Grand Jury

Final Report

2002– 2003

S A N B E N I T O C O U N T Y

Page 2

S A N B E N I T O C O U N T Y G R A N D J U R Y

Honorable Judge Harry Tobias

San Benito County Superior Court

Monterey Street

Hollister, CA 95023

Dear Judge Tobias:

" Time is money" ... words of importance, for time is our most valuable asset. Some of us have budgeted

hours and are banking on our savings now, others have scrimped and tithed all that they have towards an

investment into the future of our community. Still others don't have enough time to spend, but have

borrowed, paying high interest in order to lend support to many beneficiaries.

Time is also our most precious gift, for we never have enough it seems, certainly never too much. It is

with great pride that 2002- 2003 San Benito County Civil Grand Jury has given so much precious time

to the residents of San Benito County, and the Final Report is the fruit of the combined efforts of the

entire membership. With thrifty budgeting and generous contributions, the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury will

be publishing the Final Report as a newspaper insert so that all members of San Benito County may

draw of the information and become more aware of the many needs of our community, thus making

informed decisions about the direction for the years ahead. Perhaps our findings and recommendations

will provide a catalyst for the design of change.

The goals of this Grand Jury were to become more organized and focused than ever before, and to be

diligent and effective in our roles as watchdogs of the community. This year, we embarked upon the

task of compiling a resource library for our members to research historical documents and Grand Jury

final reports, and review the issues of the past and how they relate to the future. The fact is that many

past reports hold findings and recommendations that still have not been resolved ( some decades later).

Since we have given so much time in a generous volunteer effort, it is the hope of this Grand Jury that

considerable attention will be given to our recommendations, as they have been thoughtfully written for

the purpose of progress.

This year's Grand Jury was impaneled three months earlier than previous terms so that we could actively

partake in the State Grand Jury Association's training in San Luis Obispo. Our organization sent two

representatives to the training conference. They returned with eager enthusiasm and provided a training

format for the rest of the Grand Jury.

Our interviews with the new District Attorney established a position of understanding that will guide

future Grand Jury members into duty. Additional support was provided by the County Administrative

Officer who introduced our members to the history of the budget and finance within the scope of deci-sion

making at the County level. With these directions, I believe that the Grand Jury is better prepared

to study the issues of the political mechanisms and guide the tour of the various committee works.

The Final Report reflects the Observations, Findings, and Recommendations of the individual commit-tees;

Law and Justice, City and County, Special Projects, and Health, Education and Welfare. It is worth

noting that there were many, many hours of organized efforts to review budgets and conduct interviews

Page 3

with various members of departments with thoughtful details implored to provide an overall view of general

consensus of the Grand Jury as a whole body. As in every citizen interview, impartial members were absolute

in their thorough queries. Truly, the beauty of the Grand Jury membership is in the individual backgrounds

and experiences brought to the group.

There were some observations that fell into all categories of the findings within the overlapping functions

and operations of the City and the County. Between the two entities, their ability to meet regularly, commu-nicate,

and work together was surprisingly limited. Although two representatives from each entity have

formed an Intergovernmental Committee, the Grand Jury could not retrieve more than two written commu-nications

and found that the Inter- governmental Committee met only once or twice over a one year period.

The Grand Jury met with the representatives and it was agreed by all parties that their effectiveness would

be enhanced by great measure if the communication was at regular intervals and it would appear to catapult

the progress into successful movement. It is indeed the hope of the Grand Jury that this plan of good inten-tion

will be implemented by the Intergovernmental Committee. With issues of budgets and the future

growth of this county at stake, the infrastructure communication is nothing short of imperative.

San Benito County is a picture of color, home to native and new, young families and seniors alike. The care

and safety of all is in the hearts of the many who devote hours in their days and years of service to the citi-zens

of the community, whether paid or volunteered. May the citizens and future members of the San Benito

County Grand Jury find the efforts of our gift of time well spent.

On a final note, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the 18 individuals who served as mem-bers

of the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury for their willingness and character, for the reward has been great in the

challenge to represent you. Thank you, Judge Tobias, for the opportunity to serve the community and for

your support throughout this term. I look forward to seeing you all in the community.

Sincerely,

Roxy Montana, Foreperson

2002- 2003 San Benito County Grand Jury

Page 4

Contents

Foreword page v

City & County Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

San Benito County Auditors Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Hollister, San Juan Bautista and Sunnyslope Water Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

San Benito County Public Works Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Education, Health & Welfare Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

San Benito High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

San Benito County Children and Families First Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

William and Inez Mabie Nursing Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Law & Justice Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

San Benito County Jail ( Sheriff's Department) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

San Benito County Sheriffs Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

San Benito County Probation Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

San Benito County Juvenile Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

San Benito County District Attorney Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Hollister Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Special Projects Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Grand Jury Files and Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Hollister/ San Benito County Animal Control Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Citizen Complaints Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Investigation of Complaints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

1. Department Head Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44- 46

2. Supervisors Responses to Sheriff/ Jail Section of

FY 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47- 48

3. Sheriff’s Department Responses to FY 2001- 2002

Grand Jury Final Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49- 50

4. Probation Department Responses to

FY 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51- 52

5. Juvenile Department Responses to

FY 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53- 54

6. Form, Agency Response to Grand Jury Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55- 56

7. Form, Agency Response to Grand Jury Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55- 56

8. Grand Jury Complaint Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57- 58

9. Grand Jury Response Letter to Complainant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Page V

Foreword

ABOUT OUR REPORT

Grand Jury reports receive limited public exposure, and the public in general is unaware of the Grand Jury’s

watchdog function. This year we undertook an ambitious project to more widely disseminate the Grand Jury

Final Report by publishing a first- time special supplement in the county- distributed edition of the Pinnacle

newspaper. This edition reaches approximately 18,500 county residents. In addition, we printed our standard

report which the Grand Jury has printed for years. Our supplement makes reference to departmental respons-es

from the previous year. Those responses can be viewed on the San Benito County Grand Jury website at

www. sanbenitocountygrandjury. org. With the publication of this report, the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury term is

completed. We express thanks to those across the county who helped in or efforts. This Final Report is the

result of cooperation and dedication from each Grand Jury member who worked very hard and gave that extra

effort to produce this document. We also would like to express a special thanks to local artist Shannon

Grissom and to local photographer Briggs Latham for supplying the reader with their delightful views of areas

located throughout San Benito County.

MAJOR ISSUES FACING OUR CITIZENS

The San Benito County Grand Jury is acutely aware of the major issues facing our citizens. Among these, we

especially note: rapid growth, inadequate infrastructure ( roads, sewage), substance abuse, domestic violence,

gangs, graffiti, and the homeless. Progress toward solving the problems associated with each of these issues is

complex. It cannot be achieved by a single Board, Council, Agency, or District working independently. It can

only be achieved by genuine cooperation, honest communication, and concerted actions.

Our local governmental bodies have a history of independence and self- sufficiency. This history has served

them well. However, in these days of financial restraints and resource constraints, it may be time to reassess

our direction. The Grand Jury believes this direction is " Cooperative Problem Solving" which reaches across

the traditional boundaries. Our hope is that our elected officials will establish this new direction and that staff

support will follow their lead.

The 2002- 2003 San Benito County Grand Jury

Roxy Montana, Foreman

Anthony Edwards,

Foreman Pro Tem

Barbara Lee, Secretary

John H. Sitton, Treasurer

Glen Cooke, Sergeant- at- Arms

Jwanita Alexander

Randy Andrews

Irving Atlas

Dick Culberson ( resigned 2/ 25/ 03)

Rhonna Dias

Robert Gibson ( resigned 10/ 22/ 02)

Donna Gonzales ( joined 11/ 12/ 02)

Kathleen Harris

Ricky Wayne Jackson

John Kobold

Daniel T. Maese

Don Moses

G. Rao

Jason Stewart

Kim Walker

Page 6

Time Limits for Responses

California Penal Code 933( c) requires that

“ No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits

a final report on the operations of any public agency

subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body

of the public agency shall comment to the presiding

Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recom-mendations

pertaining to matters under the control of

the governing body, and every elected county officer or

agency head for which the Grand Jury has responsibility

pursuant to Section 914.1, shall comment within 60 days

to the presiding Judge of Superior Court, with an infor-mation

copy to the Board of Supervisors, on the findings

and recommendations pertaining to matters under the

control of that county officer or agency head and any

agency or agencies which that officer or agency head

supervises or controls. In any city and county, the

Mayor shall also comment on the findings and recom-mendations.

All of these comments and reports shall

forthwith be submitted to the presiding Judge of the

Superior Court who impaneled the Grand Jury. A copy

of all responses to Grand Jury reports shall be placed

on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office

of the County Clerk, or with the Mayor when applicable,

and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall

be placed on file with the applicable Grand Jury final

report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled

Grand Jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum

of five years.

Form of Responses

California Penal Code 933.03 requires that

( a) For the purpose of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to

each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity

shall indicate one of the following:

( 1) The respondent agrees with the findings.

( 2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with

the finding, in which case the response shall spec-ify

the portion of the finding that is disputed and

shall include an explanation of the reasons there-fore.

( b) For the purpose of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to

each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person

or entity shall report one of the following actions:

( 1) The recommendation has been implemented,

with a summary regarding implemented action.

( 2) The recommendation has not yet been imple-mented,

but will be implemented in the future,

( with a timeframe for implementation).

( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis,

with an explanation and the scope and parameters

of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the

matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer

or head of the agency or department being inves-tigated

or reviewed, including the governing body

of the public agency when applicable. This time-frame

shall not exceed six months from the date of

publication of the Grand Jury report.

( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented

because it is not warranted or is not reasonable,

with an explanation therefore.”

Response Required

A response is required within the time limits and form as prescribed by California Penal Code Section 933.

Relevant paragraphs from Section 933 are quoted below for respondents’ information and guidance.

Page 7

City and County

Committee

Charter

The City and County Committee is responsible for investigating

matters pertaining to the various City and County governments,

special districts, and joint- power agencies.

Committee Members

John Sitton, Chair

Randy Andrews

Irving Atlas

John Kobold

G. Rao

Jason Stewart

Review of San Benito County Auditor’s Office

Background

The purpose of this investigation was to review how the County manages its finances and maintains control of its

assets.

Objective

The objectives of the investigation are as follows:

1. To familiarize the Grand Jury with the process the County uses to establish its budget.

2. To review the controls that are in place to monitor expenses and revenues.

3. To review what steps are taken when an expense exceeds the plan.

4. To help identify areas that could benefit from implementation of new systems and/ or technology.

Method of Review

1. Interview with the Director of Finance, San Benito County.

2. Interview with other County department heads.

3. Written answers to a questionnaire sent to the Director of Finance and other department heads.

4. Review of the budget verses current expenses.

Observations, Findings and Conclusions

1. The County budget is developed by the County Administrative Officer with input from the Director of

Finance and other department heads. The proposed budget is then sent to the Board of Supervisors for

adoption.

2. Most of the preparation is done in the Finance office. The County’s budgeting practices appear to be

conservative. Historical data, current laws, and revenue estimates are used in it's development.

3. The Administrative Officer and the Director of Finance monitor the budget monthly for compliance.

Departments are allowed to exceed line item allowances, but must stay within the total budget for the

department.

4. For the fiscal year 2002- 2003, the County budget is $ 72,815,962.00. This includes $ 64,629,929.00

estimated operating expenses and a reserve or designated fund amount of $ 8,185,983.00.

4. The County plans to implement the Bi- Tech payroll system by the end of 2003.

6. The Public Works Department’s reporting software is not compatible with that of the Finance Department.

7. The Finance Department is well organized, deals well with the public, and is looking for ways to improve

its operation.

8. The Finance Department’s net cost to the County in 2002 was $ 635,000.00, which was $ 45,811.00 under

budget. The budget for 2002- 2003 is $ 839,296.00.

Page 8

Recommendations

1. Complete the Implementation of the new payroll system by the end of 2003.

2. Other County departments should upgrade their reporting systems to the level of the County Finance

Department, which will result in a reduction in the cost of transferring information.

Affected Agencies

1. County Finance Department

2. County Board of Supervisors

3. Other applicable County departments

Response Required

As described by California Penal Code Section 933 ( see page 6).

Page 9

Review of San Juan Bautista and

Sunnyslope Water Districts

Background

This investigation was initiated due to the concern expressed by previous Grand Jury members over the condition

of drinking water available to the citizens of San Juan Bautista. To obtain a balanced view of the entire county’s

drinking water systems, we also included the Hollister and Sunnyslope Water Districts in this investigation.

Objective

The objectives of the investigation are as follows:

1. To verify that progress is being made to improve the water system in San Juan Bautista.

2. To identify any concerns that may exist in the Hollister and Sunnyslope Water Districts and

how those concerns are handled.

Method of Review

1. Interview with the City Manager of San Juan Bautista.

2. Tour of the San Juan Bautista municipal water wells and waste facility.

3. Interview with the General Manager and one of the board members of the Sunnyslope Water District.

4. Tour of Sunnyslope water wells, storage tanks, the new membrane filtration plant and waste facility.

5. Interview with the Manager of the Hollister Public Works Water District.

6. Tour of Hollister’s water wells.

Observations, Findings and Conclusions

1. The city of San Juan Bautista currently owns three water wells. Well number 1, recently out of service due

to a serious silt problem, has been rebuilt. The water has been tested and brought back on line, and displays

nitrate levels tolerable for human consumption. Chlorine is injected. Security is adequate.

2. Well number 2, the primary water well for the City of San Juan Bautista, is operating effectively after a

mechanical upgrade. It displays nitrate levels tolerable for human consumption. Chlorine is injected.

Security is adequate.

3. Well number 3, currently not in use by the City displays excessive nitrate levels above the state recom-mended

parameters of safe drinking water. This well is currently slated for agricultural use. Chlorine is

injected.

4. A tour of the San Juan Bautista reservoir revealed a small container encased in concrete. The roof is con-structed

of wood trusses and galvanized metal. Inspection of the reservoir’s interior revealed large bugs

swimming in the water and patches of dust and small plant- life floating on the surface of the water. The

bottom of the reservoir could be clearly seen.

5. The City Manager expressed concerns that the reservoir is inadequate in the event of a major fire.

Security is adequate.

Page 10

6. A tour of the San Juan Bautista Waste Facility displayed a good operational system. There was no evidence

of odor problems and the system was thoroughly described by the City Manager. Outgoing water is subject-ed

to a reverse osmosis treatment prior to percolation back into the ground.

7. An interview with the General Manager of the Sunnyslope Water District disclosed that five wells were

owned, maintained and operated by the Sunnyslope Water District. Five consecutive years of water reports

were presented. The Sunnyslope Water District shares a state- of- the- art membrane filtration system ( named

the Blue Valve System) with the Hollister Department of Public Works Water District. The system filters

water from the San Luis Reservoir for human consumption.

8. A tour of Sunnyslope Water District’s system displayed that the five water wells it operates are in excellent

working order. Each well housed in a secure structure and is surrounded by an eight foot chain link fence.

A mobile electrical generation unit is available to prevent water disruption. All maintenance personnel are

cross- trained to perform mechanical, electrical and chemical maintenance. All water wells are equipped

with chlorine injection equipment and water quality is tested daily. Security at all wells is adequate.

9. A tour of the Sunnyslope Water District’s holding tanks and shared Membrane Filtration System revealed

an on- going effort to deliver quality water to consumers. Further, Sunnyslope Water District has in place a

grid system whereby water can be shared with the Hollister Department of Public Works Water District in

the event of an emergency.

10. The tour of the Sunnyslope Water District waste system showed it to be a very effective design. The area is

clean and landscaped and there was no evidence of odor. The system was explained thoroughly by the

General Manager.

11. An interview with the Utility Technician of the City of Hollister’s Department of Public Works Water

District disclosed that the Hollister Water District owns and operates eight water wells and shares its

Membrane Filtration Plant with Sunnyslope County Water District, as well as a grid system for sharing

water within the two departments. Results of recent water tests were provided.

12. The tour of Hollister Water District’s water system revealed that all eight wells were in excellent working

order, with each housed and surrounded by an eight- foot chain- link fence. The Grand Jury members

observed that there is no filtration system from the wells prior to reaching consumers. Security is adequate.

Recommendations

The Grand Jury recommends that Hollister, San Juan Bautista and Sunnyslope Water Districts install a serviceable

filtration system on the well site or down- line ( prior to consumption), to trap any organisms ( living or dead) and

any possible excess chlorine.

Affected Agencies

City of Hollister Water District and City Works Department

City of San Juan Bautista Municipal Water District and City Works Department

Sunnyslope County Water District

Sunnyslope County Works Department

Response Required

As described by California Penal Code Section 933 ( see page 6).

Page 11

Review of San Benito County

Public Works Department

Background

The 2002/ 2003 San Benito County Grand Jury investigated the San Benito County Public Works Department. In

the twelve months prior to the Grand Jury investigation, the Public Works Department had executed a major

restructuring of their administrative function.

Objective

The objectives of the investigation are as follows:

1. To determine why the Public Works Department restructured its administrative function.

2. To identify problems facing the department and discover how the department plans to address

those problems.

3. To determine how the Public Works Department establishes priorities.

4. To discover whether there is a comprehensive improvement plan.

Method of Review

1. San Benito County Grand Jury Department Head Questionnaire.

( See Appendix 1, pages 44 and 45.)

2. Interview with; Public Works Administrator, Assistant Director of Public Works ( Operations), Assistant

Director of Public Works ( Administrative Services), San Benito County Administrative Officer, San Benito

County Finance Officer.

3. Tour of Public Works equipment yard and facilities.

4. Review of Public Works 2002- 2003 Budget.

Observations, Findings and Conclusions

1. The Public Works Department restructured its administrative function because management believes the

new structure provides better accountability within the Department.

2. The Public Works Department uses a different accounting system than that used by the County. The

County’s system does not provide the detail needed by the Public Works in order to comply with the state

audit of road funds. The result is that Public Works spends a great deal of effort manually reconciling the

Department financial records with County administration. The Department is working to upgrade its man-agement

information system to be compatible with the County system. In addition to being compatible

with the County’s system, the Public Works Department’s program needs to be “ work- order driven.” The

County Administrative Office supports this initiative.

3. The Public Works Department establishes project priorities based on a five year plan. Average daily traffic

counts are made on County roads once a year. All 395.92 miles of County roads are inspected annually and

rated on a mile- by- mile basis. Road maintenance is scheduled based on the results of this inspection.

