2004 – 2005

San Luis Obispo County

Grand Jury

Final Report

County Government Center

San Luis Obispo, California 93408

www. slocourts. net

2004 – 2005 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury

Final Report

Table of Contents

Introduction Letter

Grand Jury Photo

Sheriff’s Department – Citizens Complaints Investigation of Alleged Excessive Force

County Animal Control Services “ People Who Care”

Office of Emergency Services – Are we Safe?

Child Welfare Services Board of Supervisors Response follow – up

Department of Planning and Building. “ How Soon Can I Expect To Receive My Building

Permit?”

Cayucos Sanitary District and Morro Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant

California Men’s Colony

Funds Management and Financial Auditing Practices

County Government Services Lack Direction. “ You Can’t Get There From Here”

El Paso de Robles Youth Correctional Facility

The Tobacco Tax Program: “ Raising Our Future”

Department of Environmental Health – Food Safety

Housing Authority San Luis Obispo – Managing Affordable Housing for Low Income

Families

Law Enforcement Internal Affairs

Jails and Holding Cells

Juvenile Hall

Department of General Services, Parks Division

Paso Robles Housing Authority

City of Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility

City of San Luis Obispo, Department of Public Works, Transportation Division, “ Traffic

Lights – Warranted or Not”

Department of Agriculture Weights and Measures

June 2005

The 2004 – 2005 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury is pleased to present our

Final Report. This report is the compilation of inquires conducted during our service.

Grand Jury Selection Process

In July of each year, the Superior Court for the County of San Luis Obispo

impanels a Grand Jury to serve through the following June. Thirty candidates are

nominated by Judges of the Superior Court, including up to ten holdovers from the

previous year’s Grand Jury. The names, minus holdovers, are then drawn in a computer

generated, lottery- type process. The first nineteen, including holdovers, are sworn in and

constitute the Grand Jury. Eleven alternates are also chosen during this process. Most of the

county geographical areas are represented. The commonality among jurors is the

commitment and responsibility to the citizens of our county.

Education and Training for Grand Jury Members

For many Grand Jury members it is an opportunity to acquire a significant

education on how local government functions, and to provide recommendations, where

appropriate, for improvements. Members of the Grand Jury are required to attend courses

that detail the functions of a Grand Jury and the laws within which it acts, as well as

developing and writing final reports.

Grand Jury Committees and Meetings

The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury formed four committees which met at least weekly, and

more often as the year progressed. The committees were: City & County, Law & Justice,

Social Services, and Special Projects. Each juror chose two of the committees and

frequently participated in the other committee inquires.

General session meetings were held weekly for committee status reports and for

deliberation and agreement on final reports. A quorum of at least twelve members was

always present for official voting on issues and reports.

Citizen Complaints and Inquiries

Our inquiries were initiated by citizen complaints or by a juror, committee, or the

Grand Jury as a whole. The 2004 - 2005 Grand Jury received forty complaints. Complaints

were initially referred to the appropriate committee for review and for initiation of a

preliminary investigation. If a complaint met established criteria the committee would

present an action plan to the full Grand Jury and request approval to proceed with the

investigation. There were some complaints that, after the review, no further action was

required by the Grand Jury. Complaints that were not pursued were for one or more of the

following reasons: they were not within our county/ civil jurisdiction ( examples include

criminal, or complaints about the state or federal government); other avenues of resolution

should have been taken ( for example, exercising various “ appeals”); the complaint is

currently within the legal process or best resolved by the legal system; the complaint was

received too late in our term to pursue ( in some cases we requested the complainant

resubmit to the next Grand Jury); and finally, in the judgment of the Grand Jury, an

investigation is deemed to not be in the best interest of the community or the Grand Jury to

pursue.

Site Visits

Grand Jury work was not confined to the jury offices. As you will read in our

reports, jurors conducted numerous on- site inspections in addition to the required prison

reviews of the California Men’s Colony , El Paso de Robles Youth Authority, the San Luis

Obispo County Jail, seven City Police holding cells, and the Juvenile Hall. We also met

with many of the county department heads, including the County’s Administrative Officer,

District Attorney and County Counsel. The District Attorney and County Counsel offices

provided significant legal guidance for our investigations. Their responsiveness and

thoroughness is greatly appreciated.

Publishing the Final Report

Prior to the end of its term, the California Penal Code requires the Grand Jury to submit to

the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, the Final Report, as the Presiding Judge must

approve the report prior to publication. There are two types of reports included in our Final

Report: Investigational and Informational.

Investigational Reports

An Investigational Report includes Findings and Recommendations. Elected county

officers and county agencies, and/ or department heads, must reply to this type of report to

the Presiding Judge within sixty days. The governing bodies of other public agencies,

concerning matters under their control, must respond within 90 days.

Authority and Penal Codes Governing the Grand Jury

The authority for our inquiries are sanctioned by one or more of the following California

Penal Codes:

§ 919 ( b) states: “ The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the

public prisons within the county,” and the Attorney General’s opinion ( 62 Op. Attorney

General Cal. 268) Number 79- 313 defines “ a prison as a place maintained by a public

authority for the detention of those confined under legal process to insure their

appearance for further proceedings, or for the confinement of those convicted of criminal

offenses and sentence therefore.”

§ 925, states: “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and

records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county including those

operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative district or other district in the

county created pursuant to state law for which the officers of the county are serving in

their ex officio capacity as officers of the districts.

The investigations may be conducted on some selective basis each year, but the grand

jury shall not duplicate any examination of financial statements which has been

performed by or for the board of supervisors pursuant to Section 25250 of the

Government Code; this provision shall not be construed to limit the power of the grand

jury to investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers,

departments, or functions of the county.”

§ 925 ( a). states: ” The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any

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

investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report

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

method or system of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and

make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit. The grand jury may

investigate and report upon the needs of all joint powers agencies in the county, including

the abolition or creation of agencies and the equipment for, or the method or system of

performing the duties of, the several agencies. It shall cause a copy of any such report to

be transmitted to the governing body of any affected agency.”

§ 933.1. states: “ A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of a

redevelopment agency, a housing authority, created pursuant to Division 24 ( commencing

with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code, or a joint powers agency created

pursuant to Chapter 5 ( commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the

Government Code, and, in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this

chapter, may investigate and report upon the method or system of performing the duties of

such agency or authority.”

§ 933.5. states: “ A grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any

special- purpose assessing or taxing district located wholly or partly in the county or the

local agency formation commission in the county, and, in addition to any other

investigatory powers granted by this chapter, may investigate and report upon the method

or system of performing the duties of such district or commission.”

Findings

Each Finding requires one of the following responses:

( a) Agrees with the finding

( b) Disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the

response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and

shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore.

Recommendations

The agency response to each recommendation must state one of the following:

( a) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding

the implemented action.

( b) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be

implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.

( c) 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 investigated or reviewed, including the

governing body of the public agency when applicable. The timeframe

shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand

jury report.

( d) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not

warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

The Grand Jury’s recommendations, when appropriate, must include where funding can be

obtained. Responses from Agencies, the Board of Supervisors, and others to Grand Jury

findings and recommendations are required to be on file with the clerk of the public

agency, the office of the County Clerk, and the currently impaneled Grand Jury.

Informational Reports

Informational reports do not include findings or recommendations and therefore do not

require a response.

Sheriff’s Department- Citizen Complaints

Investigation of Alleged Excessive Force

Over the last few years, there has been citizen concern about the alleged use of excessive

force, by Sheriff’s Deputies, during arrest and detainment. This report addresses the three

most recent cases, specifically:

• the death of Jay Vestal during arrest,

• the death of Keith Yecny while in detainment, and

• the head injury sustained by Gerald Bernales during arrest, which resulted

in a civil claim of permanent brain damage.

•

Origin

The Grand Jury received two citizen complaints asking us to investigate the three incidents

at the Sheriff’s Department as stated above.

Method

The Grand Jury’s investigations included:

Sheriff’s Department reports; documents and files; autopsy and coroner’s report; an

independent pathology report; toxicology reports; videos of the cases; audio tapes; the

District Attorney’s findings and report; and the Sheriff’s Department’s policies and

procedures manual. We compared the policies and procedures against actual application,

interviews, and witness statements. We also interviewed the Supervisory Senior Resident

Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI) to learn how the FBI becomes involved

in cases, and the process and procedures they follow when involved in an investigation. We

determined what each agency’s focus was during their investigations of these cases. They

are:

• Sheriff’s Department. Focus is on policy violations, and determining that no

violation of the law occurred.

• District Attorney’s Office. Focus is on criminal wrongdoing.

• Federal Bureau of Investigation. Focus is on criminal civil rights violations.

Narrative

Jay Vestal

The death of Jay Vestal was investigated by three agencies: the San Luis Obispo County

Sheriff’s Department, the San Luis Obispo District Attorney’s Office, and the FBI. There

are video and audio tapes of the incident, where most of the contact between Mr. Vestal

and the Sheriff’s Deputies is recorded.

The Sheriff’s Department received a 9- 1- 1 call on August 18, 2003, at approximately 1: 22

a. m., in which the reporting party stated, “ Jay is going up and down the street like a

maniac.” The caller said “ Jay” lived in a trailer court on Second Street in Templeton and

further described “ Jay’s” vehicle, and told the dispatcher where to find him. The deputies

located Mr. Vestal at the trailer park. They requested his California driver’s license and ran

a routine check. The check disclosed that Mr. Vestal had an outstanding warrant, which

required mandatory booking at the San Luis Obispo County Jail. As deputies attempted to

arrest Mr. Vestal, he became violent. Six deputies participated in the arrest and restraint of

Mr. Vestal, which took seven minutes. In the course of this arrest process, Mr. Vestal died.

In our review of the audio and video tapes, we determined that none of the deputies

punched, kicked, struck, or choked Mr. Vestal. ( The video tapes we reviewed were

enhanced by the FBI and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office Crime Lab as the

visual picture in the original was poor due to the near total darkness at the scene. The

enhanced videos do make it possible to identify those involved and their movements. The

audio portions of the tapes are very clear and helped to analyze the video picture).

Throughout the struggle deputies can be heard on the tapes calmly and repeatedly telling

Mr. Vestal to relax and stop fighting. The deputies did not lose their composure, raise their

voices or sound angry.

Three separate pathologists were consulted by the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s

Department, the District Attorney’s Office and County Counsel ( who additionally

consulted with a pulmonary specialist) to determine the cause of death. The pathologists

determined that the cause of death was not attributable to the use of excessive force by the

Sheriff’s deputies.

The autopsy and subsequent toxicology analysis established that Mr. Vestal’s blood

contained cocaine, benzoylecgonine, amphetamine, and a toxic level of methamphetamine.

The autopsy report, witness statements, and videos do not reveal that excessive force was

used by the Sheriff’s deputies. All investigations, including the Grand Jury’s, concluded

that the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department acted in a responsible and lawful

manner and followed department policies and procedures.

Keith Yecny

The death of Keith Yecny was investigated by the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s

Department and the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office. At the request of

the Sheriff’s Department, the FBI also conducted an initial investigation, which was

forwarded to the U. S. Attorney General office..

Keith Yecny was arrested by the San Luis Obispo City Police Department and died at

Sierra Vista Hospital while in the custody of the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s

Department.

At 9: 15 p. m. on March 5, 2004, a San Luis Obispo City Police marked patrol car exited

from Highway 10l at Madonna Road. At that time a car swerved in front of and cut off the

police car. The police then made a routine traffic stop on Madonna Road at the Highway

101 overpass. The officers stated that they noticed that Mr. Yecny’s eyes were dilated, he

appeared very nervous, had rapid speech, was shaking, and sweating profusely. The

officers performed a field sobriety test, and based on Mr. Yecny’s symptoms and the tests

performed on him, the officers concluded that Mr. Yecny was under the influence of a

central nervous system stimulant. He was placed under arrest.

