and receives no tax dollars.

KWRA processes all municipal waste collected within the JPA and hand-sorts

recyclable material from the waste stream. KWRA acts as a transfer

station for residue being transferred to the landfill at Chemical Waste

Management near Kettleman City. KWRA has a 16- acre composting

operation which processes green waste collected in the green waste

recycling bins in the three member cities, and material delivered directly to

55

the KWRA site by individual householders. City garbage is collected

Monday through Friday and is delivered to KWRA’S 92,000 square foot

MRF. Material is deposited on the floor and either pushed to the “ main

line” for hand- separated recyclable material collection or delivered to a

staging area for transfer to the landfill. Material staged for transfer without

sorting is contaminated with everything from water treatment plant sludge,

raw food waste, dairy waste and other contaminants. A small percentage of

material received in clear plastic bags is recovered because it is easily

identified as recyclable. Material delivered in black bags, or other bags,

that cannot be seen through, goes directly to the staging area for transfer to

landfill.

2. No local tax money goes to this operation— grants and the sale of

recyclables provide a small percentage of their income. The major source

of the income to KWRA is tipping fees.

3. The KWRA has been operating profitably only for the last two years.

4. The original cost of starting the KWRA was $ 12.5 million dollars and the

bond taken out to finance this will be paid off in 2014.

5. The entire plant design was made to process the yellow bag recycling

program. This program failed because of lack of a commitment by

leadership, lack of education of the public and lack of enforcement

mandates.

6. A five ( 5) member board of directors does most of the decision making.

Two members are from the Kings County Board of Supervisors, and one

city council member from the cities of Hanford, Corcoran, and Lemoore.

7. The KWRA Executive Director is in charge of the plant’s operational

procedures but does not have enforcement power.

8. The last time that tipping fees were raised by KWRA was in the year 2002

but the cost to some residents has increased several times due to fee

increases imposed by their respective cities.

9. Green waste dumping fees were reduced 50% ($ 70.00 per ton to $ 35.00 a

ton) several years ago but the savings was not passed on to the residents.

10. Recycled items are sold to the highest bidder daily with about one half sent

to American companies and the other half sent to foreign companies.

11. It is believed that about 70% of the 400 to 450 tons received daily are

recyclable but with the present operation only about 30% is recycled. For

example, in May 2006, the daily average was 435 tons therefore, only 91

tons were recycled daily with an estimated 213 recyclable tons going into a

landfill each day.

12. a) From 7/ 1/ 03 through 6/ 30/ 04 120,059.95 tons of waste was

processed.

b) From 7/ 1/ 04 to 6/ 30/ 05 127,413.95 tons of waste was processed.

This leaves a total increase of 7,354 tons ( 6.13%) more than a year

earlier.

56

c) It is estimated from 7/ 1/ 05 to 6/ 30/ 06 that 136,072.69 tons of waste

will be processed. This is an increase of 8,658.74 tons ( 6.8%) over the

previous year.

13. The general public can buy the green waste compost for $ 15.00 ( fifteen

dollars) per cubic yard.

SCHOOL BIN RECYCLING PROGRAM

The School site Source Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program Act

( California Public Resources Code § § 42630 through 42647) requires that each

school board have a recyclable program. The bill which passed on February 21,

2001 stated “ The bill would require each school district, by July 1, 2004, to adopt

a resolution committing the district to implement the SWRP ( school waste

reduction plan) and would require each school district by July 1, 2006 to

commence the full implementation of the SWRP.” A total of 20% ( twenty

percent) of the money received by selling the recyclables in each school’s program

is returned to the school by KWRA. Each school’s principal is accountable for the

location of the recyclable bin, the clean up around the bin, and notification to the

KWRA that the bin is full and needs to be emptied. All recyclable items can be

placed in the bin and will be separated at the KWRA.

The school bin recycling program is at the present time the most efficient program

in operation in Hanford and yet according to the senate bill introduction “ after

more than 20 years, just 40 percent of the school districts have paper recycling

programs… The bill would require a school district, when designing and

constructing new public school facilities, to allocate adequate space for the safe

collection, storage and loading of recyclable materials and to incorporate the use

of recycled materials in the construction of new public school facilities.”

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Recycling training programs to be presented to the students at schools with

recyclable bins.

2. The Kings County Grand Jury highly recommends that the semi- annual

check issued to the schools should be made out to the individual school’s

Associated Student Body to be used as a reward to the students during that

school year.

3. All planning departments in Kings County should require all new

businesses to allow space for a recyclable bin on their property or within

their complex.

4. All KWRA recyclable bins should be marked with a telephone number for

anyone to call and notify them that the bin is full and should be picked up.

57

5. The Kings County Grand Jury recommends that once a month, for at least

six months, advertisements in the various areas that KWRA serves list what

is recyclable material and where the recyclable and “ E” ( electronic)- waste

bins are located.

