Santa Cruz County

Grand Jury

Final Report

2000 – 2001

June 8, 2001

The Honorable Richard McAdams

Judge of the Superior Court

701 Ocean Street

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Dear Judge McAdams,

On behalf of the 2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury, it is my pleasure to submit to you

our final report. This report is the culmination of countless hours of hard work and dedication

of the citizens who had the privilege of serving as grand jurors this year.

When first empanelled, the new grand jurors faced the daunting task of educating ourselves

on the vast and complex array of public functions. These include the County with its multiple

activities, four incorporated cities and a significant number of school districts, special

districts, commissions, and committees.

As there are so many local entities and important issues, it would be impossible for one grand

jury to inquire into each one during its tenure. The Grand Jury is required to make difficult

decisions on prioritizing issues and directing its efforts. We sincerely hope that the issues we

chose to pursue will enable the citizens of Santa Cruz County to gain a greater awareness,

knowledge, and insight into local government.

Our experience has greatly reinforced our belief in the grand jury system as a guardian of

public trust. Through this report, the residents of Santa Cruz County will become more aware

of the responsibilities of the grand jury and its role in assuring that local government

effectively and efficiently serves its citizens and taxpayers.

This Grand Jury benefited from the generous support of a wide array of public employees. In

particular, we would like to thank Rahn Garcia, Chief Assistant County Counsel for his

unflagging efforts and guidance on several complex issues.

Speaking on behalf of the 2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury, it has been an education, a

challenge and an honor to serve our community in this capacity.

Sincerely,

<< SIGNED>>

Linda G. Coleman

Foreperson

Grand Jury COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

Governmental Center PO Box 542, 701 Ocean Street

Santa Cruz, CA 95061

( 831) 454- 2099

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County

Grand Jury Final Report

Table of Contents

Grand Jurors ............................................................................................................. 1

Citizen Complaint Status.......................................................................................... 2

Cities & Other County Agencies

Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department......................................................... 3

Investigation of the Reporting Structure between the

Capitol City Council and City Manager........................................................................... 15

Special Districts

Investigation of Complaint Concerning the

Board of Directors of Central Fire Protection District..................................................... 21

Review of Santa Cruz County Fire Protection Services ........................................................ 29

Review of Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District ........................................................ 34

Schools and Libraries

Review of the Organization and Structure of

Site Councils in Santa Cruz County Public Schools........................................................ 39

Review of Educational Services Available to

Homeless Children in Santa Cruz County Schools.......................................................... 45

Health and Human Services

Review of Health Care Services for Low- Income Families in Santa Cruz County............... 53

Criminal Justice

Review of the Citizens’ Police Review Board of the City of Santa Cruz.............................. 77

Review of Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Service Centers....................................................... 86

Review of Ben Lomond Youth Conservation Camp ............................................................. 90

Review of the Blaine Street Women’s Facility...................................................................... 92

Review of the Juvenile Hall Facility...................................................................................... 94

Review of the Main Jail ......................................................................................................... 96

Review of the Rountree Facility ............................................................................................ 99

Audit & Finance

Financial Compliance Review of County Entities............................................................... 103

Responses to the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury Final Report ...................................... 121

Instructions for Respondents .............................................................................. 196

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Grand Jurors Page 1

Grand Jurors

Linda Coleman,

Foreperson

Ralph Bushey

Joe Caesar

Lynne Cordova

Robert S. Gaddis, CPA

Ken L. Gilbert

Nita Gonzalez

Judi D. Lazenby

Don D. Little

Tessie Loomis

Noreen Mahoney

Paul O’Rourke, MD, MPH

Gary D. Owen

Margaret L. Smith

Norman Vaux

Michelle Verinsky

Cheryl Wong

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 Citizen Complaint Status

Citizen Complaint Status

Complaint # Subject Status

CC99- 110 County Planning Department Closed

CJ99- 113 Citizen Police Review Board Closed

CC99- 118 County Planning Department Open

CC99- 119 County Planning Department Closed

CC99- 121 County Planning Department Closed

SD99- 122 Central Fire District Closed

CJ99- 123 Main County Jail Closed

CC00- 001 Family Support Division Closed

CC00- 002 Family Support Division Closed

CC00- 003 DeLaveaga Golf Course Closed

HH00- 004 Dominican Hospital Closed

CJ00- 005 District Attorney Closed

SL00- 006 CalTrans Aeronautics Division Closed

HH00- 007 HR Agency/ Santa Cruz City Council Closed

CJ00- 008 Santa Cruz Police Department Closed

CJ00- 009 Watsonville Jail Farm Closed

CJ00- 010 Family Court Closed

CJ00- 011 Santa Cruz County Sheriff Closed

HH00- 012 Child Protective Services Open

CC00- 013 Ben Lomond Park Hall Closed

CJ00- 014 Santa Cruz Police Department Closed

CC00- 015 District Attorney Closed

CC00- 016 City of Santa Cruz Open

County of Santa Cruz

Cities & Other County Agencies

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department Page 3

Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department

Background

The Santa Cruz County Planning Department is part of county government and reports to the

five- member elected County Board of Supervisors through the County Administrative

Officer. This department was established by and derives its authority from Government Code

§ 65000 et seq.

The County Board of Supervisors has absolute discretion to enact county land use ordinances.

The Planning Department has the power to enforce county land use ordinances as well as

discretionary power to define and implement county land use policies.

The Planning Commission, whose members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, is

responsible for the approval of large commercial and residential projects. The Planning

Department provides staff support to this commission.

The County of Santa Cruz General Plan is the primary set of policies for the county’s land use

that guarantees development is directed in an orderly manner. The Planning Department’s

responsibilities include drafting and administering this plan.

The four prominent and controlling issues outlined in the 1994 General Plan continue to be

primary areas of concern today. These are

• Managing population growth through a comprehensive growth management system

( implemented by Measure J, adopted in the 1970’ s) to assure adequate services,

particularly water, to current and future residents

• Providing affordable housing

• Preserving the county’s environmental quality

• Preventing conversions of agricultural lands through alternative methods such as “ in

fill” development

The Planning Director is responsible for the overall management and administration of the

Planning Department. Assistant directors manage the two major divisions

• Planning division

• Development review

• Environmental planning

• Advanced planning

• Resource planning

• Building division

• Building permits

• Code compliance

• Geographic Information System

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 4 Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department

Scope

Fieldwork for the Grand Jury’s report was concluded on April 4, 2001.

This Grand Jury review focused only on the three sections of the Planning Department that

have the greatest contact with the general public:

• Development Review Section

• Building Permit Section

• Code Compliance Section

Development Review Section: This section is the key point of public contact for the planning

and zoning functions of the county Planning Department. It is the primary information

resource for property owners and land use professionals who need to know what can be done

with their property. This section interfaces with the public primarily through the zoning

counter, located on the fourth floor of the county building.

At the zoning counter, the development review staff provides information on the planning and

zoning classifications for land use as established in the county’s General Plan and ordinances.

These dictate the allowable uses and development restrictions regarding the property, such as

property line setbacks and height limitations. This section reviews and processes all proposals

for developing land.

Development review requires the exercise of professional judgment on the part of both project

review staff planners and decision- makers. Projects requiring a development review permit

range from a coastal permit for a single- family dwelling to a subdivision. Project review

planners review applications for conformance with county General Plan policies, code

requirements, design guidelines, and compatibility with other land uses in the area.

Building Permit Section: This section is responsible for reviewing building plans for

conformity with measurable code requirements, routing the plans to all outside reviewing

agencies, monitoring that review process, issuing permits and inspecting all permitted work

until final completion. The building counter is the main point of contact for obtaining building

permits and is located on the fourth floor of the county building.

Code Compliance Section: This section is responsible for enforcement of county codes

relating to land use, building code, zoning ordinance and resource protection ordinances. It

administers an abatement program for dangerous conditions on properties as well as an

abandoned vehicle program. These programs operate in response to citizen complaints about

alleged code violations initiated by telephone or by visiting the Planning Department. This

section investigates the complaints and, if appropriate, issues warning or violation notices.

When a property owner refuses to comply, the county may correct the violation and charge

the property owner for the work completed. Such actions may be followed by additional legal

sanctions such as code violation recordations, fines or civil penalties. The overall objective of

the code enforcement process is to protect the health and safety of the public and to put an end

to illegal land use.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department Page 5

The Grand Jury reviewed the following areas to determine the adequacy of the Planning

Department to administer the highly complicated processes for which it is responsible.

• Training programs

• Attitude and morale of department staff

• Number of employees in relation to the workloads

• Proficiency of the staff

• Policies, procedures and computer programs

To obtain the findings that serve as the basis of this report, the Grand Jury employed the

following measures:

• Conducted interviews

• Current Planning Director and one former director

• Two current members of the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission

• Two Assistant Planning Directors

• Six employees, representative of the support services of the Santa Cruz Planning

Department, with varied lengths of service

• Reviewed documents

• The 1994 General Plan

• The department’s organizational chart

• The department’s current web pages

• The employee’s standard rating form

• The department’s current public brochures

• The November 1993 Code Compliance Investigator’s Manual

• Department’s current Code Compliance Investigator’s Manual

• 1997- 98 Grand Jury Report reviewing the code compliance division of the

Planning Department

• The June 8, 1999 ordinance covering the adoption of the uniform codes and

amendments

• The August 16, 2000 Planning Department's Final Conversion Plan for eliminating

old unresolved code compliance complaints. The plan included information

regarding staff capacity for handling new complaints and reducing the backlog of

outstanding complaints

• The October 17, 2000 Planning Department’s Operations Report to the County

Board of Supervisors

• The November 30, 2000 report from the Planning Department to the Board of

Supervisors regarding the year 2001 annual population growth goal

• Board of Supervisors resolution adopting Annual Population Growth Goals for

2001: Resolution No. 396- 2000 passed and adopted December 5, 2000

• The California Government Code pertaining to Planning Departments

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 6 Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department

The Grand Jury also:

• Requested from the Planning Department computer lists of applications and

complaints received during the first quarter of 2000 and all outstanding applications

and complaints at the end of 2000. The following lists were prepared:

Computer Lists Reviewed

Received in

Q1 2000

Outstanding at

the end of 2000

Applications for development

approval of land use requests 246 456

Applications for building permits and

the inspection process from issuance

to completion 465 717

Code compliance violations from

complaint to resolution 258 3,848

• Randomly selected and reviewed 27 files from the above computer lists and compared

them to their respective physical files.