The officers then searched Mr. Yecny’s car and found several items including credit and/ or

debit cards he was not authorized to have in his possession, and an undetermined amount of

cocaine. Mr. Yecny was transported to French Hospital at approximately 10: 08 p. m.,

where a blood sample was taken. The blood sample drawn at French Hospital was

transported to the San Luis Obispo Police Department, by the arresting officer, and booked

as evidence. After the blood was drawn and given to the officer, Mr. Yecny was

transported back to the San Luis Obispo Police Department where additional testing ( urine

sample and additional controlled substance exam) was administered. After the tests were

completed, at approximately 1: 30 a. m., on March 6, 2004, Mr. Yecny was transported to

the San Luis Obispo County Jail. On March 15, the San Luis Obispo Police Department

sent the sample to Central Valley Toxicology Lab for analysis. The results of the analysis

were mailed to the District Attorney on March 22, 2004 and indicated that Mr. Yecny had

0.68 mg/ l of methamphetamine. The potentially toxic blood panel is above 0.2 mg/ l. He

also had small amounts of THP ( marijuana) in his system.

The officers at the jail had difficulty in booking Mr. Yecny, as he was shaking and could

not keep his balance. Due to his shaking, they were not able to obtain his fingerprints and

complete the booking process.

Shortly after 1: 35 a. m., on March 6, Mr. Yecny was placed in a holding cell, which is used

to hold individuals in custody prior to processing. At approximately 1: 55 a. m., when his

physical and mental conditions deteriorated, he was transferred to a sobering cell, which is

used for holding inmates who are a threat to their own safety or the safety of others due to

their intoxicated state. The sobering cell has a water closet, sink, drinking fountain and

padded floor. There are no benches or other fixtures in the cell, and the Sheriff’s

Department staff has an unobstructed visual observation of the intoxicated inmates. When

Mr. Yecny was placed in the sobering cell, a 30 minute observation log was started and

maintained. At Mr. Yecny’s request, he was moved to three different sobering cells

between 1: 55 a. m. and 5: 00 a. m.; this was because he continually told officers that there

were too many people in the sobering cells where he was placed. At approximately 7: 05

a. m., Mr. Yecny’s condition appeared to be worsening and a request for the mental health

therapist and the jail psychiatrist was made and they were asked to evaluate Mr. Yecny. At

8: 15 a. m. the psychiatrist prescribed medication to calm Mr. Yecny, which he was given at

8: 20 a. m. At approximately 11: 00 a. m., Mr. Yecny’s behavior became more erratic, and a

nurse was called in to attend him. The nurse was not able to enter the cell to help Mr.

Yecny because; she said that he was exhibiting bizarre behavior. At that point, the

correctional officers went into the cell to restrain Mr. Yecny and he began to fight them. He

was finally restrained, placed on a gurney, and taken to a safety cell, which is a fully

padded cell designed to minimize the risk of inmates intending self- inflicted physical harm.

Once in the safety cell, the officers took off the restraints and put handcuffs on Mr. Yecny,

so they could exit; he suddenly stopped resisting and began turning blue at approximately

11: 19 a. m. The correctional officers and medical staff at the jail immediately initiated CPR

and defibrillation procedures, and immediately called for an ambulance. Mr. Yecny was

transported to Sierra Vista Hospital at 11: 54 a. m. for further medical attention, where he

remained until his death a week later on March 13, 2004.

An autopsy was performed by a forensic pathologist on March 15, 2004. The doctor who

performed the autopsy noted the medical and clinical observations and findings regarding

Mr. Yecny at Sierra Vista Hospital. All of the physical injuries sustained by Mr. Yecny

consisted primarily of bruising to the arms, including injuries on the wrists ( in the locations

of the handcuffs), bruising to the legs, including injuries to the ankles ( in the location of the

ankle restraints), and bruising to the trunk. Some of the injuries are consistent with medical

therapeutic intervention. There were no injuries noted to the neck, back or head.

The cause of death was determined to be hypoxic encephalopathy ( lack of oxygen to the

brain) attributable to the toxic effects of methamphetamine, including excited delirium.

The physical injuries were superficial, and were not contributory to death, nor was the fact

that Mr. Yecny was placed in a prone position, while handcuffed for a number of minutes,

contributory to death. This opinion included: “ No findings suggestive of injurious force

applied to the head, neck and torso were identified; no sub- fractures or internal laryngeal

injuries were found. There are no credible reports or videotape images of pressure being

exerted onto his trunk or neck associated with the events of March 6.”

Video tapes of the events in the holding and sobering cells show Mr. Yecny’s deteriorating

state and the District Attorney and Grand Jury investigations concluded that the San Luis

Obispo County Sheriff’s Department acted in a responsible and lawful manner and

followed department policies and procedures.

The District Attorney filed charges against Mr. Yecny on March 8, 2004. The charges

were: three felonies ( possession of credit and/ or debit cards without authority,

unauthorized use of personal information and possession of an illegal substance) and two

misdemeanors ( being under the influence of a controlled substance and driving while

intoxicated).

Gerald Bernales

The head injury of Gerald Bernales was investigated by the San Luis Obispo County

Sheriff’s Department and the FBI. Their investigations, including the U. S. Attorney

General, concluded that deputies involved did not violate Mr. Bernales’s civil rights when

they used force to take him into custody.

At approximately 2 a. m., on February 24, 2001, Mr. Bernales was observed to be speeding

westbound on Los Osos Valley Road at Buckskin, by a San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s

Department deputy who then attempted to make a traffic violation stop. Mr. Bernales

appeared to be slowing down, but fled and a pursuit began. The pursuit was brief as Mr.

Bernales pulled into a driveway a short distance from where the pursuit began. As Mr.

Bernales pulled into the driveway, he exited the moving vehicle and ran toward the house.

A deputy pursued him and tackled him before he could enter the house. As he was tackled,

Mr. Bernales fell and hit his head against a sculpted brick, causing obvious head injuries.

Paramedics from the South Bay Fire Department were called to the scene and according to

the EMS response times document; they arrived within five minutes. Upon their arrival,

they evaluated Mr. Bernales’s injuries. It was their determination that Mr. Bernales be

transported, by patrol car, for further evaluation by a physician at General Hospital.

At General Hospital, an emergency ward doctor examined and treated him and told the

deputies Mr. Bernales could be transported to the San Luis Obispo County Jail. The Grand

Jury noted that even with visual head injuries, there were no x- rays taken at that time. Mr.

Bernales was booked and released on February 24, 2001. On February 28, 2001, Mr.

Bernales visited Central Coast Pediatrics to have his stitches removed, as he had been

instructed to do by the emergency ward doctor. The doctor who attended to Mr. Bernales

at Central Coast Pediatrics referred him to Sierra Vista hospital for x- rays, since he was

experiencing dizziness, headaches, and nausea. The x- rays of his head revealed blood had

leaked into his brain and surgery was necessary. He was admitted to the hospital on March

1, 2001 where he underwent surgery. As a result of this injury, and Mr. Bernales’s claim of

permanent brain damage, he received a $ 2 million out of court settlement from the county.

On June 25, 2001, Mr. Bernales pled no contest to, and was convicted of, a misdemeanor

violation of vehicle code § 2800.1, flight from a peace officer. He received bench probation

of one year, and a $ 250.00 fine, which he paid on June 27, 2001. The flight from a peace

officer is what prompted the Sheriff’s deputies to pursue Mr. Bernales.

All investigations, including the Grand Jury’s, concluded that the San Luis Obispo County

Sheriff’s Department acted in a responsible and lawful manner and followed department

policies and procedures.

Findings

A. Policies and procedures of the Sheriff’s Department do not have specific

instructions on requiring x- rays for head injuries incurred during arrest and/ or

detainment.

B. The Sheriff’s Department policies and procedures do not have specific

instructions to seek more than one forensic medical autopsy when death occurs

during arrest and/ or detainment.

C. The Sheriff’s Department written policies and procedures regarding restraint,

and force during arrest and/ or custody are not explicit.

Conclusion

In all three cases, the Sheriff’s Department followed their policies and procedures. To keep

the incidents in perspective, the Sheriff’s Department has, in the last five years, held 65,708

people in custody and has made thousands of arrests. Any arrest is, at best, difficult. An

arrest where individuals are under the influence of a controlled substance, and are often

irrational, creates significant problems for the arresting officer. There is the potential for

the use of force by peace officers considering that they frequently must deal with violent

situations, while attempting to protect the individual, the public, and themselves from harm.

The Sheriff’s Department requires its officers to take Peace Officers Standard Training

( POST) certified courses and Standards and Training for Corrections ( STC) courses. ( See

Appendix for courses that apply).

Recommendations

A. When a death occurs during an arrest or while in detainment, an independent

review of the autopsy report and other supporting medical reports should

always be performed by a qualified forensic pathologist, as was the case with

Jay Vestal. This should be included into Sheriff’s Department policies and

procedures. ( Findings B and C)

B. When an individual has incurred a head injury during arrest or detainment, the

arresting officer should make a formal request for head x- rays. This should be

included in the Sheriff’s Department policies and procedures. ( Findings A and

C)

C. The Sheriff’s Department should consider having an appropriate outside

organization, such as The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement

Agencies ( CALEA), review and audit its policies and procedures. ( Finding C)

Required Responses

Pursuant to the California Penal Code, the following agencies are required to respond to the

findings and recommendations in this report:

The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department ( by July 10, 2005)

The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors ( by August 15, 2005)

Appendix

The training and courses listed below pertain only to this report and are not a

complete list of the courses or training taken by the Sheriff’s Deputies.

1. Type 1 holding facilities

2. Weaponless self defense

3. Arrest and control

4. Suicidal/ mentally ill inmates

5. First aid

6. Cell extraction/ room removal

7. Basic CPR ( four and eight hour courses)

8. Cell extraction update

County Animal Control Services

“ People Who Care”

The Animal Services Division of the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department is

located at 885 Oklahoma Avenue and Kansas Avenue, just off Highway 1, north of the city

of San Luis Obispo. The division is devoted to providing animal- related assistance to

residents of San Luis Obispo County. The primary functions of the division include

monitoring rabies control, promoting responsible pet ownership through public education

and regulating and enforcing animal related laws in all areas of the county.

Method

The Grand Jury obtained the information through interviews, inspection of the Animal

Services facility, and a review of documents and their web- site.

Narrative

During a meeting with the Manager of Animal Services, he presented an overview of the

Division and answered questions. After the meeting, Grand Jurors toured the facility,

visiting the administrative offices, food storage locker, areas where the animals are

boarded, medical care and euthanasia room, and the cremation unit.

We then toured the yard and observed two volunteers playing with dogs and a Sheriff’s

Honor Farm inmate cleaning the general area outside the dog runs. Grand Jurors also

examined the various specialized vehicles used by the department. The Grand Jury found

no examples of inhumane or unsanitary conditions at the shelter. The shelter is clean and

satisfactorily maintained.

We also examined excerpts of the practices, policies and procedures guidelines pertaining

to the intake and processing of animals impounded or relinquished by owners, and

reviewed the department’s rescue and volunteers policies. We inquired into the methods

used to promote animal adoptions and the division’s co- operative efforts with private not-for-

profit animal rescue agencies such as Woods Humane Society and Second Chance at

Love. We can report the following:

• The Facility: The complex of approximately 8,400 sq. feet, was constructed in

1975 on county property, and houses the offices, operating rooms, dog runs, cages

for cats and other animal enclosures. These areas appeared to be clean and adequate

for the animals confined. The capacity is as follows:

o Fifty regular dog runs, two isolation dog runs, and eight quarantine dog

runs.

o 122 regular, sixteen isolation and sixteen quarantine individual cat cages.

The space in a single cage is marginally adequate to allow for placement of

food/ water bowls, litter box, etc. Therefore, to provide adequate space for

cats, the pass- through of two side- by- side cages are opened when possible,

giving each animal two cage spaces.

o Two rabbit hutches

o One- quarter- acre livestock enclosure along with a small ( 150 sq. ft)

livestock yard.

o One rodent cage, one small reptile tank and one bird cage.