4. Road maintenance scheduling would be enhanced by using MICROPAVER, a computer program which has

been used advantageously by the city of Hollister for ten years. This program is already owned by the

Page 12

Public Works Department, but is not being utilized. The Public Works Department stated that creating

and inputting the initial database needed by the MICROPAVER system would require hiring an outside

consultant at a cost of approximately $ 70,000.

5. The Public Works vehicle maintenance building is old, in disrepair, obsolete, and is lacking basic equip-ment

such as vehicle lifts.

Recommendations

1. The Public Works Department should aggressively follow through with its plans to upgrade its computer

system in order to achieve compatibility with the County Finance Department.

2. Since using MICROPAVER would provide more efficient scheduling of road main- tenance, the Public

Works Department should immediately begin to implement this system.

3. To avoid the cost of hiring outside consultants for developing the initial database, it is recommended that

the Department build the initial database incrementally using the results of its annual mile- by- mile inspec-tions

and ratings of the County roads.

4. The Public Works Department should do a cost/ benefit analysis to establish a priority for replacing its

maintenance building.

Affected Agencies

San Benito Public Works Department

San Benito County Board of Supervisors

San Benito County Administrator

Response Required

As described by California Penal Code Section 933 ( see page 6).

Page 13

Page 14

Health, Education and

Welfare Committee

Charter

The Health, Education and Welfare Committee is responsible for

investigating complaints and other issues related to the health,

education and welfare of the citizens of San Benito County.

Committee Members

Kim Walker, Chair

Jwanita Alexander

Irving Atlas

Rhonna Dias

Donna Gonzales

Barbara Lee

Don Moses

Review of San Benito High School

Background

The 2002- 2003 San Benito County Grand Jury continued the process of monitoring the San Benito High School as

recommended by the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury.

Objective

1, To determine whether information related to the Zero Tolerance Policy is disseminated to students and/ or

parents appropriately.

2. To review issues related to the safety of the students at San Benito High School.

Method of Review

1. Interviews with various San Benito High School District Board of Trustee members.

2. Interview with the former Superintendent ( retired).

3. Interview with the newly appointed Superintendent.

4. Interviews with various Administrative Personnel.

5. Attendance at various San Benito High School District Board of Trustee Meetings.

6. Tour of the San Benito High School Campus ( December ' 02).

7. Documents reviewed: San Benito High School Student/ Parent Handbook for 2002- 2003. San Benito High

School Supplemental Handbook.

Observations, Findings and Conclusions

1. The " Zero Tolerance" policy was reviewed. The Grand Jury’s goal was to determine if students and parents

are adequately informed, up front, of the expectations and consequences of the policy. Students receive zero

tolerance information in their initial physical education class and sign a statement to that effect. The Grand

Jury could not identify whether measures are in place to capture students who miss the initial physical edu-cation

class. Student handbooks, which are considered student contracts, are mailed to the parents. The

information provided clearly defines behaviors considered unacceptable and describes the consequences of

such behaviors.

2. A Supplemental Handbook, which “ provides detailed information in several areas regarding policies, proce-dures,

and consequences,” has also been created. This information acts as a guide to parents and students of:

1) what to expect once the student has acted outside of school policies; and 2) what recourses are available

to parents once disciplinary action is initiated. The Grand Jury’s attempts to review a copy of the

Supplemental Handbook became a source of frustration. Initially, it was not available since revisions were

reportedly being completed. Requests for previous editions were made, but no copies were made available

to the Grand Jury. A copy of the current edition was ultimately provided by the Administration. However,

the Grand Jury wondered if parents encountered the same difficulties obtaining the Supplemental

Handbook. When queried, Administrators could not produce information as to how parents are notified of

the existence of the supplemental information. One administrator reported that parents and students usual-ly

find out about the handbook once disciplinary action has begun. On review of the Student Handbook,

the Grand Jury found five referrals to the Supplemental Handbook in the areas of the “ F” policy for seniors,

Page 15

excessive tardies, suspension/ expulsion and due process/ complaints. Since supplemental information is an

important adjunct to the Student Handbook, it should either be distributed with the student handbook,

incorporated into the Student Handbook, or its existence needs to be clearly communicated prior to any

disciplinary action.

3. The Grand Jury was made aware of concerns that the former Superintendent was leaving mid- term, which

could limit the candidates available to fill the position, due to contractual obligations with other school

districts. The new Superintendent, who was interviewed in February 2003, was found to be well qualified,

well- spoken, eager and an advocate for the students.

4. The former Superintendent provided a tour of the campus for several Grand Jury members. Areas toured

included: administrative offices, the library, the copy center, various classrooms, various portable classrooms,

outdoor areas for student socializing during breaks or between classes, locker areas, transportation facilities,

the cross- walk at Nash Road and the gymnasiums. During the tour, the students and teachers were very

gracious and continued their instruction, despite the disruption caused by our presence.

5. The High School is divided by Nash Road. In order to attend classes, which are located on either side of the

campus, students must frequently cross Nash Road. This places the students at increased risk for injury. A

cross- walk and a crossing guard are used to facilitate safe passage from one side to the other; however, it was

observed that many students do not use the cross walk and walk between stopped cars waiting to proceed

through the intersection. Despite the efforts of the crossing guard and the administrators, the volume of

students crossing between classes makes it difficult to monitor them all as they pass. On the day of the tour,

a yellow flashing caution light, located on Nash Road near the cross- walk, was not on while students were

crossing. It was unknown what hours the light should be on or if it was in working condition.

6. No tamper- proof devices or locks were seen on the gas pumps, located near the students’ bus

loading/ unloading areas.

Recommendations

The San Benito County Grand Jury recommends:

1. The Board of Trustees clarifies future plans for maintaining student safety on Nash Road, with considera-tion

given to the possibility of closing the road during school hours ( if not permanently).

2. The yellow caution light, located on Nash Road near the cross- walk, be checked to ensure it is working

according to regulations.

3. Tamper- proof devices or locks be placed on the gas pumps, which are located near the students’ bus load-ing/

unloading areas.

4. The High School incorporate the supplemental Handbook with the Student Handbook, or clearly inform

parents of: a) the existence of the supplemental handbook, and b) how to obtain the supplemental handbook

5. The High School ensure that any student, who misses the initial presentation of the Student Handbook and

Disciplinary Policies, be given the information at a later date.

Affected Agencies

The San Benito High School Board of Trustees

Response Required

As described by California Penal Code Section 933 ( see page 6).

Page 16

Review of San Benito County Childrens

and Families First Commission

Background

In November 1998, Proposition 10, the California Children and Families Act, provided new funds to improve the

health of children, strengthen families and help prepare children for school entry. A 50¢ surcharge tax on tobacco

goods provides the money used to support early child development projects for children 0- 5 years of age. Eighty

percent of this revenue is distributed to commissions in each of the 58 California counties, and is based on the

number of live births in that county. The remaining 20% supports statewide programs and research.

According to the 2003- 2006 Strategic Plan of the San Benito County Children and Families First Commission

( SBCCFC), “ the San Benito County Board of Supervisors established the SBCCFC to administer and allocate the

County’s portion of the Proposition 10 funds.

The Board then appointed seven members to the Commission. The Commissioners represent service areas of county

government, public health, social services, education, and early care and education.”

Objective

1. Perform a review of the San Benito County Children and Families First Commission as recommended by

the 2000- 2001 Grand Jury.

2. Determine whether the SBCCFC is accomplishing its objectives as mandated by Proposition 10.

Method of Review

1. Interviews with the Executive Director of the Children and Families First Commission.

2. Attendance at Commission meeting.

3. Review of documents available on Commission website, www. sanbenitocfc. org, including:

a) Year One Evaluation Report.

b) Strategic Plan of the Commission.

c) 2003 Funding Allocations Report.

Observations, Findings and Conclusions

1. Proposition 10 requires three members of the Commission to include: 1) the Director of Public Health,

2) the Director of Social Services, and 3) a member of the County Board of Supervisors.

Inherent in the administrative function is the possibility of conflicts of interest due to members on the

Commission who also work for agencies requesting funds from the Commission.

2. Mini- grant applications, guidelines and evaluation documents are clear and easy to follow, and are available

in both English and Spanish. Requests for Proposals are lengthy but clearly written.

3. As of May 15, 2003, the approved 2003 funding allocations totaled $ 704,000.

4. The Commission’s Year One Evaluation Report, performed by an independent firm, provides a demographic

snapshot of San Benito County. The report indicates a 44% increase in the county population from 1990

( 36,970) to 2000 ( 53,234). In 2000, the U. S. Census Bureau indicates 8.8% of the county population, or

4,685, was children of ages 0- 5 years. The county’s ethnic breakdown is 48% Hispanic/ Latino ( 25,516),

Page 17

46% Caucasian/ White ( 24,513), 2.3% Asian/ Pacific Islander ( 1,241), 0.8% African- American ( 475), 0.5%

Native American/ Alaskan Native ( 279), and 0.1% Other ( 53). The ethnic breakdown for the 0- 5 popula-tion

is 60% Hispanic/ Latino ( 2,760), 35.4% Caucasian/ White ( 1,666), 1.9% Asian/ Pacific Islander ( 89),

0.7% African- American ( 32), 0.2% American Indian/ Alaskan Native ( 10), and 0.2% Other ( 8).