Type Sample Population

Development review section 8 243

Building permit section 10 465

Code compliance section 9 258

• Compared the 27 files selected to the Planning Department’s web site to determine

their status as of April 4, 2001.

This investigation was conducted without participation by one juror of this 2000- 01 Grand

Jury who is related to a county employee.

Findings

1. The California Planning and Zoning Law ( Government Code § 65300 et seq.) requires

adoption of a comprehensive long- term General Plan that determines the development of

the county.

2. The Board of Supervisors determines the annual allocation of the maximum number of

building permits to be issued in accordance with Measure J’s growth management

program. The 2001 building permits allocations are set at 0.5% over the number of

housing units on December 31, 2000.

3. Land use codes and ordinances are broadly constructed and, therefore, susceptible to

multiple interpretations.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department Page 7

Personnel Findings

1. The Grand Jury found that the department employees were cooperative and professional at

all times. The Planning Director offered help, even during this very busy time in their

department.

2. There are approximately 110 positions in the department, including 12 new staff positions

recently approved by the Board of Supervisors.

3. The Graphic Information Systems department is a sophisticated operation and was very

helpful in providing the Grand Jury with maps and other data.

4. The planning staff ’ s responsibility is to explain to applicants the limitations imposed on

the applicant’s use of their own property by ( 1) state laws, ( 2) county codes and ( 3) county

ordinances. Often these rules conflict with the property owner’s desires.

5. Political influence by the Board of Supervisors places added pressure on the planning

staff. Supervisors act for the best interest of their constituency. When membership on the

board changes, direction from the supervisors changes.

6. City governments in the county and many neighboring counties pay higher salaries than

Santa Cruz County does. Salaries in Santa Cruz County government are based on a nine-county

comparison using Contra Costa, Fresno, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Mateo, Santa

Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.

7. Employee morale is low and turnover is at an unprecedented high. This resulted from

failure in negotiations to successively challenge the nine- county comparison. At the peak,

there were 24 vacancies in the department. This necessitated taking staff from the

advanced planning section to cover shortfalls in other sections.

8. The personnel department has been unable to attract the necessary people with requisite

qualifications to fill vacancies in the Planning Department staff. Some vacant positions are

difficult to fill because they are classified as temporary positions. The Planning

Department requested hiring an outside consultant to assume the recruitment effort.

9. According to interviews with employees, workloads continue to be excessive. Also,

employee performance evaluations have not been conducted on a consistent basis.

10. The department has budgeted 125 computer classes, approximately one day’s training for

each employee of the Planning Department. The managers of each section are responsible

for budgeting additional training courses for staff as needed to enhance their skills.

11. The Planning Director has implemented a program to acquaint new hires with the

operations of the department as well as familiarize current employees with functions of

other areas within the department. Additional training for new hires is left to other

employees in the area where the person works. The responsibility for ensuring that

employees obtain continuing or additional training lies with each manager.

12. In the fall of 2000, the Planning Director has obtained approval from the Board of

Supervisors for a new staff position devoted to training. This staff position will evaluate

the training needs of the department and devise strategies and methods to satisfy those

needs.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 8 Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department

13. The Planning Director proposed that employees be assigned to planning teams to be

responsible for virtually all the development activity in a particular geographical area.

Each team leader will be responsible for acquiring a thorough understanding of the

assigned geographic location.

Development Review Section Findings

1. Review of the 8 selected files revealed

• 7 of the 8 files selected were completed. The department is correctly handling the

incomplete file. It is still incomplete because an outside agency, over which the

Planning Department has no control, has yet to give its approval.

• 6 of the 7 completed files were processed in an average of three months; 1 took almost

a year to complete.

• 3 of the 7 completed files were not shown as completed on the computer system.

• 1 file approved on June 1, 2000 erroneously showed a future hearing of August 4,

2000.

As of April 4, 2001, it still showed as scheduled for that hearing.

• 1 file is shown as withdrawn however there is nothing in the file to support this.

2. Planners must possess a high degree of proficiency in diverse land use regulations in order

to handle the increased development applications for “ in fill” projects. These projects are

located in heavily developed areas that require highly technical planning, engineering,

geologic and/ or hydrologic issues. According to the Planning Director, the current

capacity of the department to administer such sophisticated processes is limited.

3. A single development permit application may have several separate files associated with

it. This happens when more than one reviewing department is involved. However, no

cross- indexing exists for files in circulation. Anyone attempting to review these files has

no way of knowing how many files exist. Only when the process is complete are the files

put together.

Building Permit Section Findings

1. Review of the 10 selected files revealed the following:

• 9 of the 10 files were complete by the date of the review

6 Complete

3 Withdrawn

1 Not approved

10 Total

• 1 physical file could not be found

• 4 of the 6 files were completed in less than 45 days and the other 2 were competed in

60 days

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department Page 9

Code Compliance Section Findings

1. According to the Planning Department’s Final Conversion Plan, the department has a

policy of resolving code compliance complaints within four months.

2. At the end of the year 2000, there were 3,848 unresolved code compliance complaints.

This represents more than three years of unresolved complaints. The Planning Director

attributes the high backlog to the fact that code compliance staff worked on easiest- to-resolve

complaints first to reduce the volume of unresolved complaints. The director also

asserted that approximately 3,000 of the 3,848, that currently show unresolved in the

computer system, should show resolved. These 3,000 are a combination of ( 1) old

resolved complaints that are not shown properly resolved in the computer or ( 2) old

complaints which are considered too minor to work on.

3. The computer listing of code compliance complaints received during the first quarter of

2000 indicates a “ Priority Code” for each complaint type, consisting of Codes A, B, C.

Listed below is a breakdown and a description of the priority code for the 258 complaints

received:

15 Code A – involving immediate threat to public health and safety

232 Code B – health or safety considerations but no immediate threat to the public

11 Code C – low priority for violations confined to a single property

258 Total

4. Review of the 9 selected files revealed

• 6 of the 9 complaints selected were still unresolved more than a year after they were

filed

• 2 of the 9 complaints were assigned the highest priority status ( Code A). Neither was

resolved

• 3 of the 9 complaints had recorded code violations ( Red Tags) shown in the computer

records, but only 1 contained a copy of the recorded code violation in the physical file

• 1 file had all the work done but the file was still shown as active

• 1 file had no work done on it at all

• 1 file had an unsigned copy of a settlement agreement when it should have contained a

signed copy in the file

5. When the Grand Jury questioned the meaning of the compliance Priority Codes A, B, C,

the director stated that he was unaware of these priority codes because the system was

installed before he started with the county. Senior code compliance management had

earlier asserted these codes were useless and they did not mean anything. In contrast, two

computer- input clerks stated that they always assign a Priority Code B when entering the

initial code compliance complaint in the computer and then route the file to the senior

code compliance management who may change it to Code A or C as appropriate.

6. As a result of this information, the Grand Jury increased the scope of its review to include

all of the complaints bearing the highest priority code received during the first quarter of

2000. There were 15 Code A complaints. One year later, 9 of the 15 Code A complaints

were still unresolved.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 10 Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department

7. The contradictory information regarding the complaint coding system led the Grand Jury

to review the history of the code compliance computer system Codes A, B, C. The

findings in chronological order are

1. In November 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved a set of criteria for assigning

priority rankings to code violation complaints.

• Code A – involving immediate threat to public health and safety

• Code B – health or safety considerations but no immediate threat to the public

• Code C – low priority for violations confined to a single property.

2. In 1993 the, A, B, C coding was implemented and integrated into the computer system

ALUS ( defined later).

3. The code compliance section has failed to properly use this system. There has always

been a reminder computer report for code compliance violations ( A, B, C) as a part of

the ALUS system.

4. In August 2000, a new set of codes for assigning priority rankings was devised using

designations 1 through 5 rather than A, B, C. Code 1 is equivalent to Code A. Codes 2

through 5 are in descending order of importance.

5. A substantial amount of time and effort was spent on the new system. In spite of the

costly preparations, Codes 1 through 5 system has never been implemented.

Systems and Policies Findings

1. The department runs its data processing system on a 1990’ s mainframe software system

called ALUS. ALUS does all its processing and data storage on a single large piece of

computer hardware. The department also has smaller data processing system modules on a

user’s desktop computer, like word processing, spreadsheets, etc. An e- mail system was

recently installed in the department. ALUS is the backbone of the Planning Department

and is a well- tested and reliable system, however it is difficult to upgrade and has no user

documentation. This is a considerable detriment to its future use.

2. The Planning Department does not accept credit cards for payment of fees. The fiscal

manager of the department has devised a plan by which applicants can submit a credit

card and pay a convenience fee to defray the credit card cost charged to the department.

This plan has not been implemented.

3. The reviewing agency does not always update the status of their review in the computer

system. In such instances the Planning Department does not complete this section either.

4. Almost anyone in the Planning Department can change data in the computer.

5. Of the four primary functions of the department, the development approval process and

the building permit process were recently made available on the internet. The General

Plan and the code compliance status are not yet available on- line.

6. To provide a more convenient and less crowded location for the public, the department

operates a satellite permit center in Felton. This center operates three days a week. Plans

are underway to open another satellite office in the Aptos/ Watsonville area.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department Page 11

7. The Planning Department has streamlined the process for small projects such as permits

for water heaters, fences, decks and roofs by allowing applicants to apply by telephone,

internet or fax.

Conclusions

In the creation and administration of the General Plan, the Planning Department has broad

discretionary powers to define and implement land use policy, which must be balanced with

the rights of applicants, surrounding property owners and the community at- large.

When codes and ordinances are broadly constructed, they allow a proponent to argue either

side of an issue and find justification for their position.

It is standard practice to update the General Plan every ten years. However, since such

significant changes have occurred in the county over the last seven years, the General Plan

should be updated sooner.

If the county grows in 2001 as it did in 2000, the county will run out of permits sometime late

in the year.

Personnel Conclusions

The Planning Department is experiencing an endless cycle of inter- dependent factors, which

has resulted in the department’s current personnel problems, including:

• Low pay

• Heavy workloads

• Low morale

• Inadequate training

• Loss of staff

• Political pressures from Board of Supervisors

• Stressful situations for employees who have to tell people what they cannot do

with their property

Each part of this cycle interacts with another and produces an unstable workforce and a

dysfunctional department.