• The Staff: There are twenty- two full time equivalent ( FTE) positions, but only

twenty are funded in the 2004/ 05 budget due to current county budget constraints.

The staff breakdown is:

o One division manager

o Seven administrative services personnel. ( One position in this category is

allocated but not filled).

o Nine animal control officers. ( Two positions in this category are allocated

but not filled).

o 3.5 FTE kennel positions

o .5 FTE humane educator position

o One departmental automation specialist

• The Volunteers: They are welcomed at the facility and provide essential services.

Approximately thirty to forty volunteers are active with a core of about twelve.

Volunteers contribute positively to the welfare of the animals and provide in excess

of one hundred hours per week of service, saving the county the equivalent of 2.5

FTEs. The volunteers groom and walk the dogs as well as socialize the cats.

o Before being accepted as a volunteer, each candidate is given an application

to complete, along with written guidelines to be followed. After filling out

the application, the volunteer signs a waiver releasing the county from

liability.

o Volunteers are covered by workers’ compensation by the county. When we

inquired about record- keeping associated with this coverage, we found there

is no formal system for logging the hours served by individual volunteers. A

computer program is being developed to acquire this data.

o Sheriff’s Department Honor Farm inmates also work at the facility,

providing approximately two inmates during the week and up to four on

weekends.

The Animal Services budget for the fiscal year 2004/ 05 is $ 1,909,000, of which 48% is

from the County General Fund. The balance of funds is derived from licenses, fees and

permits, service charges, and donations. The department has fee- for- service contracts

with the seven cities in the county.

The services provided by the shelter

The services provided by the shelter are: adoption, lost & found, quarantine and

protective custody, basic health screening and treatment of injured animals, issuance of

dog licenses, humane euthanasia, educational programs relating to humane treatment,

public safety and responsible pet ownership, investigating complaints, enforcement of

state and local laws pertaining to animals, inspecting facilities and issuing permits to

kennels, pet shop owners, animal breeders and other facilities.

The Animal Services Division works closely with the various private humane

organizations ( Animal Welfare Alliance) in order to facilitate adoptions of the dogs and

cats under its control. In addition to adoption placement of abandoned animals, these

private agencies often take animals for temporary housing and care when the shelter

reaches capacity. One of the agencies, Woods Humane Society, currently accepts only

class “ A” ( highly adoptable) dogs on a temporary basis. Woods has capacity to hold up

to thirty adoptable dogs for approximately 48 hours. Other agencies have similar

arrangements.

Woods Humane Society – Special Agreement

The County of San Luis Obispo has concluded a special agreement with Woods

Humane Society. According to this agreement, Woods has signed a thirty- year lease

( plus two five- year extensions) for 4.31 acres of land adjacent to the Animal Services

facility, for which it pays one dollar per year. In return for this land, Woods will

provide adoptions and licensing for a minimum of 350 homeless domestic dogs and

cats annually for the county, thereby saving taxpayer funds. Construction has begun on

the Woods’ state- of- the- art animal shelter and community service care facility.

• Community Awareness: The Animal Shelter’s web- site address is:

http:// www. slosheriff. org/ animal_ services. php. This website maintains an up- to-date

database on most of the animals in the shelter; the exception being those

animals in quarantine and confiscated animals. Photographs, where possible, are

provided along with the vital statistics of the animals. Many of the volunteers also

attend off- site adoption events, and do radio show spots. Through the Animal

Welfare Alliance, adoptable animals are featured in newspaper ads monthly; and in

videos broadcast on the local Cable Channel 2. Booths are set up at street fairs and

public festivals throughout the year, especially at kids’ and pet fairs

• Statistics: One of the objectives of the San Luis Obispo County Animal Services is

to avoid euthanizing animals that are adoptable. With the cooperation of the various

private agencies and rescue organizations, and the public’s cooperation, the division

has not euthanized any adoptable animals in 2004. Here are some comparative

figures:

Euthanized (*) not adoptable

Year

Total

Incoming

Redeemed

Dead on

Arrival

Adopted

Dogs Cats Others

2003 4,776 815 779 2,368 250 395 34

2004 4647 879 555 2488 198 161 62

(*) Euthanasia Categories:

o Adoptable: Policy decision- non- wildlife; space.

o Treatable: Behavior – aggressive/ timid; Kennel stressed/ depressed.

o Treatable: Medical – contagious/ treatable; Policy decision – wildlife; physical

condition; unweaned.

o Non- rehabilitatable: Court order; behavior – dangerous; feral ( wild).

o Medical – untreatable; owner request.

Conclusion

In 2004, the Animal Services Division did not perform euthanasia on any adoptable

animals. This accomplishment is largely due to a high level of cooperation between the

Division and the non- profit animal rescue organizations within the county.

In 2003, San Luis Obispo County achieved the fourth highest animal rescue rate in the

nation. Furthermore, the Division’s public awareness programs greatly assist with a

high level of adoption. In 2005/ 06 and beyond, the land- lease agreement with Woods

Humane Society will assist in maintaining euthanizing adoptable animals at a low level.

Volunteers play a vital role in filling the void created by three unfilled county positions.

The Animal Services Division is performing a necessary service to the community and

carrying out a comprehensive program of handling animal problems, public awareness,

care of animals and adoptions.

Dedication and commitment to the well- being of the animals under their care is evident

at all levels of the organization – from the director through the volunteers.

Required Response

This is an informational report and no formal response is required.

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

ARE WE SAFE?

This is an informational report of the process used by the Office of Emergency

Services ( OES) to provide integrated and effective safety and emergency management

services. As background, the report briefly outlines the OES mission and an overview of

the programs to provide maximum readiness for any natural or human caused

emergencies.

METHOD

The information in this report was gathered by members of the Grand Jury

through a tour of the Emergency Operations Center ( EOC), an observation of the

California Specialized Training Institute exercises for emergency workers, and the

Novex 2004 emergency exercise drill. In addition, we observed a nuclear power plant

emergency exercise and drill, evaluated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency

( FEMA). Interviews were also conducted with the Director of San Luis Obispo County

Office of Emergency Services and the Emergency Services Coordinators. During all

these informative experiences we were given unfettered access and the ability to ask any

questions.

NARRATIVE

The printed mission statement of OES is to serve the public before, during, and

after times of emergency and disaster by promoting effective coordination between

agencies and encouraging emergency preparedness of the public and organizations

involved in emergency response. They attempt to accomplish this mission by developing

and implementing programs to:

1. coordinate emergency planning efforts between public and private agencies

involved with the common goal of protecting the public,

2. coordinate emergency planning related to Diablo Canyon,

3. maintain and coordinate the county's EOC,

4. coordinate and disseminate emergency news and information, as requested by

other agencies, and

5. develop, maintain, and coordinate San Luis Obispo County emergency worker

training program.

The staff of OES consists of four emergency service coordinators, and a half- time

administrative assistant who are overseen by county administrator and the deputy

county administrator. Three coordinators work on emergency plans for Diablo Canyon

and one on general emergencies, such as earthquakes and floods.

The EOC facilitates the coordination of response efforts of various agencies around

the county.

It is " disaster central", and can be staffed from a core group of people to full activation.

Their work involves coordinating with and between the various cities in the County, as well

as special districts, and state and federal agencies. The EOC has communication equipment

for broadcasting emergency information. The Joint Media Center, owned by PG& E and

operated by the county, is located near the EOC, and can be used to provide updated

information to the news media.

A major function within the OES is providing an emergency worker training

program. Members of the Grand Jury observed a course of instruction given by the

California Specialized Training Institute called, “ Standard Emergency Management

System”. This management system has been in use for over ten years and provides an

organizational framework and guidance for operations at each level of the state's

emergency management system. It provides the umbrella under which all response

agencies may function in an integrated fashion.

In addition to various on- going emergency drills, nuclear power plant drills are

held every two years and are graded by FEMA. If the San Luis Obispo County

emergency service plans do not pass FEMA's evaluation, they must be re- evaluated in

one year. The 2002 FEMA evaluation stated there were no areas requiring corrective

action and that " all local organizations demonstrated knowledge of their emergency

response plans and procedures and adequately implemented them". The most recent

graded exercise, conducted on December 8, 2004, demonstrated to FEMA San Luis

Obispo County's emergency planning and response capabilities. Members of the Grand

Jury were privileged to observe portions of this exercise. FEMA is scheduled to release

an evaluation on the exercise within the spring of 2005.

CONCLUSION

In order to accomplish its mission and meet its goals the OES continues to serve in

its role of coordinating emergency management and planning efforts between various

public safety and other agencies throughout the County. These coordinated efforts help to

ensure that response to, and recovery from, large emergencies and disasters are

accomplished in the most efficient and prompt manner possible. Of particular note is the

efficiency in the way disaster recovery coordination effort was handled after the San

Simeon earthquake.

It was extremely impressive to see, during the Grand Jury members' observation of

the FEMA exercise, the tremendous amount of coordination achieved by many agencies

working together. This is welcome evidence that the OES is achieving its mission to serve

the public before, during, and after times of emergency and disaster by promoting effective

coordination between agencies involved in emergency response.

REQUIRED RESPONSE

This is an informational report. No formal response is required.

County Board of Supervisors Acts on the

2003- 2004 Grand Jury Recommendations on the Organizational Issues

Within Child Welfare Services

This year’s Grand Jury is the recipient, through the Superior Court, of all required

responses to the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury report. In its final report, four aspects of the Child

Welfare Services ( CWS), a division of the Department of Social Services ( DSS) were

specifically criticized: management style, internal communication, workload, and

training. Last year’s Grand Jury recommendation to the San Luis Obispo County Board

of Supervisors ( BOS) stated:

We strongly recommend that the San Luis Obispo County Board of

Supervisors undertake a thorough evaluation of the leadership of

CWS, specifically including the DSS Director and the CWS

Deputy Director. The evaluation should be completed by a private,

independent, and credible expert in the management of social

service organizations. The evaluation should focus on upper

management’s effectiveness in communicating with the employees

and in creating a positive working environment, and should include

input from all CWS employees. The results of this evaluation

should be reported directly to the Board of Supervisors and should

include specific recommendations as applicable. Unless and until

the Board becomes directly involved, the likelihood of further

deterioration of the situation at CWS is high.

Narrative

All of the agencies that were required to respond within 60 days and the BOS within 90

days of the published report have responded to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

Most agencies accept the Grand Jury report as a means to improve their operations or to

take appropriate corrective action. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury’s term ended June 30, 2004

when their report was published. The required responses from agencies go to the Presiding

Judge of the Superior Court by August 30, followed by the required responses from the

BOS by September 30. The Presiding Judge then forwards the responses to the Grand Jury.

All responses were then assigned to the appropriate committee for review. We have the

authority to follow- up on the implementation of the agency’s declared action plan for

improvement. All responses for the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury Report are posted to the county

website at www. slocourts. netgrandjury/ index. html or www. co. slo. ca. us.

Mr. David Edge, Chief Administrative Officer ( CAO) of San Luis Obispo County, has

been supportive of the Grand Jury efforts in determining the status of the BOS response.

He was responsive in a timely manner to all our written requests for information regarding

the status and progress of the BOS’s action plan. According to the CAO, the evaluation

process has begun, although not in the form of an “ in depth plan” on the following

categories:

• Employee Survey – A DSS employee survey by division and departments.

• Organizational Health Assessment ( OHA) – An in- depth survey specific to DSS

employees which will allow the CAO and Director of DSS to “ drill down” into

the issues the department may be facing in program or management areas.

• Outside Experts Follow- Up – Depends upon the nature of the issues raised in

the OHA survey which will guide the choice of consultant.