5. The percentage of ages 0- 5 years population served, by ethnicity, mirrors the ethnic breakdown of the

county in 2000 as reported by the U. S. Census Bureau.

6. Funded programs provide services to every zip code in the county, indicating that the entire county is being

served. The concentration of Prop 10 providers in the county mirrors the concentration of the population

within the county.

7. The Commission does not have the budget to provide public relations for its programs. A state- wide

Public Relations program is available to San Benito County but additional methods are needed to reach

target populations.

8. The Commission identified four Focus Areas in the 2001- 2004 Strategic Plan, which include: Parent

Education and Support Services, Children and Early Education, Health and Wellness Services and

Improving Access and Connecting Services.

9. Overall, the Commission has successfully implemented and funded programs targeted by the Strategic

Plan. All programs have measurable outcomes related to the Strategic Plan, have developed evaluation

plans and evaluation instruments, and are collecting baseline data.

10. Challenges to the Commission involve difficulties experienced by newly funded agencies or programs.

These include: establishing the program, hiring and training staff, developing an appropriate evaluation

plan, implementing both program and evaluation components reliably, and reaching targeted, difficult-to-

reach clients.

11. Future revenue from Proposition 10 is expected to drop, due to decreasing tobacco sales, and the need for

services is expected to increase. There is not enough revenue to meet all of the needs of San Benito County,

so the Commission strives to award programs that yield the greatest benefit to the most people. In order

for programs to continue, dependency on direct services must decrease, and there must be an increase in

department and/ or interagency collaboration.

12. The Grand Jury was very impressed with the Executive Director, whose level of organization and commit-ment

to the Commission’s vision is commendable. The Commission members were very approachable and

forthcoming when asked to clarify information.

Recommendations

The 2002- 2003 Civil Grand Jury recommends:

1. Future Grand Juries continue to monitor the annual audit of Proposition 10 funding.

2. Future Grand Juries should evaluate whether approved funding disproportionally favors those agencies in

which Commission members

Affected Agencies

San Benito County Children and

Families First Commission

San Benito County Board of Supervisors

Response Required

No response is required.

Page 18

Review of the William & Inez Mabie

Nursing Facility

Background

The William and Inez Mabie Skilled Nursing Facility is part of the San Benito Healthcare District, which is a pub-lic

agency that includes: Hazel Hawkins Memorial Hospital, Hazel Hawkins Northside Convalescent Hospital, San

Benito Home Health Care Agency and Hazel Hawkins Community Health Clinic. Prior to its closing in January of

2003, the Southside Skilled Nursing Facility was also a part of the District.

Objective

1. To review the function and activity of the Southside Skilled Nursing Facility.

2. To tour the new William & Inez Mabie Skilled Nursing Facility after the residents had been relocated

from the Southside facility.

Method of Review

1. Interview with the Director of Nursing for Southside.

2. Tours of both the Southside Skilled Nursing Facility, and the William & Inez Mabie Skilled Nursing

Facility.

Observations, Findings and Conclusions

1. The Southside facility had 52 beds. The new Mabie facility is approved for 57 beds and is considered a

long- term care facility. The waiting period for a bed is 2 months to 2 years. Those on the waiting list can

be “ bumped” by patients with more severe acute care needs. There were 10 people on the wait list, prior to

the opening of the new facility.

2. At the time of our interview, the average age of Southside residents was reportedly 80 years, with 90% of

the residents requiring 100% care. No ventilator patients are cared for at the facility.

3. The facility is Medicare and MediCal certified. All residents are charged the same rate, whether they are

self- paying or are covered by insurance. Fees are assessed using one of two daily rates, determined by either

semi- private or private status.

4. Members of the Grand Jury toured the new Mabie facility in May 2003 with the assistance of the Director

of Nursing. On the day of the tour, the dietician, educator and kitchen manager were present for questions.

Additionally, Grand Jury members met the nursing staff and nursing assistants. Permits from the various

Health and licensing agencies were displayed prominently in the lobby and those displayed were current.

5. The facility was notably designed with input from the staff, volunteers, and the residents’ families. The

grounds and facility were quiet and clean. Areas viewed include: a rehabilitation room for provision of phys-ical,

occupational and speech therapies, the staff lounge, a state- of- the- art kitchen with hand and eye- wash

stations, staff offices, resident dining and activity rooms, nursing station, showers, clean and dirty utility

rooms, and select patient rooms.

6. A Registered Nurse is available on all shifts. The Director of Nursing is also a Registered Nurse and can

step in to provide patient care when needed.

7. Ombudsmen, with the Depart- ment of Aging, are available to the residents and families to hear complaints

related to the skilled nursing facility.

Page 19

Recommendations

The 2002- 2003 San Benito County Civil Grand Jury recommends:

1. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury

tour the Northside facility.

2. Future Grand Juries ascertain the relationship between Ombudsmen ( affiliated with the Department of

Aging), and the San Benito Health Care District.

Affected Agencies

San Benito Health Care District Board of Directors

Response Required

No response required.

Page 20

Page 21

Law and Justice

Committee

Charter

The Law and Justice Committee is responsible for investigating

all branches of County law enforcement agencies to assure

they are being administered efficiently and honestly

in the best interest of its citizens.

Committee Members

Glen Cooke, Chair

Jwanita Alexander

Randy Andrews

Kathleen Harris

Ricky Wayne Jackson

Barbara Lee

Don Moses

Kim Walker

The Grand Jury applauds and supports the San Benito County Law and Justice community

on its formation, in January 2003, of the Gang Task Force. This cooperative effort can

provide a creative model for problem solving in our community. If successful, it would be

prudent to consider similar task force approaches to Drugs, Domestic Violence, and Graffiti.

On a similar note, in the administrative area, consideration might be given to a standing

committee on the integration of information technology. The current inability of the

departments to share data with one another is inefficient and expensive.

Review of the San Benito County

Jail ( Sheriff’s Department)

Background

San Benito County can be proud to know that the Sheriff has been recognized by the State Correctional Board for

the high standards set at the Jail facility located on Flynn Road. On November 14, 2002, the Grand Jury met with

the Sheriff and the Jail Commander, toured the facility and witnessed the immaculate physical conditions.

Objective

The objectives of the investigation are as follows:

1. To assess the condition of the Jail facility.

2. To observe the general activities of the inmates.

3. To identify any problems related to management of the inmates.

Methodology

1. Interview with the Sheriff.

2. Interview with the Jail Commander.

3. Physical tour of the County Jail facility.

4. Departmental responses to 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report.

( See Appendix 2, pages 47- 48.)

Observations, Findings and Conclusions

1. The 10- year old jail facility and its grounds are in good condition. The facility is rated to hold 104 inmates,

but it is not uncommon for Mondays to open with 135 beds filled. Inmates are placed in one of four “ pod”

housing areas based on the level of the offense. The most serious offenders are held in a “ lock- down”

situation that allows for a 1- hour period for each individual to shower, exercise and make phone calls.

Inmates exercise in an area that is available for handball and calisthenics. A major portion of the inmates

have been charged with gang- related offenses.

2. A Correctional officer supervises the communications and activities within each pod, adjusts lighting opera-tions,

and also controls the locked doors throughout the building and outer premises. As a safety measure,

inmates are handcuffed in the hallway within the view of the control room. Other safety features include:

good lighting, no protruding objects that could cause injury, and cameras to monitor traffic through the

facility. Cells are patrolled by officers at regular intervals.

3. The relationship between the District Attorney, the Superior Court Judges, the Probation Department, the

Sheriff and the Jail Commander is critical in regulating the ratio of inmates to the available bed spaces.

4. Training certification for the San Benito Correctional Officers is mandated by the State Corrections Board.

The officers are cross- trained in all areas of duties within the facility and work 12- hour shifts. Three

Correctional Officers are included on each shift team. Currently, staffing is down, which leads to constant

reassigning of staff members to adequately cover all shifts. The Sheriff is largely concerned with long- term

staff retention. Staffing to cover security at the Superior Court is also a concern, considering the potential

for catastrophe which may result from a security breach.

Page 22

5. The Jail Commander and the Sheriff participate in several jail management programs within the State of

California.

6. A new contract with Aramark Food Services, starting October 28, 2002, may result in a cost savings of

$ 6,000-$ 9,000 in the annual budget. Food arrives in pre- measured portions from a large facility in Dublin

CA. The meals meet national guidelines. An Aramark employee supervises the food heating and serving

process and is assisted by two volunteer inmates.

7. The high volume of daily phone calls made from the Jail’s pay phone generates $ 5,000 to $ 7,000 each

month for the Inmate Welfare Fund. This fund helps pay for programs such as inmate education.

8. During the weekdays, on- site medical services are provided by a registered nurse. Each staff member is

certified in first aid and cardio- pulmonary resuscitation ( CPR). There is an increased need for medical

personnel on weekends ( a high- volume period). Whenever an inmate requests access to the hospital, a

Deputy must be called to escort the inmate to Hazel Hawkins Hospital, which is typically a four hour trip.

Recommendations

The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury recommends:

1. The department increase medical service, through direct or outsourced services, to provide medical coverage

on nights and weekends.

Affected Agencies

San Benito County Board of Supervisors

San Benito County Sheriff Department

Response Required

As described by California Penal Code Section 933 ( see page 6).

Page 23

Review of the San Benito County

Sheriff’s Department

Background

The Grand Jury made its annual review of the San Benito County Sheriff's Department.