Santa Cruz County employee salaries are low relative to housing costs and living expenses in

the county. A major contributor to this problem is the nine- county average that is used to

determine Santa Cruz County employee salaries. Using the salaries of comparable staff

positions in the four cities in the county would be more relevant than counties like Fresno,

Napa, Solano or Sonoma. A weighted- average is a better method for calculating benchmark

salaries than a simple average.

The Planning Department has little control over salaries. Therefore, the problems that plague

the Planning Department in regards to employees will continue indefinitely despite their good

effort to retain and hire enough new people.

Silicon Valley has become a major source of income for a number of Santa Cruz County

residents. This has its good and bad points. Since a Silicon Valley employee earns

substantially more than a Santa Cruz County employee, Silicon Valley income- earners have

driven up the cost of housing in the county. The present salaries of new county employees

make it difficult to find affordable housing. This negatively affects recruitment.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 12 Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department

Training programs for employees are critical to the building of their work skills. The high

vacancy rate, which has prevailed within the department, has contributed heavily to the lack

of essential training.

Political pressure is a way of life for any county’s planning department. Training personnel to

deal with this inevitable reality will have the effect of lowering stress and improving morale.

The Grand Jury commends the dedicated and loyal Planning Department employees who have

persevered during these difficult times. Special thanks go to the employees who cooperated

with this review.

Development Review Section Conclusions

The files selected were completed in a timely manner. They contained sufficient information

to understand the decisions that were made in each case. Any deficiencies are not of major

significance and can be readily resolved.

Building Permit Section Conclusions

The files selected were completed in a timely manner. They contained sufficient information

to understand the decisions that were made in each case. Any deficiencies are not of major

significance and can be readily resolved.

Code Compliance Section Conclusions

Code A complaints ( highest priority involving immediate threat to public health and safety)

were not given the high priority indicated by the department’s own policies. One year after

the complaint filing date 60% were still unresolved.

The failure to promptly resolve serious code violations ( Code A) creates circumstances of

undue risk of serious injury or death.

Code compliance files that are incomplete result in inefficiency.

Proper use of the current ALUS code compliance system will accomplish the goal of

screening out the old files with a few minor changes. This result can be attained by

• Adding a new status type

• Considering the new status type the same as a closed complaint

• Removing the closed files from all computer reports that show active complaints

• Keeping the history in the computer

• Changing all old complaints without health or safety problems to the new status type

Relying on a new code compliance computer system as an excuse for not reducing the number

of code compliance complaints is unacceptable. Code A- C verses 1- 5 should not be an excuse

for inaction. Although the department has defined its problems and designed initiatives to

help correct the code compliance issues, the department is unable to get beyond the planning

stage and implement the policies.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department Page 13

It would be very beneficial to have the code compliance status on the internet for the

following reasons:

• The department would receive fewer calls and visits, which will increase efficiency

• The department would have a greater incentive to reduce outstanding code compliance

complaints

Systems and Policies Conclusions

Inability to accept credit cards is a disservice to the public. This simple reform would do

much to improve public relations and reduce the frustration of the employees. The cost

savings of personnel time and the convenience to the citizens would justify the cost.

Since almost anyone can enter information into the computer, there is a potential for personal

gain, collusion or errors. The department or the Auditor- Controller’s Office should consider

installing an internal audit system, randomly picking both closed and open files to review.

The web sites for both the development approval process and the building permit process are

an excellent source of information to the public.

Obtaining a new computerized planning system, currently used by other planning departments

in the state, has the potential to reduce personnel costs. Further benefits include:

• Easy and flexible report writing module

• Easy way to update internet screens using the data stored in the system

• Consecutive numbering of the code compliance complaints in order of receipt

• Prevent a file from advancing to the next stage without completion of previous steps

Recommendations

1. The Planning Department should accept credit cards.

2. The Planning Department should immediately resolve all complaints classified as a threat

to public health and safety.

3. The Planning Director should ensure there is strong management in the Code Compliance

Section.

4. Physical files should include copies of the recorded code violations ( Red Tags) and be

consistent with the status shown on the computer screen.

5. The Planning Department should utilize the existing ALUS code compliance system for

tracking the status of code priority classifications until a future system is operational.

6. The Planning Department should complete the status of the outside agency’s review in the

computer system.

7. The Planning Department should develop a system to cross- reference the multiple

physical files that exist for a single development permit application.

8. The Auditor- Controller’s Office should implement an internal audit system on Planning

Department files.

9. The Board of Supervisors should update the 1994 General Plan as soon as is feasible.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 14 Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department

10. The Board of Supervisors should conduct a formal study to determine the relationship of

current salaries to employee retention.

11. The Board of Supervisors should consider changing the entities in the nine- county

comparison used in salary surveys to include the four cities in the county.

12. Immediate priority must be given to training Planning Department personnel.

13. Planning Department managers should conduct employee reviews consistent with the

stated personnel policy of the department.

14. The Planning Department should establish the Aptos/ Watsonville Satellite Permit Center.

15. The Felton Satellite Permit Center should be available five days a week.

16. The General Plan and the code compliance complaint status should be available the

internet.

17. The following should be added to the web site:

• Development approval process

• Description of the project

• Cross reference to a related building permit

• Building permit process

• The alpha digit at the end of the permit number is confusing and should not be part

of the record number

• If a permit has been issued, the status on the web page should not show “ READY

TO ISSUE”

• Withdrawn permits should be shown on the web page

• Complete projects should show the date of completion on the web page

• Cross reference the building permit to any related development approval

Response Required

Entity Recommendations Respond Within

Board of Supervisors 1 – 17 90 Days

Planning Director 1 – 7, 12 – 17 60 Days

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Investigation of the Reporting Structure between

the Capitol City Council and City Manager Page 15

Investigation of the Reporting Structure between

the Capitol City Council and City Manager

Background

The City of Capitola is a general law city incorporated January 11, 1949 that operates under

the council- manager form of government. Capitola is largely a suburban, business, recreation

and tourist area of approximately two square miles. Capitola’s population is estimated to be

about 11,000 as of January 1, 2000.

Traditionally, the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury reviews one of the four cities in the county

each year on a rotating basis. While gathering information in preparation for the review of the

City of Capitola, the Grand Jury reviewed city council meeting minutes and several

newspaper articles ( see Newspaper Sources). These revealed friction between city council

members and radical changes in the supervisory relationship between the city manager and

the finance director.

As the Grand Jury delved into these issues, it became clear that it could not complete the

traditional review of the city and fully investigate the city council’s handling of the change in

the reporting structure. Therefore, the Grand Jury decided to eliminate the traditional review

and focus its attention solely on the reporting structure issue.

Scope

Under the Penal Code § 925( a), the Grand Jury may investigate cities located in the county.

“ 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 following sources for this investigation, which was completed on April 5, 2001:

• Interviewed a past city manager.

• Interviewed a past city mayor/ council member.

• Interviewed the finance director.

• Interviewed the county auditor.

• Reviewed 1998, 1999 and 2000 city council meeting minutes.

• Reviewed selected 2000 and 2001 city council agenda packets.

• Reviewed the finance director employment agreements.

• Reviewed selected Capitola Municipal Codes as quoted in the attached Exhibit.

• Reviewed City of Capitola Management Employee’s Compensation Plan,

July 1 1998 – June 30, 2000 which detailed the process for grievance resolution.

• Reviewed related newspaper articles in the Santa Cruz Sentinel and Mid County Post.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 16 Investigation of the Reporting Structure between

the Capitol City Council and City Manager

Findings

Findings are presented in chronological order.

1. A current comprehensive Policy & Procedures Manual for the City of Capitola was not

available for review by the Grand Jury.

2. The current finance director started working for the city in1994 as a part- time controller.

3. The city council created the position of finance director, reporting to the city manager, and

approved the employment agreement and job description of the current finance director on

November 26, 1996 effective January 1, 1997 ( Resolution No. 2854).

4. The organizational charts of the city included in the FY 1998, 1999 and 2000 financial

statements show the finance director reporting directly to the city manager.

5. Based on interviews, the Grand Jury found the working relationship between city manager

and finance director negatively impacted city operations, contrary to Municipal Code

§ 2.08.220.

6. On January 27, 2000, the city council revised the job description of the finance director to

include direction over the Capitola Redevelopment Agency.

7. In January and February 2000, the finance director filed grievances against the city

manager. Ordinarily, the city manager would review and act upon the grievance as stated

in the Management Employee’s Compensation Plan. However, since the grievances were

against the city manager, the city council decided to review them.

8. The Capitola City Attorney authored a memo to the city council dated February 17, 2000

regarding potential conflicts with the city’s ordinances and the job description and

employment agreement of the finance director. In particular Municipal Code § 2.08.210

and 2.08.220 were cited. This concern was reiterated in the March 3, 2000 memo from the

city attorney citing Municipal Code § 2.04.060.

9. On March 23, 2000, the city council voted to approve an amendment to the November 26,

1996 employment agreement with the finance director. This amendment was executed on

March 30, 2000 and removed the finance director from the direct supervision of the city

manager. “ Employee” in the quote below refers to the finance director.

Item 1 states:

“… The parties therefore agree that when, in Employee’s professional

judgement it is necessary or desirable, Employee shall present such matters

directly to the city council for consideration and copy the City Manager.”

Item 3 states:

“ The City Council shall have sole and exclusive authority to impose discipline

upon Employee for any alleged misconduct, misfeasance, malfeasance,

incompetence or negligence in the performance of his duties, and/ or take any

other adverse action toward Employee. Employee shall not be terminated from

employment or placed on administrative leave with or without pay, except by

the City Council.”

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Investigation of the Reporting Structure between

the Capitol City Council and City Manager Page 17

10. Immediately following this vote, a council member resigned citing the acrimony within

the city government, as recorded in the minutes

“… The extent of the acrimony at meetings of the Council, as well as the on

going attacks by elected officials against individual council members and city

staff are unprecedented in the 8 years she has served here. This behavior has

already seriously impacted the services provided to residents and has eroded

the morale of even the best of our employees. She went on to state she would

not participate in the destruction of this city and neither should you. When

previous councils have had differences, and faced difficult financial situations,

the council and the staff pulled together to resolve them. In contrast, the

renewed efforts of the city treasurer to embroil the city in controversy, and the

support of the council majority to allow this to occur, are causing paralysis in a

previously well- functioning city government. The damage that this course of

actions causes is significant. While fingers point and voices shout, Capitola

languishes. She regrets that it has become impossible for her to get the work of

the Capitola community that she cherishes completed in this vicious

atmosphere…”

11. In a letter dated March 30, 2000 to the mayor, the finance director withdrew his

grievances citing that his new job description and supplemental employment agreement

resolved most of the issues in his grievances.