Organizational Health Assessment ( OHA)

In response to the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, that

they “… undertake a thorough evaluation of the leadership of CWS…” they authorized the

County Administrative Officer to commission an OHA survey within the Department of

Social Services and with key external stakeholders. According to the CAO’s administrative

analyst, “ the Organizational Health Assessment instruments were developed by Franklin

Covey Corporation, who contracts with Ximena de la Cruz- North, Ph. D., to administer and

tabulate the results. The OHA is typically used to gather data about the department’s

culture and effectiveness of systems and processes before beginning to diagnose and

address any problems identified.” Communication with the CAO indicates that there is an

action plan by CWS to address any problems identified.

For the purpose of this report, the Grand Jury has extrapolated results from the OHA report.

The scores for CWS employees in the areas of trust, training, management style, and

communication, which were issues of concern in the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury report, were

lower than those of other DSS employees, which validates the Grand Jury findings. While

there were “ positive” results gleaned from the report, there were also areas in which the

CWS employees rated the Department as needing significant improvement. Many of the

Department’s employees were concerned with the level and quality of ongoing

communication among different levels of the Department. Although CWS employees did

report improvement over the course of the year, there remains “ lingering issues of trust”

between line staff and management. To this end, the Director of Social Services and the

CAO agreed to hire an outside expert for a follow- up.

According to the CAO, “ the County contracted with an outside consultant to provide an

Organizational Effectiveness Cycle, a process that included the random selection of

employee focus groups. The focus groups, and an additional of 75 employees, met in

March 2005 to identify the root causes of the communication issues in the Department.” In

April, all of the Department’s managers and an equal number of line staff participated in

the development of an action plan designed to address the issues of communication and

trust. The facilitator reported to the CAO that the Department’s management staff

“ participated actively and effectively” in the Organizational Effectiveness sessions. The

facilitator believes that significant progress has been made in addressing the departmental

issues.

Finding

An Organizational Effectiveness Cycle program was initiated in March 2005, for the DSS

to address the “ lingering” issues of trust between line staff and management.

Conclusion

The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury investigation of the issues in CWS management,

communication, training, and trust are validated by the OHA report. We acknowledge that

the overall results of the survey for the Department of Social Services are “ positive.” The

CWS scores, however, are much lower than the other divisions, which was the 2003- 2004

Grand Jury’s concern.

Recommendation

The CAO should report to the Board of Supervisors the status and progress of the

organizational health of CWS by December 2005.

Acknowledgements

We applaud the efforts the CAO and the Social Services Director have initiated, to date, in

their attempt to develop a more positive and healthy organizational climate within the

Department of Social Services, evidenced by the remedial programs instituted within the

past eight months.

We commend the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors for their support of the

2003- 2004 Grand Jury’s recommendation to evaluate the culture in CWS, upper

management’s effectiveness in communicating with the employees, and in creating a

positive working environment.

Required Response

Pursuant to the California Penal Code, the following agencies are required to respond to the

findings and recommendations in this report:

Chief Administrative Officer, Finding and Recommendation by August 30, 2005

Board of Supervisors, by September 30, 2005

San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building

“ How Soon Can I Expect to Receive My Building Permit?”

This is a report of the building permit issuance function of the Building Division, County

Department of Planning and Building. As background, the report briefly outlines the

Department’s mission and describes the steps that were taken to improve the permit process

for single family dwellings in fiscal year 2003/ 2004. It does not address the approval

process of land use permits. The report also reviews current Division actions that are

designed to maintain an acceptable time to issue a complete plan check for single family

dwellings.

Method

The information in this report was gathered by the Grand Jury from the County ONLINE

web page, Building Permit Activity Reports and the FY 2004/ 2005 County Budget Goals

Report. Interviews were conducted with the Chief Building Official and the Plans

Examiner Supervisor. The information in this report is limited to documented Building

Division statistics. It does not include interviews with building permit applicants and

contractors.

Narrative

The published mission of the Building Division is to:

1. Protect public health and safety by enforcing legally established construction

standards.

2. Encourage willing compliance by promoting public awareness of construction

regulations.

3. Use a helpful, creative approach in assisting the public solve their construction

problems.

4. Administer regulations in a thorough unbiased manner.

Prior to 2003 the time it took to complete a single family building permit was unacceptable

to both the applicant and the Building Division. These time delays were due in part to a

lack of Plans Examiners, incomplete plans at the time of submission and minor project

permits not issued “ over the counter”.

In FY 2000/ 2001 only 15% of the single family dwellings plan checks were completed in

20 working days. This improved to 20% in FY 2001/ 2002, 35% in FY 2002/ 2003 and to a

more acceptable 50% in FY 2003/ 2004. Since February of 2004 the Division reports they

have been delivering completed plan check permits for single family dwellings in 20

working days 75% of the time.

Five steps were taken in FY 2003/ 2004 to improve the timeliness of plan check approval

for single family dwellings:

1. One additional approved headcount and reassigning one Building Division

employee to increase the number of Plans Examiners from 5 to 7.

2. Productivity goals that measure the number of plan checks and timeliness for

completion for each plans examiner were established and monitored.

3. Plans Examiners are assigned to the Permit Center front desk each workday to

answer customers’ plan review questions and to ensure plans are complete

before submission for plan check review. Having the Plans Examiners at the front

desk has also increased the number of minor project permits that are issued “ over

the counter”.

4. The Building Division now utilizes Tidemark ™ , a software tracking system that

allows applicants to retrieve their building project status via the Internet.

5. Land use permits must be approved by the Building Division prior to building plan

submission.

The Building Division’s objective for FY 2004/ 2005 is to provide a complete plan check

for single family dwellings within 20 working days 80% of the time. They have

established seven action items to achieve this objective:

1. The Planning and Building Department plans to acquire additional floor space in

the existing county building when the new courthouse is completed. This area

will be used to enlarge the customer reception area and allow more Plans

Examiners to expedite the plan check process.

2. Allow simple permits such as water heaters and electrical upgrades to be applied

for, paid and issued on- line.

3. Reduce the complexity of the Planning and Building Department regulatory

system.

4. Provide website access to staff reports for public hearings and project status

information.

5. Provide Division regulations on the webpage.

6. Refer customers to the webpage for building permit information and project status

on the same day as requested, with the goal of reducing response times for

telephone callbacks by 40%.

7. Publish a one page flow chart of the permit process that new customers could

follow as a reference guide.

Conclusions

The changes that were made by the building permit issuance function of the Building

Division have improved the efficiency of the process to:

1. apply for a single family dwelling permit.

2. verify the status of a permit that is being reviewed for approval.

3. receive completed plan checks in a timely manner. As noted earlier in this report,

the frequency of completed permit approval in 20 working days improved from

15% in 2000 to 75% in 2004.

The goal for FY 2004/ 2005 is to complete plan check permits in 20 working days 80% of

the time. In addition, all building plans will receive a complete plan check in 30 days

otherwise they will be returned to the applicant for additional information. The turnaround

goal for second submissions is 10 days. The time delays attributed to other agencies such

as the Coastal Commission, Fish and Wildlife and the Corps of Engineers are not factored

into the time it takes for a complete plan check.

The five steps that were taken in FY 2003/ 2004 and the seven action items for FY

2004/ 2005 are oriented towards improving customer satisfaction and are in concert with the

mission statement of the Building Division.

Required Response

This is an informational report. No formal response is required.

CAYUCOS SANITARY DISTRICT ( CSD)

and

MORRO BAY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

The Cayucos Sanitary District operates the community collection and conveyance system,

including five pump stations and approximately 23 miles of sewer lines. The sewage is

then conveyed to the Morro Bay/ Cayucos Wastewater Treatment Plant where it is treated.

While the City of Morro Bay and the Cayucos Sanitary District jointly own the wastewater

treatment plant, the City of Morro Bay operates and maintains the plant under a Joint

Powers Agreement. Under that agreement, the Cayucos Sanitary District reimburses the

City of Morro Bay ( MB) for its share of the total incurred costs and expenses, based on its

proportion of measured flow. The plant operates under a modified National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System Permit ( NPDES) No. CA007881 issued by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA) and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality

Control Board ( RWQCB). The plant has operated under a Clean Water Action Act,

Section 301( h) Modified Discharge Permit since its last upgrade in 1984. The permit

delineates all requirements and standards for operating the plant, including extensive

ongoing monitoring and reporting. At this time, one million gallons of treated wastewater

are discharged to the ocean each day.

Origin

The Grand Jury selected the Cayucos Sanitary District and the Morro Bay Wastewater

Treatment Plant from a list of agencies within San Luis Obispo County which had not been

investigated by The Grand Jury in the last five years.

Method

The inquiry was conducted through interviews, site visits, and document reviews. The

Grand Jury visited the Cayucos District Offices and viewed three pump stations. In

addition, the Grand Jury toured the Morro Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant and

interviewed the treatment plant Director and staff.

Cayucos Sanitary District ( CSD)

Narrative

The CSD is managed by a governing board of five people elected by the citizens of

Cayucos. There are six employees in the CSD: a district manager, two account clerks, and

three field technicians. The CSD is not under any mandated regulatory requirement for

training or certification of its employees. Although state certification is not required, the

job description for field technicians requires certification. The permits and logs that the

Grand Jury inspected were all current.

The conveyance system consists of five pumping stations that pump approximately

250,000 gallons of wastewater per day. The CSD owns 35 percent of the Morro Bay

Wastewater Treatment Plant, and reimburses the City of Morro Bay for operating expenses

based upon the amount of wastewater it sends to the plant.

Conclusion

The CSD operates from a long- term perspective and emphasizes efficiency, safety,

training, maintenance and repair. During visits, the Grand Jury noted the professionalism

and dedication of the staff.

Morro Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant

Narrative

The City of Morro Bay and the Cayucos Sanitary district share plant ownership. A Joint

Powers Agreement signed in October 1982 assigns 65 percent ownership to the City of

Morro Bay and 35 percent to the Cayucos Sanitary District. The Morro Bay City Council

and the CSD Board of Directors are responsible for policy decisions. The City of Morro

Bay manages, operates and maintains the plant. Each community is billed for its share of

operating costs based upon its proportion of the measured flow to the plant.

The Federal Government and the State of California regulate the plant. It operates under a

Modified National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued jointly by the

Environmental Protection Agency and the Central Coast California Regional Water Quality

Control Board. The permit is renewed every five years, and requires the following

monitoring and reporting:

• daily and weekly measurements of effluent parameters and coliform bacteria;

• measurement of influent and effluent parameters;

• weekly shoreline and quarterly offshore measurements of water quality and

coliform bacteria;

• monthly measurements of ammonia concentration in the effluent;

• semi- annual analyses of toxicity levels and chemical contaminants in the effluent;

• annual physiochemical and biological analyses of benthic sediments and biota

surrounding the outfall;

• annual physiochemical analysis of sludge biosolids; and

• annual inspection of sewage outfall pipe and diffuser system.

The plant is in the process of obtaining a new wastewater discharge permit as the NPDES

permit has expired. While the new permit is being reviewed and negotiated, the plant is

operating under an administrative extension. The new permit may require the plant to meet

more stringent effluent parameters for biochemical oxygen demand ( BOD) and total

suspended solids ( TSS). The plant may need to be modified or replaced; it is designed to

handle a throughput of 2.06 million gallons per day and currently has a throughput of

approximately 1.094 million gallons per day. It is staffed eight hours a day, seven days a

week, by eight operators who are certified by the State Water Resources Control Board –

Office of Operator Certification. At night, duty operators are assigned to respond to plant

emergencies such as equipment failure. The equipment is electronically monitored and will

call the duty operator in case of a malfunction. The plant has a certified laboratory that

analyzes the treated wastewater, and performs other functions as required by its NPDES

permit.

Wastewater comes to the plant from the CSD and the Morro Bay collection system from

both residential and commercial sources via 60 miles of sewer mains and three pump

stations. After the waste is treated mechanically, biologically and chemically, the treated

water is discharged into the ocean through a 27 inch diameter pipe that carries the water to

a point 2900 feet from the shore line through a diffuser which lies in about 50 feet of water.