Objective

The objective of the annual review is to determine if the Sheriff’s Department is addressing the needs of the com-munity,

and setting measurable goals and objectives for the Department in order to better serve the community.

Method of Review

1. Interview with the Sheriff.

2. Review of procedural documents.

3. Inspection of facilities.

4. Ride- alongs.

5. Departmental responses to 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report.

( See Appendix 3, pages 49 and 50.)

Observations, Findings and Conclusions

1. The Department’s facility continues to be inadequate. The minimum environmental conditions/ require-ments

are not being met. The County should be concerned about deficiencies and possible liabilities.

2. The department’s neanderthal computer system has been retired. A new system which is much more

effective and efficient has been installed, and department personnel are being trained on the new software

and associated procedures. The new system provides bar coding technology which will greatly enhance

evidence recording and tracking.

3. The Sheriff’s goals for personnel include: a) continue to improve the working environment so that staff will

look forward to coming to work, b) stay current with upgrades on equipment and computerized systems as

well as staff training, and c) get the department into a suitable building.

4. The department is working with the City of Hollister to utilize fiber optics at the Sheriff’s facility. The

plan is to connect with Hollister Police Department which will greatly improve communications between

the two agencies.

5. Communications between dispatch personnel and officers in the field are inadequate.

Recommendations

1. The Department continue to pursue the acquisition of a more suitable facility, as well as the fiber optics

communications path with the Hollister Police Department.

2. The Sheriff should be diligent in his goal to improve communications and the working environment for

personnel within the department.

Page 24

3. Immediate steps should be taken to improve communications between dispatch and officers in the field.

Affected Agencies

San Benito County Sheriff’s Department

San Benito County Board of Supervisors

Response Required

As described by California Penal Code Section 933 ( see page 6).

Page 25

Review of the San Benito County

Probation Department

Background

The Grand Jury performed its annual review of the San Benito Probation Department.

Objective

The objective of the annual review is to determine if the Department is adequately addressing the needs of the

community, while setting measurable goals and objectives for the Department to better serve the community.

Method of Review

1. Interview with Probation Department personnel.

2. Review of procedural documents.

3. Tour of the Department facility.

4. Departmental Responses to the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Report.

( See Appendix 4, pages 51- 52.)

Observations, Findings and Conclusions

1. The annual budget is approximately $ 2.3 million, which is an increase from last year. No significant change

in the caseload is reported from last year. The remainder of the observations and findings of the 2002- 2003

Grand Jury mirror those documented in the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury report.

2. The Grand Jury reviewed the 2001- 2002 recommendations and agencies responses. Responses were submit-ted

by the Probation Department and the Board of Supervisors.

a) Response 1: The response to the Grand Jury 2001- 2002 report recommendation 1, “ a larger facility be

acquired to provide room for counseling quarters, and separation of juveniles and adults,” indicates agree-ment

with the recommendation, but requires “ additional buildings and/ or reallocation of existing office

space” to implement it. Current discussions with the Trial Courts of San Benito County may yield a solu-tion

but information regarding collaboration between the County and the Courts is not expected until

December 2003.

b) Response 2: Response to recommendation 2, “ increase in staffing according to the needs and population,”

clearly indicates the recommendation will not be implemented.

c) Response 3: The responses are confusing. The department’s response to recommendation 3, “ the depart-ment

identify and acquire an updated computer system,” clearly states that the department has begun

implementation of the recommendation. The Board of Supervisors, how- ever, notes the recommendation

will be considered according to the Chief Probation Officer’s budget request for fiscal year 2003- 2004,

which was to be submitted in March 2003.

Page 26

Recommendations

The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury recommends:

1. The Department continue collaborative efforts with other agencies whenever possible.

2. The 2003- 2004 Civil Grand Jury follow up on the discussions between the County and the Trial Courts

to determine if collaborative efforts have led to a solution regarding the need for a larger facility.

3. The 2003- 2004 Civil Grand Jury follow up with the status of a new computer system for the Department.

Affected Agencies

San Benito County Probation Department

San Benito County Board of Supervisors

Response Required

As described by California Penal Code Section 933 ( see page 6).

Page 27

Review of the San Benito County Juvenile Hall

Background

The Grand Jury performed its annual review of the San Benito County Juvenile Hall.

Objective

The objective of the annual review is to determine if the Department is adequately addressing the needs of the

community, while setting measurable goals and objectives for the Department in order to better serve the

community.

Method of Review

1. Interview with office personnel of the San Benito County Juvenile Hall.

2. Tour of the Juvenile Hall facility.

3. Review of the Board of Corrections Biennial Inspection Report.

4. Board of Corrections correspondence regarding compliance issues.

5. Departmental responses to 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report. ( See Appendix 5, pages 53- 54.)

Observations, Findings and Conclusions

1. The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury did not identify new issues from those reported in the 2001- 2002 Grand

Jury report.

2. The 2001- 2002 Grand Jury recommendations and agency responses were reviewed. Responses were

submitted by the Chief Probation Officer and the County Board of Supervisors. The review found:

a) Responses 1 and 5: The responses indicate that recommendations 1 and 5 will not be implemented

unless funds become available. The Board of Supervisors will consider funding for these recommendations

when addressing the Chief Probation Officer’s Budget Request, which is due March 1, 2003.

b) Recommendation 1 of the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury report asked that a sally port be given priority

consideration. The Board of Corrections ( BOC) Report, dated January 9, 2002, identifies the current

single door entrance to the facility as a security concern. The BOC recognizes that the staff “ security

practices seem good,” but “ the security of the facility could be significantly improved through the

construction of a sally port.” The BOC did not list this as a compliance issue, so it is not immediately

clear if corrective action was required.

c) Recommendation 5 of the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury report asked that a back- up generator be purchased

and installed. This is a Title 24 requirement, but the response indicates the San Benito County Juvenile

specifications have been grand- fathered under previous California Youth Authority requirements.

d) Response 2: The responses to recommendation 2, “ exposed fire sprinkler be repositioned,” do not indi-cate

whether the recommendation will be implemented. The Board of Supervisors agrees that the recom-mendation

should be assessed and asks that a plan of action be submitted to the Chief Probation Officer

by November 15, 2003. The Chief Probation Officer indicates the recommendation will be investigated,

noting “ the possibility of a protective cover has been discussed in the past… and is currently being pur-sued.”

At the time of the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury inspection, no changes had been made to the exposed

fire sprinkler.

Page 28

e) Responses 3, 4, 6 and 7: The responses indicate the recommendations 3, 4, 6 and 7 will not be

implemented.

3. The Grand Jury recognizes that the San Benito County Juvenile Hall operates under a philosophy of

providing a home- like environment while maintaining safety and security. The policies and actions of

the personnel appear to support this philosophy, but the Grand Jury is concerned that secondary plans for

security problems are inadequate. Back- up plans for security problems could be verbalized or produced for

the Grand Jury. While it is impressive that no minor has ever escaped or attempted to escape, the Grand

Jury would like to see the Department move away from the policy that “ it has not happened yet,” and

become more proactive with potential security emergencies.

4. A Board of Corrections letter, dated October 24, 2002, reports the San Benito County Juvenile Hall is in

full compliance with Title 15 regulations, Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities.

Recommendations

The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury recommends:

1. A sally port be given priority consideration, if it has not already been approved in the fiscal year 2003- 2004

Chief Probation Officer’s budget request.

2. The exposed fire sprinkler be protected or replaced.

3. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury follow up on the plan of action to be submitted by the Chief Probation Officer

to the Board of Supervisors by November 15, 2003.

Affected Agencies

San Benito County Probation Department

San Benito County Board of Supervisors

Response Required

As described by California Penal Code Section 933 ( see page 6).

Page 29

Review of the San Benito County

District Attorney Office

Background

The Grand Jury performed its annual review of the District Attorney’s Office in November 2002. A follow up

review was done in March 2003 after the newly elected District Attorney took office ( January 2003).

Objective

The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury planned to obtain status reports on the District Attorney’s Department from both the

outgoing and the incoming District Attorneys. The Grand Jury sought the goals and objectives of the new District

Attorney and investigated whether any obstacles exist that would impede the course of business within the depart-ment.

The information was acquired to establish a baseline from which future findings could be measured.

Method of Review

1. Interview with the District Attorney in office in November 2002.

2. Interview with the District Attorney in office January 2003.

3. Departmental responses to 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report.

Observations, Findings and Conclusion

Staff consists of the District Attorney, three Deputy District Attorneys, two Investigators and four office personnel.

The District Attorney suggests that the annual caseload of 1500- 1600 criminal cases maximizes the efforts of the

current department staff. The District Attorney has initiated several departmental changes. These include:

1. Establishing a written departmental Policies and Procedures Manual, which, at the time of the interview,

was near completion.

2. Eliminating the existing evidence room after the completion of an independent audit, which is being

conducted by two members of the Sheriff’s Department.

3. Completing a review of the outstanding cases, which are estimated to be returned or written 10 days after

our interview. The District Attorney reports domestic violence cases will no longer be diverted. Instead,

all domestic violence complaints will be reviewed and prosecuted by the department.

The District Attorney’s goals for 2003 include:

1. Implement a gang program. The District Attorney’s office is involved with the gang suppression program,

a multi- agency task force headed by the Sheriff’s Department.