6. At least six times a year the KWRA should be open for the general public

to take waste material at no cost.

7. There should be an incentive ( perhaps in the form of reduced monthly

rates) offered to existing businesses, apartment complexes, and mobile

home parks to provide space for a recyclable bin for a period of time. This

incentive should only be in effect for a firm period of time and then

available space should be made mandatory after that time.

CONCLUSIONS:

The Act requires counties to go to a recyclable program. It is a law-- NOT AN

OPTION.

The initial cost of starting as well as training the general public to accept the third

can recyclable program will be time- consuming and costly. The outcome after the

program is in operation will be lower future trash removal costs, fewer landfills

and reduced usage of the world’s natural resources. We should not let political

decisions regarding recycling interfere with future generations’ existence.

Leadership, education, and enforcement with the city, county, and school officials

will ensure a smooth transition and make sure that the program will be successful.

WITHOUT THIS FIRM COOPERATION THE PROGRAM WILL FAIL!

RESPONSE REQUIREMENT:

Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agency is required to

respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report.

• Board of Directors for KWRA

58

CITY OF HANFORD WASTE AND RECYCLING

PROGRAMS

INTRODUCTION:

The Kings Waste and Recycling Authority (“ KWRA”) was formed in 1989 as a

Joint Powers Authority (“ JPA”) in order to comply with California Integrated

Waste Management Act ( the “ Act”; California Public Resources Code § 40000 et

seq). The JPA consists of Corcoran, Lemoore, Hanford and parts of

unincorporated Kings County. The Act requires all California cities, counties or

regional jurisdictions, such as KWRA, to reduce the amount of garbage ( in the

form of recyclable material) going to local landfills by 50% by the year 2000.

At the present time, Kings County is at approximately 47% of the state recycling

goal. It is anticipated that the 50% goal will be achieved when the City of

Lemoore recycling program begins later this year. There is a consideration that the

State of California will raise this requirement to 75% in the near future.

Avenal elected not to join when the JPA was formed and reports their recycling

data and diversion percentage directly to the California Integrated Waste

Management Board.

Since it is very hard to report on the KWRA and not include others in the

investigation and findings, the Grand Jury has chosen to issue a report on the City

of Hanford’s efforts to manage waste and to recycle usable materials.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

The Grand Jury met with the Executive Director of KWRA for an orientation brief

and a tour of the entire facility. In addition, the Grand Jury met with a

representative from the Hanford Public Works Department and a member of the

Hanford City Council.

FINDINGS:

1. City of Hanford’s recycling program of separating green waste from

household waste has become very successful.

59

2. Hanford City trash pickup trucks have lights inside the truck bays so that

the driver can see what is being dumped from each resident’s trash barrel.

3. Hanford City trash pickup trucks have cameras inside the truck bays to

record improper dumping from each resident’s trash barrel.

4. Fines for improper dumping in the trash barrels in the City of Hanford are

added to the residents’ water bill.

5. Only trash trucks being loaded from the side take the trash to the KWRA

for possible recycling.

6. Trash from trucks loaded from the rear or front is taken to the KWRA to be

loaded onto trucks and taken directly to the landfill for burial.

7. It is believed that 70% of commercial trash is recyclable but at the present

time 0% is processed for recycling. However, some of the large retail

stores have invested in equipment, maintenance and labor costs to compact

and resell for profit their waste cardboard. This shows that additional

enforcement by the City of Hanford in recycling cardboard could be a

monetary advantage to the city.

8. There are no recyclable bins at any apartment complexes or mobile home

parks. All trash picked up at these locations is loaded onto trucks for burial

in the landfill.

9. Hanford has no requirement that recyclable bins be available for use by any

businesses.

10. It is estimated that not more than 10% of recyclables are from the Hanford

City waste stream.

11. Only clear plastic bags where the contents can be seen will be opened for

possible recycling.

12. The City of Hanford does have a program in which businesses can place

clean waste cardboard next to their trash bin and it will be picked up

weekly. The program began in 2002. Since the start of the program the

cardboard tonnage pick up has been less each year after the first year. For

example:

a) in 2003 192.53 tons were recycled

b) in 2004 161.73 tons were recycled

c) in 2005 130.75 tons were recycled

In this period of time new growth in businesses has occurred yet total recyclable

cardboard pickup was reduced.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The City of Hanford to encourage the school districts to expand recycling

training programs to the students at schools with recyclable bins.

60

2. All Planning Departments in Kings County should require all new

businesses to allow space for a recyclable bin on their property or within

their complex.

3. There should be an incentive ( perhaps in the form of reduced monthly

rates) offered to existing businesses, apartment complexes, and mobile

home parks in the city to provide space for a recyclable bin for a period of

time. This incentive will only be in effect for a firm period of time and

then mandatory after that time.