The solid waste and bio- solids are put into drying beds. Each year an average of 200 tons

( or 200 cubic yards) of sludge is trucked to a commercial composting operation. An

innovative pilot program adds green waste to the sludge and creates compost which is then

used for agricultural purposes.

As a public service, the plant also operates a collection facility for the disposal of

hazardous household waste. The facility allows free access for the citizens of the county to

dispose of wastes found throughout their homes. These wastes may include items such as

paints, pesticides, herbicides, acids, caustics, and automotive waste products. This free

service has been used by 1600 households, takes in approximately 45,000 pounds of

material a year, and has helped keep the materials out of the sewers and landfills.

Facts

1. The Morro Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant’s NPDES permit is issued every

five years. The current permit has expired.

2. The plant is operating on an administrative extension until the regional board

has a permit hearing. The hearing will be held within the next three years.

3. The City of Morro Bay has assigned a high priority to a water recycling plan.

4. The Morro Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant has a pilot program to use its

sludge and green waste to make compost used for agricultural purposes.

5. The composting program is now operating on an interim ordinance issued by

the county. Under the interim ordinance, compost is exempted and not

classified with other bio- solids.

6. The sludge green waste compost is a useful product and keeps the sludge out of

the landfills.

7. Methane gas is a byproduct of wastewater treatment and is used by the plant to

heat the digesters.

8. The plant has received four recent residual chlorine violations: June 30, 2004,

April 12, 2004, January 13, 2003, and December 30, 2003. The regional water

control board fined the district $ 3000 per occurrence.

9. The chlorine violations were caused by mechanical failures. California Water

Code 13385 ( h) ( 1) does not allow for mechanical failures.

10. The secondary treatment standards require that both Biochemical Oxygen

Demand ( BOD) and Total Suspended Solids ( TSS) meet the following

criteria:

• Removal efficiency: greater than 85%

• Effluent discharge concentration: less than 30 milligrams per liter

( mg/ l)

The Morro Bay treatment plant has not been designed to meet the secondary

treatment standards. Since the plant is operating under a Clean Water Act

section 301( h) waiver, the plant is not in violation of its permit contitions.

The table below summarizes year 2003 and 2004 year- to- date averages for

these two effluent parameters.

Extensive data collected over the last 18 years has indicated that the ocean

discharge has had no discernible effect on the ocean environment. This

conclusion was supported by an independent review of monitoring data

collected prior to 1998 conducted by the EPA. The data collected for 2003

are consistent with the historical data. Although the staff of the EPA and the

staff of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board ( CRWQCB)

concur with this conclusion, the CRWQCB itself does not, and wants the

treatment plant upgraded to meet the secondary effluent standards.

11. The NPDES permit has expired.

Year 2003 Year- to- date 2004

% Removal mg/ l % Removal mg/ l

BOD 80.9 56 83.3 53.5

TSS 86.9 39 90.0 29.5

Conclusion

The staff running the Morro Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant is professional,

knowledgeable and innovative. They have explored and implemented ways to improve the

operation of the plant. Some of the programs are: ( a) the use of the methane gas produced

as a byproduct of the process to the digesters, ( b) the conversion of sewer sludge to

compost, ( c) the recycling and collection of hazardous household wastes, and ( d) annual

inspections of various businesses in order to prevent the discharge of incompatible

pollutants, e. g. paints, pesticides, etc., into the collection system.

The plant is in the process of re- evaluation and as a result of the requirements for the new

operating permit may require a redesign or construction of a new plant. At this time,

management of the plant will evaluate the options and plan public meetings for citizens

input into the process. The planning and discussion of ideas such as water reclamation will

be handled during these public meetings.

Findings

1. The plant has a flow of treated water into the ocean of one million gallons per day

which could be reclaimed.

2. The current sludge recycle program is temporary for two years, and when it expires it

will not allow the sludge recycle program to continue.

3. In the new permanent ordinance it will be necessary to exempt compost as it is

currently classified with other bio- solids.

4. The residual chlorine violations were caused by mechanical failures.

5. The City of Morro Bay does not have a comprehensive water recycling plan.

Recommendations

1. The Board of Supervisors should continue allowing the plant to recycle their sewer

sludge processed to compost in accordance with Title 8, Health and Sanitation Chapter

8.13.030 Interim Moratorium if it becomes a permanent ordinance. The ordinance

should comply with California Health and Safety Codes 25141, 25142 and all sub-sections,

as well as Food and Agriculture Code 14505. ( Finding # 2)

2. The new permanent ordinance should exempt compost from the classification with

other bio- solids. ( Finding # 3)

3. In order to reduce or eliminate future permit violations, the design of the proposed

replacement plant or redesign of the existing plant should include measures to improve

plant reliability, especially in the chlorination unit. ( Finding # 3)

4. The City of Morro Bay needs to develop and implement a comprehensive water

recycling plan. ( Findings # 1 and 4)

Required Responses

• The City of Morro Bay: Findings # 1, 3 and 4 and Recommendations # 2, 3 and 4.

Due July 15, 2005

• The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors: Recommendation # 1. Due

August 19, 2005

California Men’s Colony

The California Men’s Colony ( CMC) is a prison on 356 acres, located on Highway 1,

just north of the city limits of San Luis Obispo. It has two main wings, East and West.

CMC is designated as a level III institution, which is a low to medium security prison

under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Corrections. As of

January 2004, there were 1561 employees, of which 937 are custody staff, including

correctional officers, counselors and medical staff. The prison is under the direction of

the CMC Warden.

CMC is charged with the primary mission of protecting society by safely housing its

prisoners and involving them in work and education programs. The Grand Jury toured

the facilities of CMC, and during those tours, we were encouraged to speak to the

inmates, correctional officers, and staff. The Grand Jury observed that while old and

overcrowded, CMC was well maintained. Our tour led to further research into the cost

of their inmate food program, and into a Hearing Conservation Program ( HCP) utilized

by the Prison Industry Authority ( PIA).

Method

The information in this report was obtained through visits to the prison, interviews, and

review of the California Code of Regulations and related documents. Members of the

Grand Jury toured the East Wing on September 7, 2004, and the West Wing on

September 10, 2004. In addition, they conducted interviews with the Prison Industry

Authority ( PIA) on October 26, 2004 and reviewed the revised ( December 19, 2003)

California Men’s Colony Hearing Conservation Plan ( HCP).

Narrative for CMC

Inmates in the CMC have four security risk levels, one being the lowest security risk

and four the highest. The security risk levels are determined by a number of factors and

can change at any time during an inmate’s term. Although CMC is classified as a level

III prison, it may at any time house inmates of all four levels in the facilities. This is

due to reclassifications during an inmate’s term, or an inmate being placed in one of

CMC’s specialized programs.

The East Wing houses inmates with medium to high security classifications in traditional

prison cells. It also has a fully licensed hospital that can provide for most medical needs of

inmates. If the hospital is unable to handle an illness or injury, the inmate is transferred to

a medical facility outside of CMC. Inmates classified at a lower security level are housed

in the West Wing, which has 32 dorms, a fire department and a gym. It also offers

vocational and educational opportunities to its inmates. Currently, there are over 6000

inmates occupying these two wings, whose average age is 35, and who have an average

grade level of 7.8 in the East Wing and 7.1 in the West Wing.

Tours of the East and West Wings included: inmate quarters, kitchens, educational

facilities, work program facilities for Prison Industry authority ( PIA), recreational yards,

hospital, and mental health facilities.

During our tours we were encouraged to speak to the inmates, correctional officers, and

staff. We observed that the interactions between the correctional officers and inmates were

amicable and respectful. Inmates and staff were open to questions and were well informed

about policies and procedures. As part of our tour of the East Wing, we received an inmate

lunch served in one of the dining halls. The recreational yards in both wings were well

maintained.

Inmates at CMC are assigned to either the East or West Wing depending on the security

risk level assigned to them. The security levels for inmates can change during an

inmate’s term. Inmates in the West Wing typically have no history of prison

disciplinary action, no prior escapes, and have already served a majority of their prison

term.

We observed that the housing facilities at both locations are old and overcrowded. The

East Wing cells ( 5 ‘ x 8’) were designed for single occupancy; however, two inmates

occupy each cell. The added second bunk is hinged on the wall and must be pulled down

for sleeping, and pushed up in order to move about the cell. Design capacity for inmate

beds in the East Wing is for 2400; as of January 2004, there were 3690 inmates assigned to

the cells.

Inmates in the West Wing are housed in barracks, with a design capacity of 1484 inmate

beds. As of January 2004, it housed 2837 inmates. We observed that there was very little

room to move about in the barracks even with most of the inmates out in the yard or

working.

Inmate Educational and Vocational Programs

Inmates are required to participate in either an education or employment program while at

CMC. Education activities at CMC include instruction in English as a second language,

basic and high school level classes, GED, business education ( basic typing and business

math, bookkeeping, business law and computers), and correspondence courses. The

classes we observed were impressive; the students were actively participating with the

instructors. We had an opportunity to speak with instructors and inmates. Conversations

with inmates revealed that they appreciated the educational opportunities and the

instructors’ time.

There are a limited number of vocational programs available to inmates to help them

achieve entry- level skills in a trade. Participation in these programs is voluntary; however,

once signed up, attendance is mandatory for the inmate. Instructors are credentialed

teachers and they assist in job placement for inmates when they are paroled.

The substance abuse program, offered in the West facility, is provided for inmates with

histories of drug and/ or alcohol abuse. Walden House, Inc. directs the program that

includes a combination of counseling, group activities and therapy. We observed the

program in action and were encouraged to speak with inmate participants and Walden

House staff.

Prison Industry Authority ( PIA) – Employment Programs

The Prison Industry Authority administers programs that allow inmates to acquire work

experience while incarcerated. We observed the manufacture of gloves, t- shirts, socks,

and California State license plate stickers.

Narrative for PIA

The PIA administers a hearing conservation program designed to eliminate or control, in

so far as is reasonable and practical, overexposure of employees ( inmates and staff) to

harmful noise. California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Article 105, Appendix A ( CCR)

established acceptable limits for the amount and duration of noise to which employees

can be exposed. When it is found that employees are exposed to the upper limits of noise

exposure during an 8- hour shift, a Hearing Conservation Program ( HCP) is required.

Such is the case at CMC. We reviewed the “ Hearing Conservation Plan for Prison

Industry Authority California Men’s Colony, December 19, 2003 revision”, and found it

to be consistent with the requirements of the CCR.

The HCP specifies the steps to be followed to determine the level of noise exposure in

PIA work environments, and the noise control measures ( engineering, administrative or

personal protective equipment) to reduce or eliminate the threat to employee hearing.

Engineering controls include making changes in the machinery, the way machinery

operates, or the design of the structure. Administrative controls limit employee exposure

to noise in the workplace. When engineering and/ or administrative controls are not

feasible, hearing protectors are provided.

Five PIA worksites were identified for review to determine whether noise levels were

within acceptable guidelines: Fabric – T- Shirt, Knitting Mill, Knitting Mill Annex,

Lower Level Laundry, and Shoe Factory. Implementation of engineering and/ or

administrative controls exempts the T- Shirt Factory, Knitting Mill Annex, and Lower

Level Laundry from enrollment in the HCP. Employees in the Knitting Mill and Shoe

Factory must be enrolled in the HCP and the Audiometric Testing Program.

Guarding Against Hearing Injury

The most effective way to guard against employee hearing injury is to mandate that all

employees who work in an identified excessive noise level worksite:

• wear appropriate hearing protectors,

• receive a baseline audiometric test prior to the time of initial exposure,

• receive a follow- up audiometric test annually, and

• receive a follow- up audiometric test when an employee ceases employment at that

worksite.

These audiograms are necessary to monitor and track the status of employee hearing.

Wearing hearing protectors helps to forestall hearing loss. CMC and the State of

California are responsible for any deterioration in hearing, beyond that which is age

related, that occurs during the period workers are exposed to the high noise level areas.