12. On June 18, 2000, the Capitola City Manager submitted his resignation effective August

1, 2000.

13. On September 28, 2000, the city council rescinded the super- majority ( four- fifths) vote

requirement for removal of the city manager per Municipal Code § 2.08.240.

14. On January 11, 2001, the City of Capitola and its finance director negotiated the Amended

Supplemental Employment Agreement. This amendment superceded the March 23, 2000

amendment in its entirety. This action reinstated the direct supervisory relationship

between the city manager and finance director.

Item 2 states the current finance director will retire June 30, 2001.

Item 6 states:

“… The parties expect that the directive of the City Manager will be consistent

with the position’s ‘ Essential Duties and Responsibilities.’ If the Finance

Director believes that a directive of the City Manager cannot be reconciled

with the above- quoted duty, he may pursue that as a grievance under the

grievance procedures in the Management Employees Compensation Plan.”

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 18 Investigation of the Reporting Structure between

the Capitol City Council and City Manager

• Included as an exhibit to the January 11, 2000 agreement, the City of Capitola and the

current finance director entered into a Contract for Professional Services commencing

September 1, 2001 terminating on June 30, 2003. In this contract, the contractor would

give advice, recommendations and drafts on several policies and procedures and

perform other non- routine tasks. Under the agreement, the contractor is expressly

prohibited from performing day- to- day routine tasks. Item 3, under the Duties heading

states:

“ Contractor shall not be requested to, nor shall Contractor, perform any

day- to- day, ongoing, routine accounting or fiscal duties, and Contractor

shall not supervise, or be supervised by, any official, employee, or

agent of the City.”

• In response to a question, the finance director stated in the interview the list of

contemplated projects attached to the Contract for Professional Services included

some tasks that he characterized as ordinarily the responsibility of a finance director.

15. Despite the impending retirement of the finance director, at the close of fieldwork the City

of Capitola had not begun its search for a new finance director. Under the Professional

Services Agreement signed by the current finance director, the contractor is prohibited

from assisting the city in its day- to- day operations after his retirement. This raises the

question: Who will act as finance director after June 30, 2001? The Grand Jury was

unable to determine the plans of the city regarding this matter.

16. In preparing this report, the Grand Jury found it necessary to interview the finance director

alone. For six weeks, the Grand Jury attempted to arrange for such a routine interview.

This was refused and he was therefore subpoenaed to appear before the Grand Jury.

In preparing this report, the Grand Jury found it necessary to conduct a private interview

with the finance director. For six weeks, the Grand Jury attempted to arrange for an

interview, however, the finance director refused to appear alone. Based on review of the

correspondence received from the City of Capitola on this matter, the finance director’s

refusal to voluntarily cooperate was supported by the city attorney, mayor and new city

manager. A subpoena was subsequently issued and the finance director did appear alone.

Penal Code § 939 has been interpreted by the courts as operating to prohibit the presence

of anyone at a grand jury session other than grand jurors and witnesses actually under

examination. The only exceptions are a bailiff, court reporter, or interpreter.

Conclusions

The city council spent an inordinate amount of time in 2000 discussing and restructuring the

reporting relationship of the city manager and finance director that was ultimately returned to

its previous state in conformity with Municipal Code. The city council allowed itself to be

diverted from crucial city business by the antagonism between these two important city

officials, which, in part, led to the resignation of a council member.

Instead of using standard government practices to resolve a formal personnel grievance, the

city council entered into a contract with one of the parties that contravened its own Municipal

Code. A change in the reporting relationship between the city manager and finance director as

a quid pro quo agreement for the withdrawal of the grievances presents serious public policy

questions.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Investigation of the Reporting Structure between

the Capitol City Council and City Manager Page 19

Recommendations

1. The Capitola City Council should never enter into contracts that are inconsistent with its

Municipal Code.

2. The city council should expedite its efforts to find a new finance director.

3. The city council should ensure its legal advisor is knowledgeable in grand jury law and

case history.

4. The city council should direct all city employees to cooperate fully with any grand jury

investigations including individual interviews.

5. The 2001- 02 Grand Jury should conduct a comprehensive review of the City of Capitola

including the anticipated Policies & Procedures Manual currently being prepared by the

city.

Response Required

Entity Recommendations Respond Within

Capitola City Council 1 – 4 90 Days

Newspaper Sources:

Gumz, Jondi, “ Political power struggle swirls around embattled city manager,” Santa

Cruz Sentinel, February 12, 2000.

Gumz, Jondi, “ City manager’s spending scrutinized in Capitola,” Santa Cruz Sentinel,

March 11, 2000.

Gumz, Jondi, “ Unauthorized expenses in Capitola totaling thousands prompts policy

change,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 22, 2000.

Bryant, Mary, “ City’s Finance Director Gets Pay Raise and More Time Off,” Mid County

Post, August 15, 2000.

Olson, Jay, “ Former Mayors Threaten to File Grand Jury Complaint Against Capitola

Council,” Mid County Post, October10- 23, 2000.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 20 Investigation of the Reporting Structure between

the Capitol City Council and City Manager

Exhibit

Selected Capitola Municipal Code

2.04.060 City personnel use. The various boards and commissions may utilize the services of

the appropriate city departmental personnel in carrying out their respective functions subject

to the administrative control of the city manager.

2.08.070 Powers and duties. The city manager shall be the administrative head of the

government of the city under the direction and control of the city council except as otherwise

provided in this chapter. He shall be responsible for the efficient administration of all the

affairs of the city which are under his control. In addition to this general powers and

administrative head, and not as a limitation thereon, it shall be his duty and he shall have the

power set forth in Sections 2.08.080 through 2.08.200.

2.08.100 Power of appointment and removal. It shall be the duty of the city manager to, and

he shall, appoint, remove, promote and demote any and all officers and employees of the city

except the city clerk, city attorney, and city treasurer, subject to all applicable personnel

ordinances, rules and regulations.

2.08.110 Administrative reorganization of officers. It shall be the duty and responsibility of

the city manager to conduct studies and effect such administrative reorganization of offices,

positions or units under his direction as may be indicated in the interest of efficient, effective

and economical conduct of the city’s business.

2.08.140 Financial reports. It shall be the duty of the city manager to keep the city council at

all times fully advised as to the financial condition and needs of the city.

2.08.210 Internal relationships with council. The city council and its members shall deal with

the administrative services of the city only through the city manager, except for the purpose of

inquiry, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any

subordinates of the city manager. The city manager shall take his orders and instructions from

the city council only when sitting in a duly convened.

2.08.220 Departmental cooperation. It shall be the duty of all subordinate officers and the city

clerk, city treasurer and city attorney to assist the city manager in administering the city

efficiently, economically and harmoniously.

2.08.240 At- will employment. The city manager shall be an at- will employee, who may be

removed from office, or his/ her authority temporarily suspended, at the sole discretion of the

city council, subject to any such restrictions as are specifically set forth in the city manager’s

contract of employment. ( Ordinance 818, September 2000)

Text of 2.08.240 prior to its amendment:

The removal of the city manager shall be effected only by four- fifths vote of the

council in a regular council meeting, subject, however, in the provisions of Sections

2.08.250 through 2.08.280. In case of his intended removal by the city council, the city

manager shall be furnished with a written notice stating the council’s intention to

remove him and the reason therefore, at least thirty days before the effective date of

this removal.

County of Santa Cruz

Special Districts

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Investigation of Complaint Concerning the

Board of Directors of Central Fire Protection District Page 21

Investigation of Complaint Concerning the

Board of Directors of Central Fire Protection District

Background

The Central Fire Protection District of Santa Cruz County is one of ten such districts in the

county. In October 1977, the district was created by the merger of the Capitola, Live Oak and

Soquel Fire Protection Districts. A seven- member elected board of directors governs the

district.

The district encompasses 20.89 square miles and protects a population of more than 50,000

residents and area business establishments. The district covers an area from the east at

Borregas Gulch and to the west at the City of Santa Cruz City limit, with Monterey Bay to the

south and about 5 ½ miles north up Old San Jose- Soquel Road from Soquel Drive.

The district has 67 full- time and 26 part- time employees, with an operating budget of

$ 7,642,913 ( FY 00- 01). The district has 4 fire stations with 12 pieces of fire fighting

equipment and 11 utility vehicles.

Scope

The 2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury received a complaint from a citizen dated March

26, 2000 concerning the operations of the district. This led to an investigation of the Board of

Directors of the Central Fire Protection District seated during 1998, 1999 and 2000.

The complainant expressed concerns in the following areas:

• Misappropriation of funds

• Violations of the Brown Act∗

• Lack of respect for citizens attending board meetings

• Conflicts of interest within the district

In the scope of this investigation, the members of the 2000- 01 Grand Jury

• Reviewed the complaint

• Interviewed seven members of the boards of directors seated in 1998, 1999 and 2000

• Attended meetings of the board of directors

• Reviewed budgets of the district, minutes of meetings, as well as board resolutions

covering the past two years

• Reviewed the contract with former fire chief

• Reviewed attorney’s bills from December 1, 1998 to December 31, 2000

• Reviewed Statements of Economic Interest for the board members

∗ The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code § 54950 et seq., governs meetings conducted by local legislative

bodies, such as boards of supervisors, city councils, special districts and school boards. The purpose of the Act is

to ensure that the deliberations and actions of all local public bodies are performed at meetings open to the public

and to which the public has been given adequate notice. It is to prevent government from being conducted in

secret.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 22 Investigation of Complaint Concerning the

Board of Directors of Central Fire Protection District

Members of the Grand Jury also

• Requested but did not receive by- laws, policies and procedures, contracts with outside

consultants and professionals, official meeting notices, tapes of specified board

meetings, and ballots from secret balloting

This investigation was conducted without any participation by the former foreperson of this

2000- 01 Grand Jury who had a prior employment relationship with a fire protection district.

This juror voluntarily removed himself from the investigation and deliberations concerning

this report.