4. The Kings County Grand Jury believes that an action committee should be

appointed with residents outside of government authority to:

a) Study the present city trash operations and recommend to the

Hanford City Council any improvements that could reduce costs and

improve service.

b) Present a recommendation to the City of Hanford adopting a third

can recycling program. The study should include findings of:

1. Using the existing black trash barrel for recyclables and

providing a much smaller new third barrel for household waste.

2. A study of the comparable cost and efficiency advantage for

all Hanford residents using city operated versus a private

contractor.

CONCLUSIONS:

The Act requires all counties to implement an effective recyclable program. It is a

law-- NOT AN OPTION.

The initial cost of starting as well as training the general public to accept the third

can recyclable program will be time- consuming and costly. The outcome after the

program is in operation will be lower future trash removal costs, fewer landfills

and reduced usage of the world’s natural resources. We should not let politics

interfere with future generations’ existence.

Leadership, education, and enforcement with the city, county, and school officials

will ensure a smooth transition and make sure the program will be successful.

WITHOUT THIS FIRM COOPERATION THE PROGRAM WILL FAIL!

RESPONSE REQUIREMENT:

Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agency is required to

respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report:

• Hanford City Council

61

THE DEMISE OF FORT ROOSEVELT

SYNOPSIS:

2005- 2006 Kings County Grand Jury received several requests to investigate the

closing of Fort Roosevelt. This had been a viable and ongoing classroom for

Kings County children since the 1960’ s. A letter was received by “ families and

friends of Fort Roosevelt” on October 17, 2004 from the Hanford Elementary

School Superintendent’s Office that stated that the Fort was to be temporarily

closed because of unsafe conditions and they would “ work diligently to find a way

to solve this problem.”

WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:

Public outcry about the sudden announcement in the Hanford Sentinel dated June

2, 2005 regarding the closing of Fort Roosevelt.

AUTHORITY:

Our authority is pursuant to § § 933.5 and 933.6 of the California Penal Code as to

the investigation of the method or system of performing the duties of a school

district or a non- profit corporation acting on behalf of a school district.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

Interviews were conducted, documents researched, and a site visit was made.

PART ONE: Timeline regarding closing of Fort Roosevelt

08- 02- 04 Letter from architect warning HESD Superintendent’s Office of safety

concerns about the walls surrounding the Fort and the Board’s

personal liability exposure.

10- 13- 04 HESD Board of Trustees was warned that the condition of the Fort

was not good and that it presented a liability problem.

10- 17- 04 Letter to parents and friends telling of temporary closing.

10- 20- 04 Fort Roosevelt Board assigns collection to California State University,

Fresno.

12- 13- 04 HESD received letter from second architect confirming that poles at

the Fort were in bad condition.

02- 07- 05 Letter from CSUF to Fort personnel acknowledging acceptance of the

Fort Roosevelt Museum collection.

03- 09- 05 The HESD Superintendent’s Office reported to HESD Board of

Trustees that the Fort Roosevelt Board had appointed CSUF to restore

the collection with approximately $ 10,000 in shared costs.

04- 26- 05 HESD Superintendent’s Office letter to CSUF regarding collection

and telling of scheduled demolition of the Fort in July, 2005.

04- 26- 05 Letter to Fort personnel from Superintendent’s Office telling them to

have everything of importance removed from the Fort by July 1, 2005

as demolition was scheduled to begin.

05- 19- 05 Letter from CSUF to Superintendent’s Office informing them of the

$ 155,210 value of the Fort Roosevelt Museum collection.

06- 02- 05 Article in Hanford Sentinel announcing to the community for the first

time the closing of Fort Roosevelt.

08- 10- 05 HESD discussion of elderberry bushes and request from new Save

Fort Roosevelt Committee for a sixty- day stay to allow them time to

form a business plan.

08- 24- 05 HESD Board of Trustees grants sixty- day stay to Save Fort Roosevelt

Committee.

09- 14- 05 Save Fort Roosevelt Committee asks for permission to enter Fort but

was denied for insurance and safety reasons.

12- 19- 05 Demolition began at Fort Roosevelt.

PART TWO: Hanford Elementary School District ( HESD)

2

Highlights of the agreement between HESD and Fort Board as of July, 1983

( Agreement attached in its entirety as Exhibit “ A”)

Findings:

1. That the District is the owner of the property commonly known as Fort

Roosevelt, located at 870 W. Davis Street, Hanford, California.

2. The District leases the facilities of Fort Roosevelt to the Fort Roosevelt

Board for $ 1.00 ( One Dollar).

3. The District, its agents and representatives, shall have the right, during term

of this agreement, to enter Fort Roosevelt for the purpose of inspection and

to ascertain if the Fort Board is performing according to the terms of this

agreement.