At the time of our inspection, employees enrolled in the HCP could choose not to have

their hearing tested, and were not required to wear hearing protectors.

An outside contractor, using a mobile test van, offers audiometric testing every six

months. As inmate employees enter and leave PIA employment on an irregular basis, the

result is that some audiograms may be delayed or missed.

Both PIA staff and inmate employees who participate in the HCP are covered by the

State Workers Compensation Act and are eligible for disability awards for illness or

injury occurring during their employment.

Findings for PIA

1. PIA staff and inmate employees are enrolled in the HCP and the Audiometric Testing

Program. All inmate employees can either have their hearing tested or sign a statement

( waiver) acknowledging that they were offered audiometric testing. PIA staff is currently

not tested.

2. PIA management does not ensure that initial baseline, annual follow- up and end-exposure

audiometric testing of employees enrolled in the HCP program is done.

3. The HCP- prescribed use of personal protective equipment is not enforced.

4. Because audiograms are performed semi- annually by an outside contractor using a

mobile test van, the audiograms of some exposed employees may be delayed or missed.

5. Records maintained in connection with the HCP may not give an accurate picture of

the HCP status because complete audiometric test data on employees may not be

collected.

Recommendations for PIA

CMC should take those actions that are necessary to safeguard the hearing of its

employees and help prevent Workman’s Compensation Disability claims. Therefore, we

recommend that the Department of Corrections, CMC and PIA management address

these issues:

1. Make the following tests mandatory:

a. Baseline audiometric tests for every individual at the time of initial entry or

reentry into the program.

b. Annual retesting.

c. Final testing when an employee leaves the program. ( Findings 1 and 2)

2. Compile the results of the above tests. ( Findings 4 and 5)

3. Enforce the use of personal protective equipment. ( Finding 3)

4. Make audiometric testing and mandatory use of personal protective equipment

conditions for assignment to the program. ( Findings 2 and 3)

5. Measure the effectiveness of the prescribed controls. ( Finding 5)

6. Establish an audiometric testing facility within the PIA or CMC to ensure

comprehensive coverage. ( Findings 2 and 4)

Narrative for the Inmate Food Program

During the presentation segment of our tour of CMC, the budgeted dollar amount of

$ 2.45 per day, per inmate, food cost was discussed. We made an inquiry into aspects of

CMC’s “ food program” for fiscal year 2003/ 2004. The Grand Jury interviewed prison

management, reviewed prison documents, and other data supplied by CMC.

As a result of our investigation, based on the budgeted amount of $ 2.45 per day and an

average daily inmate population of 6500, we found an unaccounted for difference of

$ 351,700 in FY 2003/ 2004. It was later brought to our attention in a California

Department of Corrections document that the actual daily expenditure per inmate was

$ 2.55. This still resulted in a discrepancy of $ 114,000 for FY 2003/ 2004.

Finding for the Inmate Food Program

1. There is an unaccounted for difference of $ 114,000 between the amount actually

spent ( CMC financial statement) and the amount reported in the California

Department of Corrections document.

Recommendations for the Inmate Food Program

1. The State Bureau of Corrections should conduct an independent operations audit

of the inmate food program at CMC.

2 . If the State Bureau of Corrections cannot conduct such an audit, then an

independent auditor should conduct an operations audit of the inmate food

program at CMC.

3. Depending on the findings of the operations audit, it may be necessary to hire an

independent investigator to determine how the shortfall occurred.

Conclusion

The mission of the California Men’s Colony is to protect society by safely housing its

inmates and involving them in work or education programs. We found that it satisfies

this mission. Inmates are provided food, housing, clothing, and medical and dental care.

In addition, there are programs for education, employment and rehabilitation. CMC staff

provides for the inmates within the constraints they have from the courts, the current

facilities and the budget.

Required Responses

Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933 and 933.5, the following agencies are required to

respond to the findings and recommendations contained in this report:

1. The California Men’s Colony, due May 31, 2005

2. The Department of Corrections due June 30, 2005, and

3. The Prison Industry Authority due June 30, 2005

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FUNDS- MANAGEMENT AND

FINANCIAL- AUDITING PRACTICES

The Grand Jury reviewed the financial auditing and funds management practices of San

Luis Obispo County Government ( County) to access their adequacies. The inquiry was

county wide, but special attention was directed to the relevant practices of the Department

of Social Services ( DSS) because of the 2003 embezzlement charges against two of its

employees. Since the time of the alleged fraud, DSS made several organization and

management changes geared toward deterring fraud. According to the independent

auditor’s report for the year ended June 30, 2003, which is the only year covered by this

inquiry, the county’s financial audit meets generally accepted standards. Furthermore, the

Grand Jury finds that the county’s funds management practices meet generally accepted

standards for private- sector companies.

Origin

The Grand Jury initiated this study of the county’s funds management and financial

auditing practices at their own initiative motivated by concerns raised by previous Grand

Juries about the county’s financial auditing practices, embezzlement charges filed in April

2003 against two DSS employees, and a citizen’s complaint that alleged inadequate

financial auditing and inattention to reducing the risk of fraud.

Method

The Grand Jury interviewed selected county officials and reviewed county documents.

Additionally we looked for similarities and differences between the contractual scope-of-

services for the independent financial audits for San Luis Obispo ( SLO) County and

Santa Barbara County. We chose Santa Barbara County for this comparison because it

is a close neighbor to SLO County and because its population is similar. If material

differences were found, we intended to make comparisons with other counties, but for

reasons discussed below that was not necessary. We also reviewed the independent

auditor’s reports for several California county governments searching for similarities

and differences between them and the one for SLO County.

The Grand Jury interviewed the county Auditor- Controller, the Administrative Manager

of DSS, and a Senior Division Manager of DSS.

Documents and forms reviewed included:

• Contracts for the performance of annual audit for SLO County and for Santa

Barbara County.

• Independent auditors’ reports for SLO County and for several other California

county governments.

• DSS procedures for authorization of services, purchases, and other outlays.

• Forms for participant expense authorization, for vendor authorization to deliver

articles and/ or services, and for special order requisition of office supplies.

• Reports of cash shortage and of unannounced cash count audits.

• Reports of review of imprest cash accounts ( an advance or loan of government or

public funds toward performance of some service for the government).

• Code of Ethics, Conflict of Interest, and Gift Policy for DSS.

• Procedures for handling confidential cases in the Participant Services Division of

DSS.

• Organizational charts of relevant SLO County organizations.

Narrative

Each year, the County has a financial audit conducted by an independent auditing firm that

covers all departments of the county government. The Grand Jury did not examine the

county’s financial statements because California Penal Code § 925 states: “ the grand jury

does not have the authority to duplicate any examination of financial statements that have

been performed by or for the Board of Supervisors”. Therefore, the Grand Jury limited its

inquiry of financial audits to a review of the terms and conditions of the most recent

contract for the annual financial audit, which covers the fiscal years 2002- 03 through 2005-

06, and the auditor’s report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003.

The scope of services for the annual financial audit for the years stated above is extracted

from the contract with the independent auditor. The principal services provided were:

• “ Contractor will conduct audits of the financial statements of the County in

accordance with generally accepted auditing standards for the purpose of

expressing an opinion on the conformity of the financial statements with generally

accepted accounting principles.”

• “ Contractor shall review internal controls of county accounting systems and

procedures … as required by generally accepted auditing standards and issue a

written management report based on the review.”

• “ Contractor shall review a majority of federal funds and grants received by the

county for compliance with federal regulations.”

Bartig, Basler & Ray performed the county’s financial audit for the year ending June 30,

2003. Excerpts taken from the auditor’s report express their opinion on the financial

statements reviewed. They are:

• “ We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted

in the United States of America and standards applicable to financial audits

contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of

the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to

obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of

material misstatements. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence

supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also

includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by

management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We

believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.”

• “ In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all

material respects, the respective financial position of the government activities, the

business- type activities, each major fund, and aggregate remaining fund

information of the County of San Luis Obispo, California, as of June 30, 2003, and

the respective changes in financial position and cash flows, where applicable, for

the year then ended, in conformity with auditing principles generally accepted in

the United States of America.”

The Grand Jury also reviewed the contract the County of Santa Barbara executed with an

independent auditing firm to perform an audit of its financial statements for the fiscal year

ended June 30, 2003. As far as we can determine, the scope of service for Santa Barbara

County Government is in all material aspects similar to that performed under contract for

SLO County. Additionally, we reviewed independent auditor’s reports for several

California county governments and compared the depth of services performed for those

counties with that for SLO County. We concluded that the depth of services for all the

county audits we reviewed were similar in all material aspects.

These comparisons do not confirm that the county’s financial audits are similar in scope to

those performed for all other California counties, but it does provide a degree of confidence

that the scope of the county’s financial audit is not unique among California counties.

The financial audits performed for SLO County, as well as those performed for the other

California counties we considered, are not full audits. That is, every financial transaction is

not reviewed for proper accounting, recording and authorization. As noted above, however,

the county’s annual financial audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting

the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. While financial audits for private-sector

companies vary widely in scope, the norm for private companies’ financial audits is

not materially different than those performed for the County.

The external auditor for the county’s annual financial audit does not examine individual

purchase and reimbursement requests to determine compliance to the county’s

authorization procedures. County employees are responsible for ensuring valid

authorization.

County employees check every financial transaction prior to making payment for evidence

to support the amount of the purchase or reimbursement request and to ensure proper

authorization, compliance to county regulations, and proof of delivery.

On a regular basis, the Auditor- Controller Office conducts unannounced cash count audits,

review cash handling procedures, and review imprest cash accounts. The Grand Jury

reviewed many of these recent audits and found no cause for concern.

The Grand Jury also reviewed the county’s authorization process for purchases and

reimbursements. Depending on the amount of purchase or reimbursement, one or more

levels of supervision must approve every request. Based on Grand Jurors’ personal

experiences while working for private companies, the authorization limits for County

supervisors and managers is quite conservative compared to those for private companies.

Since Spring 2003 when two of its employees were charged with embezzlement, the DSS

has made several changes in its organization structure, management practices, and work

assignment procedures that are geared to reduce the risk of fraud. These changes include:

• Welfare applicants are received by clerical/ reception employees who assign cases

on a rotation basis using an automated system to ensure equitable caseload

distribution, as well as preventing staff from assigning applicants to themselves.

• Moved away from specialized units that cover only a single type of casework to

units that cover multiple types of casework. Every staff person in a unit supports

multiple programs. Supervisors have the responsibility for all programs in that unit.

• Staff, supervisors, and managers rotate frequently into new job assignments. This

provides opportunities for checks and balances.

• On a weekly basis, each supervisor receives a log containing vital information for

new welfare applicants and on a monthly basis for continuing cases. Supervisors

review these logs with appropriate caseworkers.

• Other supervisor duties that provide opportunities to detect fraudulent activities

include:

o They randomly select cases for review each month for each caseworker.

o They attend case staffing meetings where specific cases are discussed.

o They work uncovered caseloads when a caseworker is sick or otherwise

unavailable. This provides opportunity to review cases, handle incoming

mail, and have direct contact with clients.

o They fill in for other supervisors and managers on leave or otherwise not

available to perform their duties.

Checks and balances such as those implemented by DSS deter fraud. However, no system

of checks and balances can prevent fraud in an organization as diverse as the County in

general or DSS in particular. Only time will tell whether or not the new system meets its

objective for fraud deterrence. The steps taken by DSS, however, seem to be in the right

direction.

Conclusion

• An external accounting firm performs the annual financial audit for SLO County.

The audit covers every department. For the most recent financial audit, the

auditors found “… the financial statements… present fairly, in all material

respects… the financial position of the County of San Luis Obispo, California, as

of June 30, 2003, and the respective changes in financial positions and cash flows,

where applicable, for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting

principles generally accepted in the United States of America.” The Grand Jury

neither agrees nor disagrees with this professional opinion of the independent

auditor; a Grand Jury position other than that of the independent auditor would

have required a duplicate examination of the financial statements, which is

prohibited by California Penal Code § 925.