2. Implement a truancy program. A School Attendance Review Board " SARB" system has been created in

conjunction with the San Benito County Office of Education. The Superintendent of Schools with the

San Benito County Office of Education is the lead in the " SARB" program. The District Attorney would

provide a mediation program for parents, students and schools to stop truancy and avoid prosecution.

Currently, an estimated 100 cases go through the District Attorney’s office annually with only 5 cases going

through the courts.

3. Begin a consumer litigation section of the department. Consumer litigation is something the District

Page 30

Attorney believes is an important duty of the office and provides important experience for the Deputy

District Attorneys. At the time of our interview, the District Attorney’s office was in the process of filing

its first two civil cases.

The District Attorney discussed the importance of interdepartmental cooperation. To this end, the District

Attorney participates in a monthly meeting comprised of the Sheriff’s Department, Hollister Police Department,

California Highway Patrol, Probation Department, the Marshal’s Office and the Unified Narcotics Enforcement

Team ( UNET). Future meetings will include personnel from the Departments of Fish and Game and State Park.

These meetings are designed to share current information and problems across agencies.

Recommendations

The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury recommends that:

1. Funding be made available for the current District Attorney’s stated objectives.

2. The District Attorney develop a staffing plan which provides adequate personnel to handle the workload

of the department.

3. Funding be made available to implement an approved staffing plan.

4. Minimally, the addition of one paralegal would reportedly help ease the workload. The only staff increases

made in the 1990s included peace officers but no attorneys.

Affected Agencies

San Benito County Board of Supervisors

Office of the San Benito County District Attorney

Response Required

As described by California Penal Code Section 933 ( see page 6).

Page 31

Review of the Hollister Police Department

Background

The Grand Jury made its annual review of the Hollister Police Department.

Objective

The objective of the annual review is to determine if the Hollister Police Department is adequately addressing the

needs of the community, and setting measurable goals for the Department in order to better serve the community.

Method of Review

1. Interview with the Chief of Police.

2. Review of procedural documents.

3. Inspection of facilities.

4. Ride- alongs

Observations, Findings and Conclusions

1. The Grand Jury notes that the Citizen Academy and Youth Academy appears to be popular and effective

at involving the community with the Police Department.

2. The Hollister Police Department ( HPD) should be recognized for having a detailed policy that outlines

major areas of responsibility for their Information Systems.

3. HPD should be recognized for its process of acquiring Information Systems that enhance efficiency.

4. HPD deserves recognition for plans to migrate their e- mail off an external resource and to a more secure

and manageable environment ( summer 2003).

5. HPD has an unresolved risk in not having a dedicated resource to track and respond to the issues of their

written policy. Items such as virus compliance, software compatibility, system maintenance ( outside vendor

specific), e- mail purging, and back- up and restores are not being addressed as routine and manageable

processes.

Recommendations

The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury recommends that the Hollister Police Department:

1. Continue with the Citizen and Youth academies.

2. Place a priority on acquiring and retaining a dedicated system support member. Their request for a System

Technician should be considered a priority due to potential risks and the associated liabilities.

3. Develop and utilize an offsite storage process to ensure system recovery in system or natural catastrophe

( fire/ flood etc).

4. Be audited to insure compliance with their policies on document retention, destruction, and e- mail. This

could be done by an outside agency or by a future Grand Jury.

5. This Grand Jury recommends that the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury review the Hollister Police Department to

determine whether they have addressed the issue of not having a dedicated resource to track and respond to

issues of there written policy ( i. e., virus compliance, software compatibility, system maintenance).

Page 32

Affected Agencies

City of Hollister

Hollister Police Department

Response Required

As described by California Penal Code Section 933 ( see page 6).

Page 33

Page 34

Special Projects

Committee

Charter

The Special Projects Committee is responsible for investigating

topics which fall outside the specific jurisdictions

of the other Grand Jury committees.

Committee Members

Daniel Maese, Chair

G. Rao

Jason Stewart

Review of the San Benito County

Grand Jury Files & Records

Background

A review of the files and records maintained by the Grand Jury was initiated to determine compliance with

applicable laws, and to provide a basis for recommendations to improve Grand Jury/ government responses and

Grand Jury continuity processes. The concept of the Grand Jury has been imbedded in western law for 800 years.

It is considered such a fundamental right that it was incorporated within the United States Bill of Rights. The

primary purposes of this institution are to protect and defend the freedoms of the people of the United States, and

to provide a mechanism to limit the power of government. In California, the Grand Jury’s oversight function is to

review local government operations. California courts have repeatedly recognized the role a Grand Jury plays in

carrying out its duties. In a 1971 California Appeals Court opinion, the court wrote:

“ In our system of government, a Grand Jury is the only agency free from possible political or official bias that has the

opportunity to see the operation of government on any broad basis. It performs a valuable public purpose in presenting its

conclusions drawn from that overview. The public may, of course, ultimately decide that the jury’s fears were exaggerated,

or that its proposed solutions are unwise. But the debate which reports provoke can lead only to a better understanding of

public governmental problems.”

In San Benito County the Grand Jury is composed of individuals selected at random. The selection process is made

by the Court from a pool of volunteer citizens. The usual term of service is one year. One year is not long to organ-ize

19 strangers into a functional team that produces well considered and credible reports regarding oversight of

sometimes complicated local government activities. As may be expected, these reports are challenged frequently on

the basis that they are the work product of such a short lived panel of non- experts. Each report is subjected to

intense scrutiny by government officials and the public before acceptance as credible and useful.

Although each Grand Jury must base its deliberations and reports on its own verification of the underlying facts,

it is highly desirable that every Grand Jury have available a complete record of the work of its predecessors. This

“ continuity” from one Grand Jury to the next is not only desirable, but is mandated. Penal Code Section 933( b)

directs the county clerk to maintain a file of all past Grand Jury reports and responses in perpetuity and to immedi-ately

forward a true copy to the State Archives each year. Penal Code Section 933( c) requires that a minimum of

five years of past Grand Jury reports and responses shall be directly controlled by the sitting Grand Jury. Control

of the files must pass between a continuous succession of Grand Juries. These records maintained by the Grand Jury

are not just historical archives. They are the “ working files” of current grand jurors’ reference and research. These

files, if properly maintained, provide each successive Grand Jury with valuable insights and background which may

have bearing on current Grand Jury work.

Objective

The objectives of the investigation are as follows:

1. To review the San Benito County Grand Jury’s files and records in order to evaluate compliance with the

requirements of the Penal Code.

2. To review past Grand Jury final reports to determine the degree that the reports facilitate agency responses

and to recommend changes to improve the report/ response process.

3. To determine if present facilities provide the resources which allow the Grand Jury to conduct efficient and

effective investigations and to write comprehensive and insightful final reports.

Page 35

4. To determine how Grand Juries might better preserve continuity from one Grand Jury to the next, to

enable the system to better serve the people in the county.

Method of Review

1. Study of past Grand Jury final reports and responses that are in the possession and control of the current

Grand Jury.

2. Survey of Grand Jury reports and responses in possession of the County Clerk.

3. Study of pertinent sections of the California Penal Code.

4. Study of 2001 Edition of San Benito County Grand Jury Manual.

5. Study of California Grand Jurors' Association Training Seminar Manual, August 2002.

6. Survey of facilities used by the Grand Jury for maintaining and utilizing its files.

7. Study of Review of the Effectiveness of The Los Angeles County Grand Jury, prepared by The Los Angeles

County Citizens’ Economy and Efficiency Commission, July, 2001.

Observations, Findings and Conclusions

1. The Grand Jury does have in its control, a file containing the minimum five years of past reports as

required. The Grand Jury does not have on file ( or in its control), a minimum of five years of past agency

responses as required by law and therefore, is not in compliance with the law.

2. The Grand Jury presently keeps its files in file cabinets ( in a conference room) located in the building in

which their regular meetings are held. This room is usually available to the Grand Jury only on weekday

evenings before 9pm. Because the Grand Jury has limited access, maintenance of the files is difficult.

Similarly Grand Jurors are unable to make effective use of these files. Present facilities used by the Grand

Jury for maintaining and using its files are unsatisfactory.

3. Three years of Grand Jury final reports are published on the Internet. No agency responses are published on

the Internet. ( see www. sanbenitograndjury. org.)

4. Grand Jury Final Reports are on file in the county clerk's office. A file of Final Reports and corresponding

Responses from the Board of Supervisors is maintained by the Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

There is no record that copies of final reports and responses have been sent to the State Archivist.

5. Past Grand Jury final reports have not consistently been formatted and organized to facilitate agency

responses. The absence of a consistent format with clear presentation of the Grand Jury’s FINDINGS and

RECOMMENDATIONS in the Grand Jury’s final reports makes it difficult for the government respon-dents

to conform to PC 933.05. In fact the Board of Supervisors in its response to the 2001- 2002 Grand

Jury Final Report noted that although the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report featured both Observations

and Findings as well as Recommendations, both the BOS and departmental responses are directed specifi-cally

at the Recommendations. This is due to the narrative form of the Observations and Findings presented

in the Grand Jury’s Final Report. A direct response by the County to any of the listed Observations and

Findings would have necessarily required the extraction and/ or summarization of the Grand Jury’s intent.

As can be imagined, this extrapolation would be risky and possibly result in an inaccurate interpretation.