4. As a rider under the District’s insurance policies, the Fort Board agrees to

abide by any and all recommendations made at the time of annual safety

inspections made by District’s insurance carrier or their representatives, and

to make necessary repairs as indicated by same inspections.

Finding outside agreement:

HESD Board of Trustees and the Fort Roosevelt Board assigned ownership of the

Fort Roosevelt Museum’s vertebrae and feather collection, later valued at

$ 155,210.00, to California State University, Fresno. HESD Board of Trustees also

committed $ 10,000.00 to assist in the restoration of the collection.

PART TWO: Fort Roosevelt Board

Per agreement between HESD Superintendent’s Office and Fort Roosevelt

Board as of July 1983

Finding:

That the Fort Board hereby agrees to accept responsibility of the property and

operation of Fort Roosevelt, including:

( a) Fort Board agrees to hold District harmless, and defend all claims, from

loss or damage to property and for all injury to persons resulting from Fort

Board’s use of the Fort Roosevelt facilities.

( b) The Fort Board agrees to accept all financial responsibility for the

operation of the Fort facilities, including, but not limited to, any debt incurred

by Fort Board regarding operation of these facilities.

3

( c) Fort Board agrees to maintain premises in good repair and tenable

condition, including, but not limited to, fence, buildings, grounds, equipment,

animals, etc., during the period of lease. No items will be removed without

District approval.

( d) This agreement may be terminated by either party, at their sole discretion,

by giving written notice to the other 30 days in advance. Upon such a

termination, costs due the District shall be prorated to the date of termination

and shall be due and payable upon such date, and upon termination of this

agreement, the Fort Board will leave the premises as they found it, excluding

normal wear and tear.

Findings outside of agreement

1. The Fort Roosevelt organizational committee was very lax in setting up a

viable board and when members dropped from active participation

replacements were not named. Most members lost interest in serving and there

were only two active board members left at the end.

2. The Grand Jury found no inventory of Fort property. Also, two prominent

features of the Fort, the windmill and wagon, are missing.

3. Papers of incorporation and by- laws for the Fort Board were drawn up but

never filed. No filing was listed in California Secretary of State records.

4. No records of minutes or meetings can be found.

5. Community help was repeatedly offered for restoration of the Fort but

was turned down by Fort staff.

CONCLUSIONS:

After many interviews and reviewing documents in regards to the Fort the Grand

Jury finds that neglect on the part of the Fort Roosevelt Board and lack of Hanford

Elementary School District supervision led to the demise of Fort Roosevelt. Fort

Roosevelt was allowed to deteriorate to the point of being unsalvageable and had

to be torn down. Future generations will be denied the hands- on experience of Fort

Roosevelt.

4

RECOMMENDATIONS:

None.

COMMENTS:

It is hoped by the Grand Jury that the Save Fort Roosevelt Committee continues its

efforts in developing an appropriate replacement for the old Fort Roosevelt.

RESPONSE:

This is an informational report. No formal response to the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury

report is required.

5

EXHIBIT TO REPORT

AGREEMENT

DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY

SYNOPSIS:

The Grand Jury examined the County’s method of disposing of surplus property.

Previously, auctions were held to dispose of surplus items not recycled within the

various county departments. Such auctions are no longer feasible. The Grand Jury

examined the

A new policy was developed in August, 2005. The warehouse, which had been

full, was cleaned out and the area devoted to surplus property was greatly reduced

in size. The new policy includes using the Kings County website to inform

departments of available items and directives limiting what items will go to the

warehouse. It also adds new responsibilities as job descriptions have been

expanded to include overseeing the disposition of surplus property.

WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:

A request was made that the Grand Jury investigate the way surplus County

equipment is disposed.

AUTHORITY:

Our authority is pursuant to California Penal Code § 925.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

Interviews were conducted, documents researched, made.

PART ONE

PAST PROCEDURE

Findings:

1. Personnel from the Kings County Finance Department were interviewed.

Kings County no longer holds public auctions of surplus property. They

were found not to be cost effective, and have not been held for about ten

71

years. Kings County does not have adequate personnel or finances to

manage auctions.

2. Under the prior system, some department heads took the initiative to obtain

surplus equipment from the warehouse, thus saving taxpayers’ dollars.

PART TWO

CURRENT PROCEDURE

Findings:

1. The decision was made that a new policy was needed. It was updated by

the Kings County Department of Finance. The Grand Jury received copies

of two parts of the “ County of Kings Policy Manual” with the effective date

August 23, 2005: “ Surplus Property” and “ Inventory Control”. Copies of

those documents are attached hereto as Exhibit “ A” and made a part hereof.

2. The Grand Jury was told that county employees are strongly discouraged

from taking possession of surplus property, however this is not found in

any written policy.