Findings

Complainant’s Allegations of Misappropriations of Funds

No evidence of misappropriation of funds was discovered.

The members of the Central Fire Protection District Board of Directors understood and

acknowledged their duty to protect taxpayers’ money.

Complainant’s Allegations of Brown Act Violations

The complainant sent a copy of the complaint to the district attorney. In the response dated

August 8, 2000, the district attorney chose not to investigate the alleged violations stating

“[ a] s for investigating past acts, it is extremely rare to pursue a Brown Act issue in the

criminal courts.”

During the interviews, board member responses demonstrated unfamiliarity with Brown Act

requirements.

The Grand Jury investigation of this complaint found some evidence of a Brown Act violation

by board members.

On two occasions, the board of directors voted to fill a board vacancy in open meetings by

secret ballot. One such example is recorded in the October 12, 1999 board meeting minutes: a

“… vote was taken by secret ballot…” without announcing board members’ individual votes

as required by the Brown Act.

Government Code § 54953( c) states:

“ No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or

final.”

Complainant’s Allegations of Lack of Respect for Citizens Attending

Board Meetings

Lack of respect for the public by board members was displayed on several occasions. One

example is recorded in the December 14, 1999 minutes in which a board member “ became

offended by a comment made by a member of the public in attendance, and called them a

bigot.” At the next meeting, the board member publicly apologized for the comment. This is

further described in the January 20, 2000 letter from the board to the county district attorney.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Investigation of Complaint Concerning the

Board of Directors of Central Fire Protection District Page 23

During interviews with the Grand Jury, directors admitted having made concerted efforts to

unnecessarily limit public participation and discourage public criticism of the board at open

meetings.

Government Code § 54954.3( c) states:

“ The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the

policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or the acts or

admissions of the legislative body…”

Complainant’s Allegations of Conflicts of Interest

According to the Political Reform Act of 1974, in order for a party to have a conflict of

interest, one party must have a personal economic interest in an action. No evidence

supported the complainant’s allegation of conflicts of interest during 1998, 1999 and 2000.

Nonetheless, interviews with the board members revealed several close personal relationships

that demonstrated favoritism and partiality. Some board members referred to these

relationships as “ conflicts of interest.”

Consultants

The Grand Jury found that there were no written contracts for consulting or professional

services.

Central Fire Protection District purchasing procedures specifically exempt consulting and

professional services from written contracts. The board of directors spent substantial sums of

money on consultants and professionals without benefit of soliciting proposals, bids or

obtaining written contracts. For example:

$ 11,812.39 Personnel testing, 9- 24- 1999 to 12- 9- 1999

20,360.11 Personnel negotiations, 11- 22- 1999 to 1- 3- 2000

93,589.29 Attorney’s bills, 12- 1- 1998 to 12- 31- 2000

$ 125,761.79 Total

The $ 93,589.29 billed by the attorney included 199 separate charges totaling $ 38,813.76

described only as “ PERSONNEL ISSUE.” In addition, none of the other itemized bills were

supported by detailed descriptions.

Members of the board approved expenditures without reviewing detailed bills from vendors,

consultants and providers of professional services.

Statements made by Board members during interviews with the Grand Jury members revealed

a lack of oversight of and direction to their consultants.

Consultants performed administrative as well as professional functions. A review of itemized

bills revealed that all functions were billed at professional rates.

The Grand Jury found that, on occasion, professional consultants hired by the board of

directors independently performed administrative functions without the knowledge of the

board. Some of these functions included personally delivering documents and responding to

correspondence from the Grand Jury intended for the board of directors.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 24 Investigation of Complaint Concerning the

Board of Directors of Central Fire Protection District

In Grand Jury interviews with board members, some directors implied they relied almost

exclusively and unquestioningly upon their attorney for legal and other information.

During interviews, some directors stated they thought if they sent out any request for

proposal, they would be required to accept the lowest bid submitted.

Other Findings

The Central Fire Protection District’s methods for recording minutes of board meetings did

not follow common practices that are intended to responsibly convey the actions of the board

to the public.

• The December 14, 1999 minutes did not clearly identify the director making motions,

the citizens quoted or the issues discussed.

• At the April 6, 1999 meeting, in the process of correcting the minutes of the prior

meeting, the board deleted the record of a motion that had been made and seconded at

the March 9, 1999 meeting. The minutes did not include the basis for the deletion.

The district’s board operates without written by- laws or comprehensive policies or procedures

that govern the administration of the district or its board. The district is governed by Health &

Safety Code, Part 2.7, Fire Protection District, Law of 1987, Section 13800 et seq. Section

13801, states:

“… it is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this part [ Fire Protection

District Laws] to provide a broad statutory authority for local officials. The

Legislature encourages local communities and their officials to adapt the

powers and procedures in this part to meet their own circumstances and

responsibilities.”

The complainant requested a copy of a tape recording made by the Fire Chief of the

November 11, 1999 board meeting. The Fire Chief was a district employee, serving as

secretary of the board, and seated at the board’s table while operating the tape recorder. The

complainant’s request for a copy of the tape recording was denied in a November 19, 1999

letter from the board, which stated that if the tape was made for personal use then it was not

district property.

At each meeting attended by grand jurors, the meeting was tape- recorded. Requests for tapes

of other board meetings by other members of the public were granted.

Government Code § 54953.5( b) states:

“ Any tape or film record of an open and public meeting made for whatever

purpose by or at the direction of the local agency shall be subject to inspection

pursuant to the California Public Records Act. … Any inspection of a video or

tape recording shall be provided without charge…”

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Investigation of Complaint Concerning the

Board of Directors of Central Fire Protection District Page 25

In an interview, one director stated that the district was not in compliance with the

requirements of the Public Records Act in that they had been charging too much for records

requested by the public. The director stated that the district is now in compliance with the

Public Records Act because they are no longer charging for record requests.

In an interview, one director stated that the district was “ stalling” when responding to public

requests for records.

Conclusions

Failure to apply customary purchasing procedures to consultants, professionals, services and

supplies, creates a lack of adequate safeguards to prevent mismanagement of funds.

When hiring consultants, the board did not request proposals because of their belief that they

had to accept the lowest bid received.

When there are no written contracts, board member review of all detailed bills is crucial.

Over the years, the board has relegated many of their responsibilities to consultants, which

results in relinquishing board duties to nonelected persons.

The Grand Jury questions the amount of money expended on consultants’ fees for routine

administrative and managerial tasks which could have been performed by employees, such as

the chief, assistant chief, battalion chiefs, or administrative assistants.

Some board members were reluctant to consider knowledge of the Brown Act as their

responsibility.

Based on letters and the facts available, the Grand Jury concluded tape recordings made by a

recording secretary for the board, a district employee seated at the board’s table, was a public

document and should have been made available to the public.

Lack of by- laws or other documented procedures for the governing board has fostered a

dependency on opinions rather than established policy.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 26 Investigation of Complaint Concerning the

Board of Directors of Central Fire Protection District

Recommendations

1. Board members should become educated on standard procurement practices and

procedures.

2. The board should revise its purchasing policy to include competitive bidding and other

standard safeguards for the following:

• professional services

• medical equipment or supplies

• insurance

• public utility services

3. Board members should not relinquish their responsibilities to nonelected individuals.

4. Board members should be aware of their responsibilities as a Special District’s Board

member, including knowledge of the Brown Act. Literature or training on the Brown Act

should be available to board members.

5. Minutes of board meetings should be thorough and accurate as to the identity of persons

speaking, directors’ identities and issues discussed. Minutes and tape recordings of all

meetings should be properly retained.

6. Tape recordings made at the direction of the district by directors, employees or

consultants of public meetings should be considered public record.

7. The board should adopt by- laws or policies for governing the Central Fire Protection

District.

Response Required

Entity Recommendations Respond Within

Central Fire Protection District

Board of Directors 1 – 7 90 Days

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Investigation of Complaint Concerning the

Board of Directors of Central Fire Protection District Page 27

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 28 Review of Santa Cruz County Fire Protection Services

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of Santa Cruz County Fire Protection Services Page 29

Review of Santa Cruz County Fire Protection Services

Background

Santa Cruz County is protected by fire protection services strategically located throughout the

county. Their primary functions are providing fire protection, first responder emergency medical

services, hazardous materials response and public fire safety education. In addition, they provide

a supporting foundation for community services and local social activities. ( See map and chart)

There are ten fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County, with independent governing bodies.

They provide services to Capitola, Scotts Valley and the unincorporated areas. The City of Santa

Cruz, the City of Watsonville and the University of California have their own fire departments.

This report excludes the University of California since it is under the jurisdiction of the State of

California.

The fire protection districts are:

1. Aptos- La Selva Beach

2. Aromas Tri- County

3. Ben Lomond

4. Boulder Creek

5. Branciforte

6. Central ( includes the City of Capitola)

7. Felton

8. Pajaro Valley

9. Scotts Valley ( the City of Scotts Valley and surrounding area)

10. Zayante

The County of Santa Cruz Fire Department and the Pajaro Dunes Fire Department ( County

Service Area # 4) provide the balance of the fire protection for Santa Cruz County. These two fire

departments contract with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ( CDFFP) to

operate their fire stations.

All fire protection services are funded primarily by property taxes.

The CDFFP operates thirteen fire stations in Santa Cruz County. These stations are staffed by

either career CDFFP firefighters, volunteer firefighters from the local area, or a combination of

career and volunteer firefighters. Fifty- five seasonal CDFFP firefighters are added during the

summer fire season. The CDFFP's main mission is wildland fire control. These stations respond

to such fires around the state and assist with countywide emergency incidents.