6. The Grand Jury has not developed and maintained an Index of Past Investigations and Reports as is done by

many Grand Juries, and is highly recommended to guide future Grand Juries.

Page 36

Recommendations

1. To bring the files in its possession and control into conformance with Penal Code Section 33.05, the Grand

Jury should contact the Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to obtain the necessary copies of agency

responses.

2. The Grand Jury should be provided a suitable room in which to maintain its files. This room should be

available exclusively to Grand Jurors so that in addition to maintaining Grand Jury records, the jurors may

conduct necessary research of those records in a confidential manner. The room should be available at rea-sonable

times during normal working hours, and evenings and weekends. It should be of a size to accom-modate

several file cabinets, a library table, chairs, a copier/ printer, shredder, computer, scanner, and a tele-phone.

The Grand Jury should create an historical, electronic, and searchable file that would allow an

incoming Grand Jury to easily review the reports and responses developed by previous Grand Juries and, as

appropriate, to follow- up earlier recommendations and responses. In addition to assisting the Grand Jury in

its investigations, an electronic file of reports and responses published on the web would provide the public

convenient access to Grand Jury reports and agency responses.

3. The County Clerk should set up procedures to ensure that a true copies of all final reports and responses are

sent to the State Archivist as required by Penal Code Section 933( b).

4. The Grand Jury should, in cooperation with the County Administrative Officer and the presiding Judge,

develop a final report style guide and agency response format which conforms to the requirements of

California Penal Code Section 933.05, and which facilitates the agency’s response. This style guide, in addi-tion

to providing consistency that promotes a comprehensive response to Grand Jury findings and recom-mendations,

would also allow for orderly follow- up of responses and filing of Grand Jury records, and would

improve the continuity of the Grand Jury system. This process should incorporate the use of an electronic

copy of the report and responses. Agency Response to Grand Jury Findings, and Agency Response to Grand Jury

Recommendations, ( Appendices 6 and 7on pages 55 and 56), represent suggested style guides.

5. The Grand Jury should develop an " Index of Past Investigations." This index would inform incoming

Grand Juries of those agencies that have been investigated ( and when), and the major recommendations

resulting from the investigations.

6. As the " watchdog of local government," the Grand Jury needs to continually and vigorously monitor its

own activities and methods to assure itself and the public that it is in conformance with the laws. This

would also insure that its investigations and reports assist the investigated government agencies in their

efforts to be more effective and in compliance with applicable laws.

Affected Agencies

San Benito County Grand Jury

San Benito County Board of Supervisors

San Benito County Administrative Officer

San Benito County Clerk

Response Required

As described by California Penal Code Section 933 ( see page 6).

Page 37

Review of the Hollister/ San Benito County

Animal Control Department

Background

Follow up of 2001- 2002 Grand Jury report, on the Animal Control Department.

Objective

The objectives of the investigation are as follows:

1. To determine if Animal Control Department is in compliance with applicable laws and codes.

2. To investigate the relationship between the City of Hollister and the County regarding the funding for

Animal Control.

3. To determine if Animal Control staffing and facilities are adequate to provide the necessary level of service.

4. To determine if plans are being made to expand the facility to accommodate future growth.

Method of Review

1. Interview with Animal Control Supervisor.

2. Inspection of Animal Shelter.

3. Interview with Hollister Director of Management Services.

4. Interview with San Benito County Administrative Officer.

5. Interview with County Board of Supervisors.

6. Interview with Hollister City Council members.

7. Review of City and County budgets.

8. Review of Animal Control operational procedures.

9. Review of City and County, and State codes for Animal Control.

10. Review of the Animal Control contract between City and County.

11. Departmental responses to 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report

Observations, Findings and Conclusions

1. The Animal Control shelter remains in the same deplorable condition as found in the 2001- 2002

Grand Jury Report.

2. The City of Hollister has failed to provide detailed financial data for the operation and funding of the

Animal Control Facility, as requested by the County. The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury should revisit this issue

and compel the City to provide full disclosure of all related financial documents. Such disclosure would

facilitate a resolution to the contractual issues presently facing the City and County.

3. The contract between Hollister and the County for Animal Control services was written in 1981. It is

currently being administered on a monthly basis.

4. It is not clear who in County Administration is assigned the responsibility of administering the Animal

Control contract with the City.

Page 38

Recommendations

1. The Animal Control shelter should be relocated to a new and larger facility, incorporating separate areas for

offices, staff and volunteers, animal holding, examination, laundry, etc. This new facility should also

include:

a) A separate adoption area for the public.

b) Adequate parking for employees, volunteers, public and other visitors.

c) Adequate ventilation systems which would provide a more wholesome atmosphere for employees and

animals, and would aid in preventing infection of healthy animals.

2. The City should establish a cooperative process to ensure timely and accurate financial and other data be

available upon requests from the County or other applicable agencies.

3. County and City officers should meet and negotiate a new Animal Control contract that would reflect the

realities of the present and arrive at an equitable distribution of costs.

Affected Agencies

San Benito County Board of Supervisors

City of Hollister Animal Control Department

Response Required

As described by California Penal Code Section 933 ( see page 6).

Page 39

Page 40

Citizen Complaints

Committee

Charter

The Citizen Complaints Committee reviews citizens’ complaints

for evaluation and possible investigation. If appropriate, the

committee refers the complaint to the appropriate

committee for investigation and resolution.

Committee Members

Anthony Edwards, Chair

Randy Andrews

Glen Cooke

Kathleen Harris

Jwanita Alexander ( alternate)

Investigation of Complaints

Background

It is the right of all San Benito County citizens to bring to the attention of the San Benito County Grand Jury

those matters about which they have concern. The 2002- 2003 San Benito County Grand Jury received eight com-plaints,

or requests for investigation. These communications were from the general population, and were received

directly by the Grand Jury.

Citizen complaints must be submitted to the Grand Jury in writing, and on a Citizen Complaint form. This form

has been studied and revised by the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury, and is available on the website ( www. sanbenitogrand-jury.

org.) Included with this report, ( Appendix 8, pages 57 and 58) is a copy of the Citizen Complaint form.

A Response Letter from the Grand Jury to a complainant was designed by the 2002– 2003 Grand Jury to further clar-ify

to the complainant what other information might be needed, or to explain the reasons for possible rejection of

the complaint. A copy of the response letter can be found on page 59 ( Appendix 9). A complete listing of citizen

complaints received by the San Benito County Grand Jury 2002- 2003 is shown below.

Objectives

The Grand Jury Citizen Complaints Committee was formed to review each citizen’s complaint received for evalua-tion

and possible investigation. If appropriate, the committee then referred it to a jury committee for further

investigation and resolution. If the citizen complaint was inappropriate for the Grand Jury, the complaint could

be returned to the complainant with referrals to the appropriate agency.

Methodology

Upon receipt of a complaint, the committee chairperson directed the jury staff to send an acknowledgement to the

complainant. There was no other communication from the Grand Jury to the complainant unless additional infor-mation

was desired. Further action on the complaint was dependent on a vote by the entire Grand Jury.

The Chairperson of the Citizen Complaints Committee logged in each complaint, reviewed the file, and circulated

it among members of the committee for their review. The complaint was discussed in committee and appropriate

action was determined. If legal advice was deemed necessary, the committee chairperson asked the Grand Jury

foreperson to request assistance from the District Attorney or County Counsel. Before final disposition, the file

with the committee’s recommended action was presented to the Grand Jury. The complaint might then be referred

to another committee. If found to be of a criminal nature, the complaint would be forwarded to the District

Attorney’s Office with concurrence of counsel. If there was no appropriate action to be taken by the Grand Jury,

a file was closed.

Pursuant to the governing limitations of statutes, there was limited communication between the Grand Jury and

the complainant. An acknowledgement letter sent to the complainant recognized only the receipt of the complaint.

The communication could not indicate the resolution of the complaint, whether it was determined to be founded or

unfounded, or how it was acted upon, except if these matters were discussed in a final report.

Findings

There were complaints received that were not under the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury, and some were otherwise

inappropriate for investigation. Some were vague and made no actual complaint. In some instances, there were

insufficient facts to support the complaint. Other complaints concerned cases that were pending in the courts and

could not be reviewed by the Grand Jury.

Page 41

Due to the limited ability to communicate directly, the complainant might have the impression that the complaint

was receiving attention through investigation, when in fact that was not the case. This limited ability to communi-cate

directly with the complainant may have, at times, been a source of frustration for the Grand Jury. A revision of

the acknowledgment letter to the complainant was instituted. If the complaint was not appropriate for Grand Jury

investigation, the acknowledgement letter so stated, and indicated that no further action would be taken on the

matter.

The Citizen Complaints Committee

Page 42

Citizen Complaints received by the 2002- 2003 San Benito County Grand Jury

06/ 02/ 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complaint against Sheriffs Department

06/ 12/ 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complaint against San Benito County Code Enforcement

06/ 12/ 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complaint against San Benito County and City of Hollister Code Enforcement

09/ 09/ 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complaint against Family Support Division

10/ 08/ 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complaint against School Board, San Benito High School

12/ 10/ 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complaint against Hollister Chief of Police and City Manager

01/ 06/ 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complaint against Sheriff Department

04/ 08/ 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complaint against Panoche School Board

Page 43

Appendices

Page 44, Appendix 1- 1

San Benito County Grand Jury Department Head Questionnaire

Please provide the Grand Jury with the information requested below. We would appreciate your written response

by ( date) ____________________. Please provide your response on separate sheets of paper, and not written on

the questionnaire. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Department or Unit Name:

2. Department Head:

3. Major Department Responsibilities:

Provide a brief summary description of the major responsibilities and functions of the department or unit.