3. Under the new policy which went into effect August 23, 2005 the county

removes missing items from the inventory list after two years. (“ Inventory

Control Policy V, Responsibility for Lost Assets”).

4. A visit was made to Kings County Warehouse. The warehouse had been

cleared of most County surplus property by sending it to the dump. Some

was useless, and some could have been repaired and recycled. A chain link

fence had been erected across the room, leaving a very small area for

surplus property. The fence and gate separating the two areas is not secure.

The majority of the warehouse will be used by the Public Works

Department, in an attempt to make better use of county buildings.

5. The County has developed a quality program for recycling computers with

the Kings Regional Occupation Program (“ KROP”). The computers are

repaired/ refurbished and provided to needy families at no cost.

6. The Kings County Board of Supervisors regularly increases the scrap dollar

value limit requiring its oversight ( currently $ 10,000). Items with scrap

value of less than $ 10,000 are disposed of by the Purchasing Manager or

Surplus Property Coordinator by whatever method they deem most

economically advantageous to the county.

7. The Grand Jury finds $ 10,000 scrap value excessive.

8. There is no line item in the budget making money available to repair usable

surplus items.

9. Information regarding surplus property is made available to department

heads via the Kings County website ( INSIDE KINGS) where they can

72

review the availability of items which could save money in their

departmental budgets.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The “ Policy Manual, Surplus Property” Section III. B. mentions “ Purchasing

Manager” who is the Director of Finance. That should be made clear.

2. “ Surplus Property Policy Section III. A.” should insert as a second sentence,

“ The purpose of creating the position of Surplus Property Coordinator is to

coordinate the disposition of surplus property in each department of Kings

County.”

3. “ Surplus Property Policy Section III. B. 2.” should be amended to read that

“ surplus or damaged property should be held for at least 30 days, either in

the office or in the warehouse.” During this time surplus property should

be listed on the computer as being available.

4. For maximum effectiveness the Department of Finance must ensure that the

new policies are understood, adhered to and enforced.

5. The warehouse gate and fence separating the two areas must be made

secure.

6. All items should be sent to the warehouse after thirty days to facilitate

pickup by charitable organizations in one central location.

7. Every effort should be made to donate all surplus items to a worthy

organization prior to disposal.

8. The name and telephone number of the person managing the warehouse

COMMENTS:

1. The current program for recycling surplus computers to KROP where they

are repaired and given without cost to needy families is commended.

2. Finding another use for surplus is needed. The Grand Jury suggests that

surplus property that no Kings County department wants be made available

to some charitable organization such as the Salvation Army. This would

promote goodwill in the community as well as saving taxpayer dollars for

disposal fees. should be made available to all departments.

3. The new policy does not prevent waste of taxpayers’ money.

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS:

Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933( c) the following agencies are required to

respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report:

• Kings County Board of Supervisors

73

74

DISASTER PLAN FOR KINGS COUNTY

WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED

County’s disaster plan the recent Gulf Coast storms prompted the Grand

Jury to investigate Kings and communications network.

AUTHORITY

Our authority is pursuant to § § 925 and 925( a) of the California Penal Code.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

Interviews were conducted, documents researched and visits made.

PART ONE

FIRST FINDINGS

1. “ Government at all levels has the responsibility to plan for and

respond to disasters resulting from hazards that are known to threaten

the jurisdiction.” ( Kings County Emergency Operations Policy Plan

Statement)

2 Kings County agencies are prepared for both natural and manmade

emergencies.

SECOND FINDINGS

1 The Committee interviewed personnel from the Kings County Office

of Emergency Services ( OES) concerning Kings County’s disaster

plan.

2. The Committee visited Kings County Dispatch Center. We were told

that it has the capacity to communicate with all agencies at all times.

Communications equipment is constantly being upgraded as funds

allow.

3. Personnel from safety services of the Cities of Hanford, Lemoore and

Corcoran and the California Highway Patrol were interviewed

concerning their disaster plan. All have an Emergency Operations

Command Center ( EOC) which can communicate with all of the

cities’ and county’s agencies.

4. All agencies have a Mobile Command Center available to them.

5 Every department has a written Standard Emergency Management

Systems ( SEMS) plan which is updated annually.

6 We were informed that all Kings County Emergency Services

agencies enjoy an extraordinarily close and cooperative relationship.

7 Funding to support emergency services is supplemented by

Department of Homeland Security.

8 The position of Coordinator of the Office of Emergency Services in

Kings County is half time. The same person is also employed half-time

by the Kings County Fire Department, making that person

available 8 hours a day. Half of the salary is paid by Kings County

and half is paid by federal funds.

PART TWO

STRUCTURE OF A DISASTER PLAN

1. When all resources of the initiating agency are exhausted, the

following sequence of requests for additional aid must be followed to

the next level:

2 The first responder will remain in charge of a disaster until someone

from the agency to which the responsibility rests arrives.