The CDFFP, in conjunction with the California Youth Authority, operates a Conservation Camp

on Empire Grade Road that supplies additional emergency personnel to assist the CDFFP,

County Fire Department and other fire protection departments in the county.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 30 Review of Santa Cruz County Fire Protection Services

Santa Cruz County

Fire Protection Services

For the year ended June 30, 2000

Fire Protection Services

Supplied by: Revenue

Salaries &

Other

Expenditures

Salaries as

a % of

Revenue

Paid

Staff

Reserve

Paid

Volun-teers

Total

Staff

Square

Miles

City Fire Departments

Santa Cruz * 4,916,029 4,496,155 91% 53.0 0.0 0.0 53.0 11

Watsonville * 2,873,703 2,587,131 90% 32.0 30.0 0.0 62.0 12

County Fire Districts

Aptos/ La Selva 4,911,627 3,818,311 78% 39.0 0.0 0.0 39.0 15

Aromas/ Tri- County 13,614 ** ** ** ** ** ** **

Ben Lomond 430,431 175,736 41% 2.5 0.0 26.0 28.5 7

Boulder Creek 519,931 193,267 37% 1.5 0.0 31.0 32.5 21

Branciforte 420,880 256,900 61% 4.0 0.0 20.0 24.0 7

Central Fire 7,006,792 5,347,777 77% 59.0 26.0 0.0 85.0 21

Felton 417,732 169,740 41% 2.0 0.0 28.0 30.0 7

Pajaro Valley/

Salsipuedes 1,192,465 916,013 77% 6.0 21.0 0.00 27.0 51

Scotts Valley 3,308,268 2,375,705 72% 28.0 25.0 0.0 53.0 22

Zayante 342,204 133,532 39% 4.0 0.0 31.0 35.0 15

County Fire Departments

County Fire Dept. 2,103,381 1,270,767 60% 39.0 0.0 116.0 155.0 250

Pajaro Dunes Fire 533,419 410,330 77% 5.0 8.0 0.0 13.0 2

Total County 28,990,476 22,151,364 76% 275.0 110.0 252.0 637.0 441

* For a city fire department, the revenues is assumed to be the same as the department’s expenses.

** This is a three county fire district. The majority of its revenues come from other counties.

Scope

The 2000- 01 Grand Jury reviewed the fire protection districts, the County Fire Department and

the Pajaro Dunes Fire Department ( County Service Area # 4).

In the scope of this review, the members of the 2000- 01 Grand Jury toured and conducted

interviews at

• Nine of the County’s fire protection districts

• Two County Fire Department stations

• Pajaro Dunes Fire Department ( County Service Area # 4)

• California Youth Authority Conservation Camp on Empire Grade Road

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of Santa Cruz County Fire Protection Services Page 31

The Grand Jury also reviewed

• Annual budgets of each fire protection district, city fire departments and the county fire

departments

• Policies and procedures of nine fire protection districts, two county fire stations and the

Pajaro Dunes Fire Department

Findings

1. The Grand Jury found that the facilities and equipment at the fire stations were well

maintained.

2. Most of the fire departments train together and respond to emergencies using mutual aid that

employs the “ closest to the incident” policy, which means the nearest firefighting resource

will respond regardless of district boundaries. See Map.

3. Consistent with most fire departments around the nation, only about 10% of the emergency

calls are fire related. The remaining 90% of the emergency calls are

• Medical

• Vehicle accidents with trapped or injured persons

• Other rescue services

• Hazardous material spills

• Vehicle or residence lock outs involving infants or elderly persons.

4. Each fire service within the County of Santa Cruz has programs that teach children fire

prevention and safety. The CDFFP has it's “ Smokey the Bear” program, which it shares with

other departments. Some departments use “ Sparky” the dog in their programs. All of these

programs are designed to teach children the following:

• Not to play with fire

• How to report a fire if they see one in their neighborhood

• How to escape their home should it catch on fire

• How to “ stop, drop and roll” should their or someone else’s clothes catch on fire

• The importance of smoke detectors, and maintaining them

• How to reduce fire hazards in their homes

5. The fire protection services also have available two “ burn trailers”. These are designed to

simulate fires in the home and children can actually practice preventing fires as well as

escaping from a burning home. The Scotts Valley Fire Protection District owns one of these

burn trailers and the Zayante Fire Protection District owns the other. One of these simulation

trailers is usually on display at the Santa Cruz County Fair each year.

6. All but two of the fire protection services in the county use volunteer firefighters. Some fire

protection departments are almost exclusively supported by volunteer firefighters, with the

exception of the Chief and one or two other staff.

7. According to newly enacted Regulations of the California Code a minimum of four

firefighters, “ two- in, two- out”, are required at the scene of a structure fire before firefighters

may enter a burning structure. This requirement does not apply where there is an imminent

threat to persons inside the structure. Some of the fire protection departments in the County

do not have the firefighter staff to satisfy the “ two- in, two- out” requirement.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 32 Review of Santa Cruz County Fire Protection Services

8. The following were found to be fire service obstacles common to all fire protection services,

and therefore serve as the basis for many of the public education and public awareness

campaigns waged by them. The education and awareness campaigns stress

• Maintaining a safe zone of 30 feet to 100 feet around homes free from flammable

vegetation

• Private roads be

@ cleared of brush

@ clear of low hanging branches

@ wide enough to accommodate fire engines

• Post bridges with the maximum allowable weight limit

• Post addresses to ensure visibility from the street

• Multiple homes sharing a common private road, where the addresses are clustered at

the entrance, should post each address again at the entrance to each property

• Roofs and rain gutters should be cleared of flammable debris

• Spark arrestors should be installed on all chimneys

• Water sources such as pools and water storage tanks must be close enough to the

house to be useful

• Lack of adequate turn- around space for a fire engine

9. Application of Compressed Air Foam uses minimal water, resulting in hoses being lighter

and more easily managed, and reducing the amounts of water required to be trucked to

remote areas. The use of foam on a structure fire reduces the amount of water damage to the

structure and contents.

10. The Santa Cruz County Fire Chiefs Association is an active association that promotes

cooperation among the various firefighting services. In addition to the fire chiefs, the

membership includes associate members from the cooperating fire service agencies such as

ambulance service providers, helicopter transport providers, the County’s Emergency

Medical Service Agency ( EMS) and Cabrillo College. The Santa Cruz County Fire Chiefs

Association

• Conducts meetings at regular intervals to discuss matters pertinent to county- wide fire

service issues

• Promotes uniformity of the fire service throughout the county

• Provides a medium of exchange of information and ideas among fire service

personnel

• Develops and coordinates solutions to fire service problems that are common

throughout the county

• Promotes the general welfare of the public and the fire service

11. The Fire Chiefs Association has an operations section that performs countywide training,

which

• Promotes uniformity of training and operations

• Maintains, manages and improves mutual aid and automatic aid programs between

agencies

• Develops mutual training and drills

• Develops solutions to common operational problems

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of Santa Cruz County Fire Protection Services Page 33

12. In accordance with a revenue sharing policy adopted in 1978 by the Santa Cruz County

Board of Supervisors, the unincorporated area fire protection services receive a distribution

of Proposition 172 funds for projects or items of benefit which have been recommended by

the Santa Cruz County Fire Chiefs Association. This annual distribution is equivalent to

twelve percent of the growth in Proposition 172 revenue. For fiscal year 2001- 02, the Fire

Chiefs Association plans to use these funds as follows:

• 70% for training and training facility needs

• 15% for communication system upgrades

• 10% for fire prevention activities

• 5% for development of special teams ( hazardous materials, confined space rescue, etc.)

13. Some fire protection districts with limited resources have devised creative ways to increase

their ability to provide services and to augment their annual revenues. For example, one fire

protection district contracted with an ambulance service to house its ambulance and the

paramedic staff, in exchange for rental income, cross training, night security and extra office

assistance. Others hold pancake breakfasts and other community based fundraisers.

14. Volunteer firefighting programs provide introductory training and other opportunities to

people who want to make firefighting their career or assist their community. When a fire

department has an opening for a paid firefighter, it is usually filled from the ranks of the

volunteer firefighters.

Conclusions

The budgets in some fire protection districts are too small to provide for a paid firefighter staff.

Without volunteer firefighters in these areas, there would be inadequate fire protection.

Volunteer firefighters as well as paid firefighters should be acknowledged for their valuable

service to the community.

To comply with the new law requirements of “ two- in, two- out” in fighting structure fires,

firefighters must wait until additional firefighters arrive at the scene before entering a structure.

This increases the possibility of losing a structure or human life if a person is unable to make

their presence known to the firefighters.

Recommendations

1. The Board of Supervisors should fund a countywide firefighting training facility that

provides fire departments with “ live structure fire” drills and standardize procedures.

2. Each fire protection service should explore the feasibility of Compressed Air Foam Systems.

Under certain circumstances, this system could be a valuable tool in fighting some fires.

Response Required

Entity Recommendations Respond Within

Board of Supervisors 1, 2 90 Days

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 34 Review of Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District

Review of Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District

Background

The Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District ( BCR& PD) is a small, limited- purpose district

created by citizens prior to 1958. The 2000- 01 budget lists $ 162,984.00 in total revenues and

$ 175,729.10 in total expenditures. The district currently employs a full- time General Manager, a

part- time maintenance person, and three recreation/ teen leaders who work a combined total of

less than 20 hours per week.

The Recreation and Park District serves residents of 5,720 homes in and around the mountain

town of Boulder Creek. It is governed by five elected directors. The current board of directors is

comprised of three incumbents and one new member voted in at the November 2000 election.

One vacancy exists as a result of the death of a newly elected director. A new member was to

have been appointed at the May 2, 2001 meeting.

The 1997- 98 and 1999- 00 Grand Juries received complaints concerning the Boulder Creek

Recreation and Park District.

Scope

Between September 2000 and May 2001, members of the Grand Jury attended six regular

meetings and one special meeting of the BCR& PD Board of Directors. The fieldwork for this

report was completed on June 1, 2001.

The Grand Jury reviewed the following:

• BCR& PD agendas and minutes of the board of director meetings, February 2, 2000 to

February 7, 2001

• BCR& PD Policy and Procedures Manual

• BCR& PD job descriptions

• Letter of intent to resign from an incumbent director, November 3, 2000

• Letter of response regarding letter of intent to resign from BCR& PD legal counsel,

December 15, 2000

• 1997- 98 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Final Report

• 1999- 00 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Final Report

• BCR& PD audited financial statements

• Santa Cruz County Statement of Vote, November 7, 2000

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District Page 35

Findings

1. The Grand Jury found that complaints to previous grand juries regarding BCR& PD were

specific to the manner in which the board conducts its business.

2. The current Grand Jury has observed behavior on the part of some board members and

former board members that was typically rancorous, divisive and many times insulting. This

follows similar findings by the 1997- 98 and the 1999- 00 Grand Juries.

3. At many board meetings, members of the audience were frequently out of order, making loud

comments that were inappropriate, disruptive and, occasionally, insulting.