4 Organization:

Describe how the department or unit is organized and attach an overall top- level organization chart,

including the ration of department administrators to staff.

Provide a list and a description of the functions of each major sub- unit within the department.

5. Salary of Head of Department:

Is this position elected or appointed?

If appointed, by whom?

6. Summary of Personnel:

Summarize ( table) the number of budgeted positions and the actual number of personnel at the end

of the past three fiscal years, together with an estimate for the end of year_________. Explain any

significant changes during each period.

7. Recent Major Changes ( past 12 months):

Describe any major changes which have occurred during the past 12 months that are important to

properly understand the department’s or unit’s status today.

8. Planned Major Changes:

Describe any major planned changes that are important to properly understand the department’s or

unit’s status today.

a. Next 12 months:

b. Next three years:

9. Key Indicators of Activity:

Provide a summary for the past three fiscal years and an estimate for the various key indicators that

best reflect the volume of the department’s or unit's activities.

B. BUDGET SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

This section should be completed separately for each segment or sub- unit that is separately budgeted by the coun-ty/

city. Each separate budget for which the responding department is responsible should be shown.

10. Budget Summary:

List the following budget information for each of the past three fiscal years ( both budgeted and actual)

and the budget only for __________________( year).

a. Salaries and employee benefits for ( 1) Administrative management, and ( 2) Staff.

b. Services and supplies

c. Equipment

d. Other ( describe)

Gross

Less transfers and reimbursements

Net

Less Revenue

Net county/ city cost

11. Explanation of Changes:

Please explain the cause for any significant differences between the budgeted and actual amounts by

individual line item in 10 above.

12. Analysis of Transfers and Reimbursements:

Provide a breakdown of transfers and reimbursements indicating where they were charged.

This breakdown should cover both the budgeted and actual reimbursements for previous years

and the estimated reimbursements for the current year.

13. Analysis of Revenue:

Provide a breakdown of revenues by source, covering both the estimated and actual revenue for the

prior three years and the estimated revenues for the current year.

C. IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN PROGRESS

14. Plans

Describe any plans you have underway or under consideration for correcting any deficiencies or effecting

improvements in the operation of the department with respect to the following areas:

a. Administrative controls, accounting controls and procedures.

b. Procedures for safeguarding county/ city assets held in trust.

c. Compliance with statutory requirements and established administrative policies and procedures.

List federal, state, and local statutory limitations which apply to your department.

d. Quality and use of management information systems.

e. Cost effectiveness in terms of utilizing assets and financial resources.

f. Other areas where potential efficiencies may be available.

Page 45, Appendix 1- 2

D. OTHER QUESTIONS

15. Recent Department/ Unit Audits:

Provide a list of all audits performed during the past two years, indicating whether management or

fiscal audits. Identify the agency performing the audit ( federal, stat, in- house), date of the audit, and

whether it is an annual, statutory, or special audit.

16. Interdepartmental/ Unit Procedures:

Are any problems presently being encountered with the interface of procedures that involve both your

department and other departments in the county/ city? If so, give a brief description of the nature of the

problems and an action planned or underway to deal with them.

a. What are the main problems in your department?

b. Are facilities and staff adequate?

c. What changes would members of your department like to see?

Page 46, Appendix 1- 3

Page 47, Appendix 2- 1

Page 48, Appendix 2- 2

Page 49, Appendix 3- 1

Page 50, Appendix 3- 2

Page 51, Appendix 4- 1

Page 52, Appendix 4- 2

Page 53, Appendix 5- 1

Page 54, Appendix 5- 1

Page 55, Appendix 6- 1

Agency Response to Grand Jury Findings

Grand Jury 2002 to 2003 Final Report

Name of Respondent:

Grand Jury Final Report Title:

Grand Jury Finding No. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Agency Response to Grand Jury Finding No. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

( Select one)

Respondent agrees with the Finding.

Respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the Finding. Specify the disputed

portion of the Finding and explain why.

Page 56, Appendix 7- 1

Agency Response to Grand Jury Recommendations

Grand Jury 2002 to 2003 Final Report

Name of Respondent:

Grand Jury Final Report Title:

Grand Jury Recommendation ( No.)

Response to Recommendation ( No) ( select one)

The recommendation has been implemented. Summarized below is the implemented action:

The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future.

The time frame for implementation is:

The recommendation requires further analysis. An explanation of the scope and parameters

of an analysis or study, and a timeframe ( not to exceed six months from the publication of

the grand jury report) for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of

the agency is summarized below:

The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is

unreasonable. An explanation is provided below:

Page 57, Appendix 8- 1

S A N B E N I T O C O U N T Y G R A N D J U RY C O M P L A I N T F O R M

NOTICE TO CITIZENS WHO WISH TO ISSUE A COMPLAINT: Among the many powers and responsibilities of

the San Benito County Grand Jury is the investigation of citizen complaints to assure that all branches of county and city

government are being administered efficiently, honestly and in the best interest of its citizens. It is not the function of the

Grand Jury to help to settle disputes between private citizens and/ or groups.

CONFIDENTIALITY: All complaints submitted to the San Benito County Grand Jury are required by law to be treated

in the strictest of confidence.

COMPLAINT PROCEDURE: ALL COMPLAINTS FORMS MUST BE COMPLETED AND MAILED TO:

SAN BENITO COUNTY GRAND JURY

Post Office Box 1624

Hollister California 95024

PHONE CALLS AND FAXES ARE NOT ACCEPTED. THIS PROCEDURE IS TO ASSURE THAT ALL COMPLAINTS REMAIN

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY.

NAME OF PERSON PRESENTING THIS COMPLAINT

PERSON OR AGENCY ABOUT WHICH COMPLAINT IS MADE

NAME PHONE

POSITION OR OFFICE HELD BY PERSON NAMED IN COMPLAINT

IS COMPLAINT WITH A GOVERNMENT AGENCY AND NOT ONE PERSON? YES NO

IF YES, WHAT GOVERNMENT AGENCY?

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

Note: if you need more space, please use the back of this form or attach additional page( s).

COMPLAINT CONTACTS: What other persons or agencies have you contacted about this problem?

ACTION REQUESTED: Please describe in detail, what action you would like the San Benito County Grand Jury to take.

“ This information is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge.”

NAME DATE

ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP

PHONE SIGNATURE

Please see reverse side for additional instructions

Page 58, Appendix 8- 2

Complaint Guidelines

Communications from the public can provide valuable information to the Grand Jury. Receipt of all

complaints will be acknowledged. If the Grand Jury determines that a matter is within the legally

permissible scope of its investigative powers and would warrant further inquiry, additional information

may be requested. If a matter does not fall within the Grand Jury’s investigative authority, or the jury

determines not to further investigate a complaint, no action will be taken and there will be no further

contact from the Grand Jury.

The findings of any investigation conducted by the Grand Jury can be communicated only in a formal

final report, which is normally published at the conclusion of the Grand Jury’s term of empanelment

( June 30th).

The Grand Jury has no jurisdiction or authority to investigate federal agencies, state agencies, or the

courts. Only causes of action occurring within the County of San Benito are eligible for review. The

jurisdiction of the Grand Jury includes the following:

• Consideration of evidence of misconduct against public officials within San Benito County.

• The inquiry into the condition and management of the jails within the county.

• Investigation 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 as officers of the districts.

• Investigation of the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located

in the county.

Page 59, Appendix 9

S A N B E N I T O C O U N T Y G R A N D J U R Y

P O S T O F F I C E B O X 1 6 2 4 • H O L L I S T E R C A L I F O R N I A • 9 5 0 2 4

Date

Name

Address

Dear ____________,

Your letter to the Grand Jury, dated _______________ has been received and is being reviewed.

The Fact that members of the Grand Jury are reviewing this mater does not mean that the Grand Jury is

conducting an investigation into your complaint. Rather, a review is being done to assist the Grand Jury

in deciding what further action, if any, to take. By law, the Grand Jury is precluded from communicat-ing

the result of its investigation except in one of its public reports.

All communications are considered, but may not result in any action or report by the Grand Jury.

Please note that the San Benito County Grand Jury has no jurisdiction or authority to investigate Federal

agencies, State agencies or the courts. Only causes of action occurring within the County Government of

San Benito are eligible for review.

Please review the checked items in the list below for additional comments concerning your specific

complaint.

Request for more specific facts: Your complaint contained insufficient facts. If you wish the

Grand Jury to further review your complaint, we will need more specific information.

Request for additional information: In order to further consider your complaint, the Grand

Jury requests the following additional information:

No jurisdiction ( State or Federal): The Grand Jury does not have jurisdiction over the subject

matter of your complaint.

Referral to another agency: The Grand Jury does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of

your complaint. You may wish to contact __________________________________________.

Suggestion for legal counsel: The matter you describe in you complaint dated ______________,

appears to be an issue which may require you to obtain legal advice which the Grand Jury is not

empowered to provide.

Matter is before the courts: The matter referred to is pending before the court. If you believe

that the court has incorrectly resolved the matter, you may consider appealing to a higher court.

Other:______________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

Sincerely,

Grand Jury Staff