3 The responsible agency would first draw upon all agencies within

Kings County, then; Region V. The State of California is divided into

six regions. Kings County is part of Region V. The Inland

2

Operations Center ( Region V) also includes Merced, Mariposa,

Madera, Fresno and Tulare counties.

4. After that the State of California will receive requests for aid.

5. The final resource will be the Federal Government. This sequence

must be followed exactly.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The position of Coordinator of the Office of Emergency Services

should be a full- time position. That person should ascertain that all

fire stations in Kings County have multiple copies of the personal

emergency preparedness leaflet.

2. Disaster preparedness literature should be distributed to all police

departments ( including the California Highway Patrol), sheriff’s

substations and fire stations throughout Kings County.

COMMENTS

1. All agencies interviewed recommend that individuals be prepared to

survive on their own for a reasonable length of time.

2. It is necessary that individuals be prepared to be self- sustaining in a

disaster.

3. Citizens can visit any Hanford Fire Station or the Kings County Fire

Department Headquarters on Campus Drive in Hanford for literature

and recommendations.

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933 ( c) the following are required to

respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report.

• Kings County Board of Supervisors

• Kings County Fire Chief

• Coordinator of the Office of Emergency Services

3

KINGS AREA RURAL TRANSPORTATION

SYNOPSIS:

On November 3, 2005 the Kings County Grand Jury received a Request for Investigation

concerning a citizen’s property being used as a Kings Area Rapid Transit ( KART) bus

stop, thus creating a trash and loitering problem in front of his home.

WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:

The 2005- 2006 Kings County Grand Jury received a Request for Investigation on behalf

of the property owner asking for assistance in resolving the problem of the unmarked bus

stop.

AUTHORITY:

The Kings County Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code § 925( a), “ The

Grand Jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or

Joint Powers Agency located in the county.”

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

Members of the Grand Jury rode the KART bus on the Hanford- Lemoore Direct Route

on January 6, 2006. Management of KART and a representative of the Commission on

Aging were interviewed on January 20, 2006.

FINDINGS:

1. A KART bus can stop, on request, at any location on its route, except in the City

of Hanford.

2. Bus routes are reviewed yearly.

3. The bus was clean, the driver courteous and helpful.

91

ARMONA COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT

SYNOPSIS:

Through local media coverage the Grand Jury became aware of potential problems

relating to water and sewage issues in the Armona area and therefore began an

investigation into the preparations that the district was making to deal with this

potential problem.

WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:

Concerns by the Grand Jury and other citizens that the housing density in Armona

could compromise the water and sewer structure.

AUTHORITY:

The Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code § 933.5 as to the

investigation of special purpose assessing or taxing districts.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

Members of the Grand Jury interviewed an official of the Armona Community

Service District on February 10, 2006.

FINDINGS:

1. There are plans to drill another well ( Well # 7) in the immediate future.

2. Well # 7 would service 1800 connections.

3. Funds are in place or nearly in place to fund the drilling of Well # 7.

4. Land is being obtained for the well.

5. There are plans being drawn up for a possible second new well.

6. Bids have been invited to expand the sewage treatment capacity to

encompass all the anticipated new growth.

CONCLUSION:

The Grand Jury was impressed that the Armona Community Service District has

been so forward- thinking in their planning for growth in their district. The

89

Armona Community Service District has made plans for the rapid expansion of

their district to cause little disruption to the present citizens of the district while

serving the needs of the incoming community members.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

None

RESPONSE:

None needed. This is an informational report only.

90

4. The corner at 18th Avenue and Bush Street in Lemoore is too congested with

traffic and pedestrians making it a dangerous and unsuitable location for a bus

stop.

5. Litter was seen around many of the bus stops but it is picked up at designated bus

stops twice weekly and at other bus stop locations every two weeks.

6. The fare increases are due to population growth resulting in government funding

changes.

7. Seniors may buy bus tickets at a reduced rate at the Commission on Aging Office

at 1197 South Drive, Hanford.

CONCLUSION:

The Grand Jury thanks KART management for responding immediately to its concerns.

The bus stop on the congested and dangerous corner of 18th Avenue and Bush Street has

been relocated. The complainant’s property is no longer used as a bus stop. Litter is

picked up at official bus stops twice weekly and at other bus stop locations every two

weeks. Seniors may buy bus tickets at a reduced rate at the Commission on Aging office

at 1197 South Drive.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

None

RESPONSE:

None needed. This is an informational report only.

92

KIT CARSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

SYNOPSIS:

The Kings County Grand Jury received a complaint concerning a child who got

off a school bus with blood on his face and hands. When the parent called the

school, the school could not get in touch with bus driver. School personnel told her

they would get back to her. School personnel did get back to her and she was told

the bus driver could not be reached because the radio was off. Later that day she

was contacted and told the camera was not functioning.