4. Three special meetings were held to fill the vacant board seat: May 2, May 16 and May 31,

2001. Although there were four to five nominees at each meeting, the board deadlocked on

each nominee and failed to appoint a new board member. One of the nominees received the

highest number of votes of the runners- up in the November 2000 general election.

5. According to differing legal opinions, the BCR& PD Board has either 30 days or 60 days

after notification to replace the absent director. The BCR& PD Board may fill the vacancy by

appointing a new director by a majority of sitting board members or calling for a special

election at a cost of approximately $ 15,000. Otherwise, the Santa Cruz County Board of

Supervisors becomes the appointing body.

6. The Policies and Procedures Manual has been partially updated during regular meetings of

the board of directors. Updated policies and procedures were not included with the Policies

and Procedures Manual.

7. Between February 2, 2000 and February 7, 2001, the agendas for the board meetings carried

up to 40 items listed as “ unfinished business.” Meetings commenced at 7: 30 and frequently

ran to 10: 30 p. m. or later. During this period of time, nine special meetings were held in an

attempt to complete unfinished business.

8. According to the May 3, 2000 minutes, a motion was passed limiting public input to two

minutes for initial input and one minute for rebuttal.

9. According to the minutes, the June 14, 2000 special meeting was adjourned after two of four

directors walked out 35 minutes into the meeting. The minutes did not reflect the reason for

their departure.

10. On November 3, 2000, four days before the election, one of the incumbent directors mailed a

letter of resignation. Although this letter is listed in “ Correspondence” in both the December

agenda and minutes, no further information or discussion is noted regarding this matter. The

January 3, 2001 minutes record unanimous passage by the four directors present to declare

that there was no vacancy on the board at that time. The director who sent the letter of intent

to resign continues to serve on the board as of June 1, 2001.

This letter addressed to the general manager stated, in part, “[ o] ver the last month we have

had several discussions about my thoughts concerning the possible resignation of my position

as a Director of BCR& PD… Thank you for keeping this information confidential while I was

coming to a final decision.” The letter goes on to state that the director would officially

resign on December 6, 2000. The letter also states the general manager might provide copies

of the letter to other directors after the November election results had been posted.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 36 Review of Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District

11. The incumbent director who wrote the letter of intent to resign did not vacate his seat in

January 2001. At the direction of the board, the general manager requested clarification from

the BCR& PD legal counsel regarding whether the letter constituted an actual resignation

with a resulting vacant seat on the board. In response the legal counsel for the BCR& PD

stated that although the resignation letter was on the agenda for the meeting of December 6,

2000, the meeting was adjourned before the item was called, and therefore the letter of intent

to resign was never officially delivered by the director.

12. After December 6, 2000, the six committees of the district no longer reported to the board.

However there was no discussion for this lack of committee input in the minutes. At the

March 7, 2001 board meeting it was stated that there were no longer any functioning

committees.

13. Official minutes of the board meetings are brief, sometimes incomplete and difficult to

follow as they may vary in format from month to month. The February 17, 2000 special

meeting, which was subsequently cancelled, listed 38 items to be acted upon in numerical

order, yet in the minutes of the March 1, 2000 special meeting the actions taken on these

items are listed using the alphabet, including the use of double letters. This makes cross-reference

extremely difficult and time- consuming.

14. Minutes of the board meetings received by the Grand Jury did not contain attachments that

were referred to in the minutes.

15. Job descriptions for the BCR& PD are not uniform in format. Some job descriptions are

inadequate and lack basic information regarding the jobs. One job description contains

inappropriate information such as committee findings. The job description for the general

manager is adequate and in an accepted format, however has not been approved by the board.

16. According to the Policies and Procedures Manual, the BCR& PD general manager shall

receive a performance evaluation annually. Her most recent evaluation was in December

1996. A special meeting in closed session was scheduled May 17, 2000 for review of the

general manager’s job performance and goal setting. This meeting was subsequently

cancelled and not rescheduled.

17. Members of the 2000- 01Grand Jury attended board meetings where derogatory remarks were

made by one director regarding the general manager’s job performance.

18. The BCR& PD operated at a loss for fiscal year 2000- 01. This shortfall was covered by

district reserves.

19. Of 6,136 voters registered within Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District, 4,633 voted on

November 7, 2000 in the BCR& PD board of director’s election. This represents greater than

75% voter turnout.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District Page 37

Conclusions

Some incumbent directors demonstrate ill will towards each other that impedes their ability to

cooperate. This has had a negative impact on the ability of the district to move ahead with a

number of proposed projects, including such simple projects as painting a four square court or

hopscotch on asphalt.

The lack of a current, comprehensive Policies and Procedures Manual, to which the directors and

the general manager adhere, has fostered an atmosphere of extreme animosity at the board

meetings. This contributes to endless discussions at board meetings.

Updating and editing policies and procedures at meetings of the board of directors is poor

utilization of meeting time and is an impediment to handling the business of the district. This

approach to updating the policies and procedures has created agendas with an unwieldy amount

of unfinished business, most of which is related to changes in policies or procedures.

Compilation of updated policies and procedures has been haphazard and there is no way to know

what changes have been made.

The general manager’s ability to perform is impeded by the lack of an approved job description

and the absence of annual performance evaluations. This has intensified the ill will between

directors who feel the job is being performed adequately and those who feel it is not.

The letter of intent to resign by an incumbent director was made public immediately after

election results were posted in November 2000. The Grand Jury questions the timing of this

action. This letter states that the general manager withheld knowledge of the incumbent’s intent

to resign from the other directors. When this letter was made public, the fact that the general

manager had known of the intent to resign was revealed, which gave the appearance of

impropriety on the part of both the incumbent director and the general manager. This further

undermined the relationship between the general manager and the other directors.

Limitation of the public at the podium on any one agenda item has improved the ability of the

board to move ahead in meetings.

Recommendations

1. The BCR& PD should have a comprehensive, updated Policies and Procedures Manual.

2. Current job descriptions for all employment positions should be available in concise,

organized formats and be approved by the board of directors.

3. The general manager should receive a performance evaluation on an annual basis.

4. Members of the board of directors should look beyond their differences and attend to the

district business.

5. To fill the BCR& PD vacancy, the Board of Supervisors should immediately appoint a new

director.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 38 Review of Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District

Response Required

Entity Recommendations Respond Within

Board of Supervisors 5 90 Days

Boulder Creek Recreation &

Park District Board of Directors 1 – 4 90 Days

County of Santa Cruz

Schools and Libraries

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of the Organization and Structure of

Site Councils in Santa Cruz County Public Schools Page 39

Review of the Organization and Structure of

Site Councils in Santa Cruz County Public Schools

Background

The School Site Council Handbook from the California Department of Education states “ The

basic principle underlying the establishment of the School Site Council ( SSC) is that those

individuals who are most affected by the operation of their school should have a major role in

the decisions regarding how their school functions. This involvement occurs through the

development of a school improvement plan.”

School site councils are campus- based groups composed of parents and community

members, teachers, other school personnel, school administrators and students at the high

school level.

According to the School Site Council Handbook the School Improvement Plan ( SIP), the

School- based Coordination Program ( SBCP) and the Motivation and Maintenance Program

( MMP) were established in 1977, 1981 and 1985, respectively. They were envisioned as

ways to increase school- wide effectiveness, improve student achievements, and better

prepare students to be productive workers and responsible citizens. These programs require a

school site council as a condition for receiving and expending supplemental funds.

Approximately 75% of all public schools in California have one or more of these programs.

Scope

The Grand Jury reviewed the organization and structure of school site councils in Santa Cruz

County public schools.

The review included the following:

• All California Education Code sections pertaining to school site councils

• Interview with County Superintendent of Schools

• Interviews and a panel discussion with three principals

• Two Grand Jury surveys of school site councils. The Grand Jury designed and wrote

two surveys for distribution to principals and chairpersons of school site councils at

all Santa Cruz County public schools. One version was sent to 58 principals and the

other was sent to 58 chairpersons. Questionnaires were returned by 35 principals and

28 chairpersons.

• Attendance at several school site council meetings

• Attendance at a site council training session

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 40 Review of the Organization and Structure of

Site Councils in Santa Cruz County Public Schools

Findings

1. School site councils are authorized under State Education Codes.

2. Education Code § 52012 states, “ A school site council shall be established at each school

that participates in the school improvement program authorized by this chapter. The

council shall be composed of the principal and representatives of: teachers selected by

teachers at the school; other school personnel selected by other school personnel at the

school; parents of pupils attending the school selected by such parents; and, in secondary

school, pupils selected by pupils attending the school.” It also states the council shall be

constituted to ensure parity between school personnel and parents/ students.

3. Education Code § 52012 states that the term and method of selection and replacement

shall be specified in the school improvement plan. It also states that the Superintendent of

Public Instruction shall provide examples of selection and replacement procedures that

may be considered by school site councils.

4. Education Code § 52011 states that the district governing board shall provide each

principal with information regarding SIP and site councils and ensure that the information

is provided to teachers, other school personnel, parents and in secondary schools, pupils.

5. Education Code § 52034( c) states that the school district governing boards should adopt

policies regarding the responsibilities of school site councils and establish

communication procedures to ensure reasonable opportunities for each council or its

representatives to meet with the governing body.

6. Specifications for site council membership are inconsistent within the statutes. For

example, according to Education Code § 52012 and § 52852, SSC “ shall be composed of

parents of pupils attending the school selected by such parents.” Later these same codes

define this segment of the site council members as “ parents or other community members

selected by parents.”

7. Education Code § 52870 states, “ It is the intent of the State Legislature that, to the extent

possible, the members of the school site council represent the composition of the school's

pupil population.”

8. As set forth in the Education Code, the School Improvement Plan and the School Based

Coordinated Program receive numerous reviews resulting in approval or disapproval at

the levels of site council, district governing body, and the State Board of Education. In

addition, by statute, the principal is responsible for ongoing administration of the plan,

and the district superintendent must, upon request, assist with the design and

implementation of the plan.

9. The Education Code did not reveal any requirements for oversight of the school site

council as a body.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of the Organization and Structure of

Site Councils in Santa Cruz County Public Schools Page 41

10. Process for nominating parents varied among schools responding. For example, responses

from principals included:

• “ Membership seems to be for anyone who asks up until the number of parents is

met.”

• “ We have a table at Open House in spring with educational materials and encourage

people to nominate themselves.”