• So far as the Grand Jury can determine, the contractual scope- of- services for the

annual audit performed for SLO County is in all material aspects similar to that

performed for Santa Barbara County, and the depths of audits for California

counties do not differ significantly from the audit performed for SLO County.

• SLO County’s cash handling procedures and audits of compliance to these

procedures are consistent with procedures used by private- sector companies.

• SLO County’s procedures for authorizing expenditures and approving payments

and reimbursements are in all material aspects similar to those employed by

private- sector companies.

• To reduce the risk of fraud, since the Spring of 2003 when two of its employees

were charged with embezzlement, DSS made changes in its organization structure,

management practices and work assignment procedures. These steps seem to be in

the right direction.

Required Responses

This is an informational report. A formal response is not required.

County Government Services Lack Directions

“ You Can’t Get There from Here”

The Grand Jury assessed what the County of San Luis Obispo is doing to keep residents

aware of the services it provides, how it helps people determine who they need to see to

obtain a specific service, and where this organization is located. The assessment

included reviews of the county web site, service directories, signs posted outside and

inside facilities, listings in the public phonebook, the information desks, and brochures

developed by the County. Except for the web site, the assessment of resources available

to the public for determining where to go to obtain a service was limited to those

located in the County Government Center 1 .

The Grand Jury finds that the practices and methods used by the County to inform the

public about the services it provides and the methods it uses to provide directions to

such services need improvement. If steps are not taken to improve them, public

frustration is likely to grow significantly when the new 2 Government Center is

occupied.

Origin

This study was initiated by the Grand Jury because individual jurors experienced

difficulties when trying to get information about the availability of, and/ or directions to,

a county service.

Method

The Grand Jury interviewed selected county government officials, surveyed the

Government Center for service directories, and obtained and reviewed copies of

pamphlets on county government services. We tried to determine where to go within

County Government to get a specific service, using only the information readily

available to the public. The Grand Jury conducted a test using twelve sample inquiries,

which is attached in an Appendix. We also reviewed the county web site, and, for

1 For the purposes of this report, the Government Center is defined to include only the buildings bounded

by Santa Rosa, Monterey, Osos, and Palm Streets in the City of San Luis Obispo.

2 This is the building under construction on Monterey Street across from the current Government Center.

comparison purposes, the web sites of several other counties in California and in other

states.

Narrative

This inquiry included reviews of the:

• self- help service directories posted on the county web site,

• service directories located in the Government Center,

• county listings in the public phonebook,

• information desks located in the Government Center,

• brochures located throughout the Government Center, and

• county outreach 3 efforts.

Throughout this inquiry the Grand Jury was sensitive to the lack of interest many people

have in knowing about the services the County offers or where to go to obtain specific

services. In some cases a person may not know which government entity ( city, county,

state, or federal) provides a service that they are seeking. Many citizens have no interest

in knowing about county government until a need for service arises. Consequently, the

Grand Jury assumed that a typical service requester has very little knowledge of county

government and little- to- no familiarity with the Government Center. We also

considered that some people in need of a service might be marginally literate in the

English language.

The department directories displayed in the Government Center are not very useful for

locating many services because organization names are often not sufficiently descriptive

of the services provided. There are no comprehensive service directories in the

Government Center and there are no signs that direct people to either the existing

service directory or the information desks. The lone wall- mounted service directory is

located in a low- traffic hallway and lacks detail for many services. The two county

information desks are frequently not staffed, and signs posted at these information desks

do not make it clear what types of assistance are available there, i. e., directions to

departments and offices, service- directory assistance, court information, or community

3 Informing the public of the services the County provides and how to access these services.

services. The attendants at the two court information desks are helpful in directing

people to locations of county services, but they are not necessarily well informed about

county functions.

The computer that is located near one of the county information desks may be used by

the public to obtain information about county services and the location of specific

services, but the nearby sign is too small to be noticed by visitors. This sign does not

indicate that the general public may use the computer station to obtain information

about county services. Furthermore, this court- owned computer is password protected

and therefore requires the assistance of a court employee, which may discourage use.

The county web site is a valuable source of information about county services and

where to go to obtain specific services, but users may find it difficult to use because it

does not include a search engine, synonyms for services, or functional organization

charts. Also, the web site does not provide information that will direct a person to

another government entity or private organization that provides the service they are

seeking.

The public phonebook for San Luis Obispo County lists county departments by name

but not by function. The department names are often not descriptive enough for locating

services. There is no yellow- page- like directory for county services.

The county information desks, staffed by volunteers on an ‘ as- available’ basis, have

shortcomings:

• The desks are infrequently staffed.

• Training for volunteers is limited to a short overview of county government, plus

on- the- job training. Consequently, the attendant’s knowledge may not be

thorough.

• The volunteers do not have direct access to a computer that is linked to the county

web site or to any other electronic information on county services. The computer

that is located near one of these desks is inconvenient for use by the volunteer

because of its location and password protection.

• The county brochure display that is located at each desk is incomplete.

• The self- help, loose- leaf desk guide that is located at each desk contains

information about county services, but it lacks a cover or sign that indicates its

contents. As a result, a visitor may not notice this source of information.

• Much of the material in the desk guide is out of date.

• The service- directory in the desk guide co- mingles county services with non-government

services. We found this co- mingling to be confusing.

We were told by the County Administrator that the County does not have an integrated

and coordinated public outreach program, it has no plans to initiate one, and that any

public awareness efforts are done on an ad hoc basis department- by- department.

Conclusion

The County is not meeting its responsibility to inform citizens about available county

services. We encourage the County to promote public awareness of the services it

provides and make it easy for people to get to the services they are seeking without

frustration or unnecessary loss of time.

Findings

1) There is only one service directory displayed in the Government Center.

a) The directory is located in a low- traffic corridor.

b) The directory does not provide the level of detail needed to find many county

services.

c) The directory does not include Spanish translation.

2) Many entrances to the Government Center lack signs that direct visitors to the lone

wall- mounted service directory, a computer tied to the County web site, or to the two

volunteer- staffed information desks.

3) Signs at the information desks do not specify the kinds of information available, i. e.,

county- service assistance, directions to county departments and offices, or court

information.

4) Visitors to the Government Center might miss seeing the computer- based self- help

directory that is located near one of the information desks.

a) The computer is hidden from view by the county information desk and the nearby

sign is too small.

b) There is no sign that says the public can use it to get information about county

services and directions to these services.

c) This computer is owned by the Court, is password protected, and requires the help

of a court employee to gain access.

d) There is no county owned computer that visitors can use.

e) Information desk attendants do not have direct access to the web site or any other

electronic information bases.

5) Training for information- desk volunteers is limited to a short overview of the County,

plus on- the- job experience. Consequently, their knowledge of county services and

directions to them may not be thorough and/ or updated as information changes.

6) The volunteer- staffed information desks are frequently not staffed.

7) There is no sign that points out the loose- leaf services directory located at the

information desks.

a) The directory’s cover does not indicate content.

b) Some material in this desk guide is out- of- date or incomplete.

c) The directory is confusing because the service section co- mingles county services

with non- government community services.

8) The web- based county service directory does not have a search engine, which makes it

difficult to locate a county service using descriptive information that differs from that

used by the County.

9) The public telephone book for San Luis Obispo County lists departments, but not

services. The names of departments often are not sufficiently descriptive of the services

the county provides for many people to determine whom to call to inquire about a

service.

10) Functional organization charts for county government organizations are not available in

public areas of the Government Center, at the information desks, or on the county web

site.

11) The County does not have an integrated and coordinated public outreach program. Any

awareness efforts are done on an ad hoc basis, department- by- department.

Recommendations

1. Provide clear directions to county services, in English and Spanish, in and around the

County Government Center ( Re: Findings # 1, 2 & 3)

2. Staff the information desks during all regular hours of business with adequately trained

volunteers/ employees and provide an up- to- date directory. ( Re: Findings # 6 & 7)

3. Have a back- up system for time when volunteers are not available. ( Re: Finding # 6)

4. When necessary, fill in the gaps in volunteer staffing with county employees. ( Re:

Finding # 6)

5. Develop and implement a training course that includes a resource manual that lists

information about the County. The resource manual should also be available to the

public. ( Re: Finding # 5)

6. Develop and implement a user- friendly county web site that includes a search engine

that recognizes synonyms and a “ one- stop- shop” portal for all government services

( state, city, county, and perhaps federal). ( Re: Finding # 8)

7. Provide access to the county web site and any other electronic information on county

services at each of the information desks. ( Re: Finding # 4)

8. On the county web site homepage, provide a “ help- line” phone number and an email

address that responds to the question “ How do I find _____ service?” ( Re: Finding # 8)

9. In the public phonebook, place a service directory that links services to departments or

provides numbers to call for specific services. Also provide the web site address for the

County Homepage. ( Re: Finding # 9)

10. Develop functional organizational charts for every county office, division, department,

etc. These charts should be descriptive of the services provided by each organization

and they should provide the names of key personnel for each function. Display these

charts at the information desks, other key locations in the Government Center, other

appropriate county facilities, and on the county web site. ( Re: Finding # 10)

11. Provide computer- based self- help stations that can be used by the public to locate

county services. These stations should be strategically placed, highly visible to the

public, and linked to the county web site and to any other pertinent information bases.

( Re: Findings # 1 and 4)

12. Consider an integrated County Services Awareness Program. This program could

include a “ Know Your County Government” lecture or lecture series given by selected

county officials to civic organizations and schools. Widely publicize the availability of

this lecture series. ( Re: Finding # 11)

13. Develop a “ Know Your County” brochure and place it at various locations throughout

the County Government Center. This brochure should be bilingual English/ Spanish

and updated as necessary. ( Re: Finding # 11)

14. Develop coordinated county departmental brochures that include every department and

appropriately display them in all county buildings. ( Re: Finding # 11)

Required Responses

County Administrator: All Findings and Recommendations due May 31, 2005

Board of Supervisors: All Findings and Recommendations Due June 30, 2005

Appendix

“ Mystery Shoppers Test the System”

The Grand Jury created a test to determine if we could obtain information about, and access

to a specific county service. Members of the Grand Jury created a list of typical questions a

member of the public might have in approaching county government. Each member took

several questions and attempted to get a correct response by 1) calling the county central

telephone number listed in the public phone directory, 2) logging on to the county web

site’s home page, and 3) visiting one of the two county information desks in the County

Government Center. A sample scenario and a table of the remaining questions posed are

given below.

Sample Scenario

We sought an answer to the question, " How do I report a suspected case of food

poisoning?" using the three methods of inquiry:

1. Telephone Access: The public telephone directory did not list ' food poisoning’, so

we called the first listing under “ San Luis Obispo, County of - Automated

Touchtone Telephone Directory”. We waited through the automated touchtone

cycle for the message; " If you have not found your selection, please stay on the line

for the next available attendant." The ' attendant' referred us to, and connected us

with, the Public Health Department. The Health Department ' attendant' referred us

to, and connected us with the Environmental Health Division. This three step

process resulted in a correct response.

2. Web site: As noted in our narrative, there is no search engine on the San Luis

Obispo County Home Page. Looking under the " Services" heading was not

fruitful. We tried ' F' for food poisoning, ' H' for health, and ' P' for poisoning, with

no success. Next we looked under the heading for “ Departments”, trying ‘ H' for

health. It took six clicks to get to a correct answer: Health Agency - Public Health

Department - Community Health Services ( Wrong! Try again.) - Environmental

Health - FAQs - Retail Food Sanitation, third question.

3. Information Desk: We reviewed directories posted near each entrance to the

County Government Center and found no answer to our question. A volunteer

present at one desk incorrectly referred us to the Police Department.

Summary of “ Mystery Shopper” Test Results

“ Yes” means that the inquiry received the correct answer.

“ No” means there was an incorrect answer or no response.

Question Posed: 781- 5000 Web Site Info Desk

Whom do I call to complain about poor 911

service?