AUTHORITY:

Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.5

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

Interviews on site at Kit Carson School with the School Superintendent and the

Traffic Director were held. There were two incidents that happened between

January and the time of the interview. In one incident the school could not reach

the person driving the bus because the radio was off. An on site review of repair

records of Kit Carson school buses at the Hanford High School District Garage

was held in April, 2006.

FINDINGS:

1. Radios and cameras are not required by law to be installed on school buses.

2. Most cameras that are installed in school buses are set to operate zero to

thirty minutes after the ignition is turned off.

3. There are no records showing any cameras on the Kit Carson school buses

have been repaired from January 2006 to the time of the interview for this

report in April, 2006.

4. The cameras on Kit Carson School buses are set to run ten minutes after the

ignition is turned off.

5. Most cameras have an eight- hour run time limit before they automatically

rewind.

93

6. Kit Carson School buses have radios and cameras installed by the Hanford

High District Garage. The radios can be turned off by the driver.

7. By law buses must be inspected every 3,000 miles, or after operating for 45

days, whichever comes first.

COMMENTS:

1. The Kit Carson School Traffic Director has agreed to our

recommendation. This will be implemented as soon as possible.

2. During the Grand Jury’s interview at the Kit Carson School the Grand

Jury was told the radio problem has been taken care of. The bus

drivers now have with them on their person a Nextel walkie- talkie.

There is no reasonable situation in which the school could not reach

the driver, even if the bus radio is turned off.

3. The camera was not found to be malfunctioning but it was more than

likely in the rewind mode.

RECOMMENDATION:

Tape on cameras should be changed on a daily basis and saved for at least twenty-four

hours.

RESPONSE:

No response required for this report

94

JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER

SYNOPSIS:

The Kings County Grand Jury visited the Juvenile Detention Center on January 5, 2006.

The tour was conducted by a senior staff member.

WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:

Public interest

AUTHORITY:

The Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code Section § 919( b) “ The Grand

Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the

county.”

FINDINGS:

1. Offenders may be in detention for a week or even a year.

2. When they turn eighteen, they may be sent to California Youth Authority.

3. Most juvenile offenders are here for assault.

4. Gang activity is not tolerated.

5. This is a maximum security facility with most holding cells for two and a few for

one. Capacity is regulated to forty- six. There are usually about twenty juvenile

offenders at one time.

6. Each cell has an intercom so conversations can be monitored.

7. There are no cameras in the cells, only in the halls.

8. Male and female offenders are kept in separate areas.

9. There is a lunchroom and a staffed kitchen. Hot meals are served for breakfast

and dinner. Noon meals are a sack lunch.

COMMENTS:

1. Some detainees are over eighteen because the crime was committed when they

were younger.

2. The building is concrete block with steel doors. There are some windows.

3. Sometimes an offender will bang or kick the door. They are told to stop. If they

continue, disciplinary action is taken.

95

4. Some inmates are fourth generation offenders. They see parents involved in

illegal activities and that is the example they follow.

5. The offenders medical and mental needs are taken care of by a doctor and a

psychiatrist. A nurse is always on duty, distributing medication and keeping

records.

6. The Grand Jury was impressed with the efficient operation of this facility.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

None.

RESPONSE:

No response is required for this report.

96

KINGS COUNTY GANG TASK FORCE

SYNOPSIS:

In the fall of 1991 the Sheriff’s Department and the Office of the District Attorney saw

the need for an agency to control the gang activity that had been growing in Kings

County. Thus, the multi- agency unit consisting of members from the Kings County

Sheriff’s Department, Hanford Police Department, Lemoore Police Department and

Corcoran Police Department was created under the direction of the Kings County

Probation Department. Prevention, intervention and suppression are the goals of the

Kings County Gang Task Force.

AUTHORITY:

The Kings County Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code § 925 which

states, “ The Grand Jury shall investigate and report on the operations, and records of the

officers, departments or functions of the county.”

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

On November 10, 2005 a member of the Kings County Gang Task Force ( KCGTF) was

interviewed. On November 30, 2005 two members of the KCGTF made a presentation to

the Grand Jury. Documents were made available to the Grand Jury by the KCGTF and

the Kings County District Attorney’s Office.

FINDINGS:

1. Information derived from interviews and presentation by the KCGTF:

a. Gang members are identified to other gang members by specific colors,

numbers, tattoos or gestures.

b. Gang members are commonly between the ages of 13 and 19 years of age

but have been found as young as eight years of age.

c. Gangs are commonly segregated along ethnic lines.

d. Some gang members have family members who belong to a gang.

e. When a known gang member, or someone known to be related to a gang

member, is arraigned in a gang related crime, the charges may be enhanced.

This can result in a longer prison sentence

97

f. Most gang activity occurs at night.

g. The KCGTF will make a presentation to any requesting public agency.

h. If a citizen finds graffiti on his property, he may call the Probation

Department Office at 582- 3211, extension 3850. That office will arrange to

have it removed.

2. Information derived from documents provided by the KCGTF and the Kings

County District Attorney’s Office:

a. The KCTGF created 92 crime reports in 2005; 71 of those reports were

gang related and 41 were felony cases.

b. The KCGTF participated in or arrested 187 offenders; 138 of those arrested

were gang members or associates.

c. KCGTF estimates that at any given time there are about 5,000 active gang

members in Kings County.

d. From documents furnished by KCGTF:

“ Gang crimes included homicide, attempted homicide,

assault with a deadly weapon, battery, vandalism, drug

sales, possession of dangerous/ deadly weapons, throwing

an object at a vehicle, witness intimidation, terrorist

threats, illegal firearms possession, burglary, theft,

vehicle theft, forgery, fraud, etc. Gang members are not

specific as to which crimes they will commit. One of the

things that makes them gang members is that they

commit crimes, any and all crimes.”

COMMENTS:

The Kings County Grand Jury thanks the KCGTF and the District Attorney’s

Office for their aid in putting together this report. Keep up the good work.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

None

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS:

No response is required for this report.

98

BOOT CAMP VISIT

SYNOPSIS:

The Kings County Grand Jury visited the Boot Camp on January 5, 2006.

WHY THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED:

Public interest.

AUTHORITY:

The Kings County Grand Jury exercises its authority under Penal Code § 919( b), “ The

Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the

County.”

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

Members of the Kings County Grand Jury toured the Boot Camp on January 5, 2006.

FINDINGS:

1. Kings County started the Boot Camp program in 1995.

2. A juvenile offender can be recommended for the Boot Camp program by his or her

Probation Officer. When approved by a judge the juvenile offender is ordered to

Boot Camp for a specific length of time.

3. The Boot Camp program is designed for male and female juvenile offenders who

are kept separated except for classroom instruction. They are each divided into

two groups: first offenders and repeat offenders.

4. Although about 80% of the juvenile offenders are gang members, no gang activity

is tolerated.

5. Juvenile offenders are always under adult supervision.

6. The normal periods of stay at the Boot Camp are three or five months.

7. The juveniles participate in physical training, academics, victim awareness, drug

and alcohol counseling, anger management and community service.

99

COMMENTS:

1. All juvenile offenders have duties which are rotated periodically.

2. Girls wear no make- up and their hair is neatly pulled back in a bun.

3. Boys have very short hair and are clean shaven.

4. The program is very structured and stresses military protocol, physical

conditioning, education and life skills.

5. Groups wear distinctive clothing. Most wear camouflage. Group leaders, who

earn that rank, wear grey.

6. Groups move from one location to the next marching in close formation.

7. The Probation Department provides for the medical and psychiatric needs of the

juvenile offenders.

8. There are Sunday church services available.

9. In the classrooms, girls sit on one side and the boys on the other. They are not

allowed to talk unless directed by the teacher.

10. The Grand Jury was impressed with the efficient operation of this facility.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

None

RESPONSE:

No response is required for this report.

100

KINGS COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES

SYNOPSIS:

The Grand Jury received two requests to investigate the services provided as well

as the manner of service provided by the Kings County Department of Child

Support Services. The complaints stated that the clients felt as if they were being

singled out for punitive action by the Child Support Services.

AUTHORITY:

Our authority is pursuant to California Penal Code § 925.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:

Interviews were conducted and documents researched.

Findings:

1. That in both cases, instructions from the Court were not followed and that

the clients repeatedly did not respond to Court orders, including

summonses to appear in court.

2. That in both cases, the clients fell grossly behind in child and/ or spousal

support payments.

3. That the directions given to both clients were clear and concise.

4. That Child Support Services and the Court are dependent upon each client

for information which would cause changes to be made in the amount of

child and/ or spousal support paid by said client.

5. That Child Support Services is open and most willing to work with every

person who is ordered to pay support but is dependent upon a two way line

of communication.

6. That an audit can and will be done if requested in writing by the

complaining party.

7. That an audit was made by Child Support Services for one of the clients

and an error, in his favor, was found. He was immediately notified and a

refund was initiated.

101

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Child Support Services office continue to communicate with clients so

that they might be more aware of the audit request process.

COMMENTS:

The Grand Jury commends the Child Support Services office for requesting a

second interview with the Grand Jury in order to admit that an error in calculations

had been made and to explain the new procedure implemented to avoid repeating

that mistake. Members of the Child Support Services Department examined every

like case to make sure that there were no similar errors and found none. The Child

Support Services office also developed an additional step in preparing calculations

so that errors of this type would be eliminated.

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS:

None required.

102