YES YES YES

How can I find out who owns a parcel of

unimproved land in the unincorporated area?

YES NO NO

Where do I report unsanitary conditions in a

restaurant?

YES NO NO

Whom do I call to report suspected child

abuse?

YES YES NO

Whom do I call to report suspected financial

abuse of a senior citizen?

YES YES NO

Where do I report suspected polluted water

in a hotel swimming pool?

YES NO NO

Where can I find out if I need a license to

sell home- cooked food at an outdoor event?

YES NO NO

Where do I find out whether I need a permit

to plant a vineyard?

YES NO YES

How can I find out what kind of zoning is on

a property in the unincorporated area?

YES YES NO

Whom do I call to complain about a business

transaction?

YES YES NO

Whom do I call about pesticides drifting on

my property from a neighboring farm?

NO YES NO

Where do I go to find out if rent control

applies to my mobile home park?

NO NO NO

PERCENT CORRECT: 83% 50% 17%

EL PASO de ROBLES

YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

The El Paso de Robles Youth Correctional Facility, operated by the California Youth

Authority ( CYA), is a unit of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, and is the largest

youth correction agency in the nation, with over 7200 young men and women in its

institutions and camps. The mission of the Youth Authority is “ to protect the public from

criminal activity by providing education, training and treatment services for youthful

offenders committed by the courts, directing these offenders to participate in community

and victim restoration, and assisting local justice agencies with their efforts to control crime

and delinquency, and encouraging the development of state and local programs to prevent

crime and delinquency.” CYA encourages the development of state and local programs to

prevent crime and delinquency. The facility is located in Paso Robles off Hwy 46 on

Airport Road.

The El Paso de Robles CYA houses only male juvenile offenders, who are referred to as

“ wards.” The wards are received from both juvenile and criminal courts throughout the

State. The wards committed directly to the CYA do not receive determinate sentences;

their parole release is determined by the Youthful Offender Parole Board. In practice, the

period of incarceration is determined by the severity of the offense. Wards committed by

the criminal courts who cannot complete their sentence by age 21 are transferred to the

California Department of Corrections ( CDC) prisons at age 18. Jurisdiction for the most

serious felony offenders, both juvenile and young adult, ends on the offender’s 25 th

birthday.

Method

Members of the Grand Jury met with the acting superintendent, senior staff, and

department heads of all operations within CYA. The purpose of the meeting was to tour

the facility and to gain an understanding of the operation of the facility.

Each CYA staff member provided an overview and current information about their

respective area of responsibility. During these presentations, members of the Grand Jury

were encouraged to ask questions, allowing for easy interaction.

Narrative

The El Paso de Robles CYA facility is under- populated and underutilized.

The operating cost of the El Paso de Robles CYA facility for the fiscal year 2003/ 2004 was

$ 23,500,000 ( excluding educational costs).

The average number of wards at the El Paso de Robles CYA during fiscal year 2003/ 2004

was 340.

The average cost per ward, per year at the El Paso de Robles CYA was $ 69,000. The

operating cost per inmate per year in the entire California State prison system was $ 30,000

for the same period. ( Source: CMC Public Relations)

Because the El Paso de Robles CYA is underutilized, the cost per ward is significantly

increased.

While the El Paso de Robles CYA facility has the capacity to house 650 wards, as of

September 2004, it houses 296, from ages12 to 22 years. Of these, 31 are in drug

rehabilitation programs and 165 are considered escape risks.

Ward Housing

We toured several of the housing units. These units are referred to as cottages, each named

for a community in San Luis Obispo County. Wards are assigned to a cottage based on the

( type) severity of their crime, initial assignment or pre- release. Prior to assignment they

receive an initial physical health, mental health, and dental evaluation. The wards are then

assigned to the various programs and cottages. The cottages are clean and well maintained.

One cottage, the Cambria, is the maximum detention unit, and the wards are assigned to

this unit due to problems incurred while at the CYA facility. The wards in this unit receive

strict discipline and are given close personal and video scrutiny.

Ward Education and Vocational Programs

The El Paso de Robles CYA facility has a fully accredited high school on site. Thirty

percent of the wards require some form of special needs training in math, reading, and

language. Student to teacher ratio is18 to 1.

Arroyo Cottage Mental Health Program

Wards with mental health issues are assigned to the Arroyo Cottage. Special counseling is

given to those who need more intensive treatment. There are 48 available beds for this

program.

The Cayucos Cottage Pre- Parole Program is designed for wards who are within their

final six months of parole consideration. The program focuses on helping wards develop

work ethics, work habits, and the essential skills needed for daily living outside of the

facility. The program provides pre- parole wards with a safe, comfortable, and controlled

environment that gives them an opportunity for behavioral changes necessary for parole

and living outside the institution. Emphasis is placed on taking responsibility, daily life

coping skills, decision making, dress and grooming, etiquette, budgeting, banking, housing,

nutrition, health, listening, communication, problem solving, organizational skills, and

parole expectations. Wards in this program perform public service as part of the program.

Services to the community include: trash pick up, grounds work, painting, and contributing

to community special events.

The Interactive Journaling ® Series is a newly instituted program at CYA. Interactive

Journaling ® is a State wide program consisting of a series of journals maintained by the

wards during their stay at CYA. The program is administered by each cottage supervisor.

The program focuses on helping wards use their time in the CYA to make positive changes

in their lives, and the journals are used in group activities, individual meetings and

homework assignments. The first journal is named Quick Start and is an overview for the

ward to get a start in the program. It covers topics that help wards understand their present

situation and recognize an opportunity to take charge of their life, identify their top three

problem areas, recognize the benefits and responsibilities of being a member of a group,

learn the importance of a positive attitude and how to check their own attitude, understand

how thinking filters affect the way they feel and act, and provides an opportunity to invest

in a positive change.

Due to the reduction of the ward population several other programs have been

discontinued. As an example, the fire fighting program, which was of assistance to

California Department of Forestry, was terminated. During the fire season in 2003 CYA

provided firefighters almost on a daily basis.

Conclusion

The El Paso de Robles CYA facility is currently underutilized due to financial

restrictions resulting from the State shifting the burden to the counties. Because of this

shift, counties are using alternative methods to rehabilitate their youth offenders, and

they are only sending their most serious offenders to the correctional facilities.

The costs are associated with running this facility with a population of less than four

hundred is too high.

The facility provides a reasonably safe environment for wards, correctional officers and

staff; however, it is known that hostile and dangerous situations frequently occur.

The new Interactive Journaling ® Series is working to focus wards’ attention to beginning

a new life style.

The grounds are well maintained, as are the living quarters and recreational areas.

The recommendation made by the 2003- 4 Grand Jury regarding the disposal of out- of -

date drugs has been implemented.

Required Responses

This is an informational report. No formal response is required.

The Tobacco Tax Program: “ Raising Our Future”

Proposition 10 ( Prop 10) was approved by California voters in 1998 and made possible a

program designed to raise the future of the children by improving the early development of

children pre- natal to age five. This initiative is supported by a tax on tobacco products

( tobacco- tax program), the income being distributed to counties based on the number of

births in a county. In 1998, the Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo County created

the First 5 Commission ( Commission) to manage and oversee the County’s tobacco- tax

program. The Grand Jury looked into the Commission to determine their level of

accountability for the county's tobacco- tax allocations, how well the program is meeting the

needs of the County’s children prenatal to age five, and the level to which the Commission

has been successful in including stakeholders from the community when approving

proposals and grant applications.

The Grand Jury is pleased with the work of the Commission and its stated objectives, but

finds some weaknesses that should be addressed.

Origin

The Grand Jury decided to look into San Luis Obispo County’s First 5 Commission by its

own initiative, motivated in part by an article in the July 16, 2004 San Luis Obispo

Tribune: " Tobacco- tax Programs Lack Oversight". The article reported the findings of a

California State Auditor who looked at several other counties’ tobacco- tax programs and

found a lack of documentation and problems with accountability for the use of these public

dollars.

Method

The Grand Jury first studied the Prop 10 enabling legislation ( as amended January 2004)

and reviewed material on the web sites of the state and local First 5 Commissions and

statewide First 5 Association. We then contacted local Commission staff, requested and

reviewed documents, and identified potential concerns. The Grand Jury reviewed three

years of annual reports, budgets, and financial statements; the original and revised

strategic plan; and held interviews with key staff. In addition, the Grand Jury studied

materials from other counties' First 5 Commissions. We then identified the following

objectives in beginning this investigation:

• To know the mission and goals of the San Luis Obispo County First 5 Commission

and whether the Commission is in compliance with the State’s Prop 10 legislation.

• To learn how the Commission seeks and uses community input in its strategic

planning and priority setting process.

• To know how the Prop 10 funds in San Luis Obispo County are being used.

• To learn what processes are in place for fiscal oversight and accountability.

• To learn how the Commission measures success and tracks and reports outcomes to

the community.

• To determine what plans are in place to address carryover funds.

• To learn the Commission's efforts and successes in attracting matching funds.

Narrative

California's Children and Families Act of 1998 ( Prop 10) imposed a 50 cent per pack tax on

cigarettes. Prop 10 created a California Children and Families Commission ( now known

as First 5 California), authorized the creation of a local commission in each of the 58

counties, and established criteria for the allocation and use of the revenue. Prop 10 funds

must be used to improve the early development of children pre- natal to age five. Local

commissions are required to assess needs, develop plans and implement strategies in three

focus areas: 1) Parent Education and Support Services, 2) Child Care and Early Education,

and 3) Health and Well- Being of Children.

Eighty percent of all Prop 10 revenue is distributed to county commissions via an

allocation formula based on the annual number of births in a county. San Luis Obispo

County's First 5 Commission has responsibility and accountability for the annual receipt,

management and distribution of millions of tax dollars.

San Luis Obispo County’s First 5 Commission was created by the County Board of

Supervisors ( BOS) subsequent to the passage of the California’s Children and Families

Act ( Prop 10) in November 1998. Three of the Commission's nine seats are defined by

the legislation and include a member of the Board of Supervisors, the Public Health

Officer, and the Director of Social Services. The remaining six seats are BOS- appointed

representatives from government and community organizations. These include the

County Superintendent of Schools and designated representatives from the San Luis

Obispo County Medical Society, Child Care Planning Council, Children’s Services

Network, and the community.

The Commission is currently staffed by 3.5 FTE ( full- time equivalent) employees and

based in the County Public Health Department under a contract and Memorandum of

Understanding with the BOS. Commission staff includes a half- time Executive Director,

two Administrative Services Officers and one Administrative Assistant.

The Commission recently completed the process of updating its original needs

assessment and strategic plan, first adopted in the Fall of 2001. The strategic plan sets

forth the Commission’s goals, objectives and priorities for funding. Between the fall of

2002 and the Winter of 2004 the Commission engaged the community in a

comprehensive assessment of community needs and priorities in regard to a target

population of young children and their families. Fifteen community meetings were held

around the county which included use of trained facilitation and bi- lingual services. The

results obtained from the meetings were analyzed and incorporated into planning for

future services in the required four result areas ( as defined by the State First 5

Commission):

 Improved Child Development

 Improved Child Health

 Improved Family Functioning

 Improved Systems of Care

The July 2004 update to the Commission's strategic plan ( Raising Our Future 4 ) identifies

the Commission's ongoing and revised goals and objectives for the period 2004- 2007

under each result area. Identified for funding are four initiatives and 11 direct service

programs. They are:

First 5 Initiatives and Direct Service Programs

Initiatives:

1. The Childcare Retention Initiative/ CARES

2. SLO County School Readiness Program

3. Children’s Health Initiative/ Healthy Kids

4. Prenatal Substance Abuse

Direct Service Programs:

1. Head Start School Readiness Program

2. State Preschool Extended Day Program

3. BABES ( Babes at Breast Education & Support Program)

4. Baby’s First Breath ( Tobacco Control Program)

5. CSIP ( Children’s behavioral/ developmental Screening & Inte