• “ Interested parents self- select to run for site council seats.”

11. The use of a nominating committee, a standard election practice, was not mentioned in

any of the responses from site council chairpersons.

12. Twenty percent of the chairpersons’ responses stated they had received a personal

invitation to serve on the site council.

13. Some principals stated that it was sometimes difficult to get enough parents to serve on

site councils. Other principals enjoyed an ample number of volunteers for the required

parent seats with additional volunteers to act as alternates.

14. Survey results indicated that the three most widely used methods in the election process

were:

• ballots returned by parents and students

• hand vote at a meeting

• ballots placed in a secure ballot box

15. Survey results indicated that 18 different methods were used to count ballots. The most

common counting methods were:

• by principal and secretary

• by projects coordinator

• by staff and site council

• by a show of hands or a ballot vote at meeting

16. Of 63 respondents ( 35 Principals and 28 Chairpersons) only 21 reported using more than

one method of encouraging individuals to join their school site council.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 42 Review of the Organization and Structure of

Site Councils in Santa Cruz County Public Schools

17. Respondents were given the opportunity to indicate which method of communication was

used. Six options included:

• school newsletter

• local newspaper

• back to school night

• school bulletin

• student

• other

Some schools used more than one option. Methods were as follows:

Communication Method Frequency

School Newsletter 42

Back to School Night 25

School Bulletin 16

18. Communication methods not widely used were:

• A marquee at the front of the school

• A flyer

• Word of mouth

• A notice to parents hand- carried during child’s pick- up

• A parent newsletter

• A faculty newsletter

• At PTA meetings

19. Use of a local newspaper to encourage SSC membership was not indicated on any

surveys.

20. After the formation of the SSC, the chairperson’s communications with parents showed a

wider variety of communication techniques.

Communication Method Frequency

School Newsletter 16

Meetings 4

School Bulletin 6

21. According to the School Site Council Handbook, “ After the SSC is first formed or new

members are selected to ongoing councils, the school/ district should provide training and

ongoing in- service to the members to assist them in carrying out their responsibilities.

The training provided to the SSC should be on a regular basis, and the training should be

appropriate to the tasks at hand.” Training is not being provided to all site councils in

Santa Cruz County.

22. In the committee’s interview with the County Superintendent of Schools, it was stated

“ We are now looking at doing training for participants.”

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of the Organization and Structure of

Site Councils in Santa Cruz County Public Schools Page 43

23. Upon request, training support is available through the County Office of Education.

24. Survey responses revealed that in many cases parity between school personnel and

parent/ student representatives was not achieved. Parity was reported by18 of 31

principals and 5 of 16 chairpersons.

25. Respondents stated that Hispanics and other minorities in many communities are under

represented on school site councils.

26. Some of the methods used to count votes have the appearance of impropriety. While

appearance does not constitute wrongdoing, it can still undermine the integrity of the

voting process.

Conclusions

Communication to parents and the local community regarding the school site council, and

nominations in particular, needs to be improved.

Even though it is not required by education code, nominations to fill seats on site councils

should be conducted in accordance with democratic principles.

Security of the voting process is non- existent in some schools.

• A secured ballot box is not utilized at each school.

• Some parents are eliminated from the voting process by missing an election meeting.

• Votes returned by students may get lost in transit or misplaced.

• Voting process should be established in accordance with democratic procedures.

Training should be provided annually to the school site councils.

School site councils are not adequately publicized.

Too much dependence is placed on the school newsletter for communication.

Most schools indicated that they had difficulty obtaining new SSC members.

Participation greatly contributes to the success of a school site council; therefore, in order to

stimulate interest, more creative efforts should be used.

While the Education Code provides for specific oversight of school plans, it is ambiguous

regarding the structure and organization of school site councils.

Recommendations

1. The educational community needs to communicate to the public the importance of site

councils in the improvement of schools. A greater variety of communication methods

should be used including “ person- to- person,” press releases, local newspapers, radio

stations, cable access and local television stations.

2. School site councils should use mass media communication techniques to publicize its

nomination and election process.

3. The County Office of Education should provide, at school district’s request, press

releases and distribution methods for publicizing school site councils.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 44 Review of the Organization and Structure of

Site Councils in Santa Cruz County Public Schools

4. Special emphasis in the nomination process should be communicated to Hispanic and

other minority parents in the school's community to ensure fair demographic

representation of student population on site councils.

5. School site councils should create nominating committees charged with seeking out new

members and ensuring all parents gain knowledge about the school site council functions.

6. School site councils by- laws should clearly define and implement the nomination and

election process for membership on the site council including a formal vote counting

process.

7. School site councils should consider expanding voting opportunity via mail, phone, fax or

e- mail.

8. A centralized training and follow- up program should be provided on a regular basis.

9. School administrators should become fully acquainted with all sections of the Education

Code pertaining to school site councils.

10. Parents and community residents should be made aware of the great value provided by

school site councils.

11. Schools need to ensure parity among school personnel and parent/ student representatives

in the composition of its school site council membership.

12. Schools need to improve representation in the school site council to reflect the

demographic characteristics of the school population.

Responses Required

Entity Recommendations Respond Within

Santa Cruz County Office of Education 3 60 Days

Bonny Doon Union Elementary 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 60 Days

Happy Valley Elementary 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 60 Days

Live Oak School District 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 60 Days

Mountain Elementary 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 60 Days

Pacific Elementary 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 60 Days

Pajaro Valley Unified School District 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 60 Days

San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 60 Days

Santa Cruz City School District 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 60 Days

Scotts Valley Unified School District 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 60 Days

Soquel Union Elementary School District 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 60 Days

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of Educational Services Available to

Homeless Children in Santa Cruz County Schools Page 45

Review of Educational Services Available to

Homeless Children in Santa Cruz County Schools

Background

Problems concerning homeless individuals and families continue to have the attention of

public schools, city governments, county government, health service agencies, religious

groups, social agencies and others in Santa Cruz County. As the number of homeless

increases so do the intensity and extensiveness of their problems.

According to the United Way survey, Santa Cruz County Homeless 2000, published in July

2000 it was estimated that over 8,558 persons experience homelessness in Santa Cruz in a

given year. In 1990, the average number of homeless at any given time was 1,187; in 2000,

the number had increased to 3,293. This figure is an increase of almost 200% in Santa Cruz

County over the last decade. More than one half of the homeless adults interviewed in the

United Way survey have children. Of those who have children, nearly two- thirds ( 63%) have

more than one child, and nearly one- third ( 31%) have more than two children. It is also

believed that due to privacy issues and the elusiveness of homeless individuals, the number of

homeless youth in the County is undercounted. 1

3293

1187

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1999 2000

Average Number of Homeless in Santa Cruz County

In a survey conducted by the Santa Cruz County Office of Education it was found that 1,907

children, 4.75% of the number of students enrolled in Santa Cruz County public schools, are

homeless. Homeless children are living in shelters, doubled up with other families, in motels,

on the beach, in transitional housing, in cars, tents or campers or are on their own. 2

By law, they are entitled to have access to the same free appropriate public education

provided to other children and youths. They are to be mainstreamed in the school environment

and are to have an opportunity to meet the same performance standards as other students.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 46 Review of Educational Services Available to

Homeless Children in Santa Cruz County Schools

Scope

It was the task of the Grand Jury to review the public schools in Santa Cruz County to see if

they were following laws pertaining to educating homeless children.

The investigation included the following:

• The publication entitled Santa Cruz County Homeless 2000, Census and Needs

Assessment Comprehensive Report provided by the United Way of Santa Cruz was

reviewed with a special emphasis on the needs of homeless children.

• Also reviewed was the publication entitled Enrolling Students Living in Homeless

Situations published by the California Department of Education in 1999. It provided

an overview of what can be done to help the children of homeless achieve the

academic standards all children in California are expected to meet.

• The publication entitled Homeless Education Program which focused on homeless

children in school and what teachers can do to help alleviate the problems they

experience was reviewed.

• Interviews with the Coordinator of Student Support Services for the Santa Cruz

County Office of Education, and the School Community Liaison and Secondary

School Social Worker for Santa Cruz City School District.

• The City of Santa Cruz Homeless Issues Task Force Final Report was reviewed.

• The Santa Cruz County Office of Education’s School Survey About Homeless

Children was reviewed.

Findings

1. Federal and State laws pertain directly to educating homeless children.

The California Education Code Section 48200 requires persons six to eighteen years of

age to attend school. The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act ( Public Law

100- 77, subtitle VIIB, Education for Homeless Children and Youth, Section 721) sets

forth the following policy:

• Each state educational agency shall ensure that homeless children have access to

the same free, appropriate public education provided to other children and youths.

• States shall review and revise laws, practices, regulations, and policies such as

compulsory residency requirements, which act as barriers to the enrollment,

attendance, and success of homeless children and youths in schools.

• Homelessness alone should not be a sufficient reason to separate students from the

mainstream school environment.

• Homeless children and youths should have access to education and other services

that are needed to ensure they have an opportunity to meet the same challenging

performance standards as other students. 3

2. There is no distinction made in the county schools between students from residences and

those who are homeless. All students are “ mainstreamed” in schools in Santa Cruz

County. They are not identified as “ homeless” to their peer group. 4

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of Educational Services Available to

Homeless Children in Santa Cruz County Schools Page 47

3. Two schools in the County serve homeless youth. One is privately funded and the other is

a community school operated by the County Office of Education, serving primarily

homeless youth.

4. Homeless children have access to public schools in Santa Cruz County.

5. Homeless children receive a free public education in Santa Cruz County.

6. Homeless children have the opportunity and are expected to meet the same performance

standards as other students.

7. When possible, the County Office of Education makes an in- take assessment of homeless

children. They get background information on the family and the children. They find out

what school they are attending and make contact with the teachers. Using Maslow’s

Hierarchy of Needs they determine which needs are being met and which are unfulfilled.

This assessment is shared with the family while confidentiality is protected. 4

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

8. Contact between the County Office of Education, Santa Cruz City School District and

homeless children is made from direct referrals from various County agencies, counselors,

teachers, and other school personnel. The liaison will go to where the homeless child is

staying to make the initial contact. 4

9. “ Bridge to Success” is the name of the County Office of Education Homeless Program. Its

policy is not to identify, stigmatize, segregate or otherwise alienate these children. The

County Office of Education wants the children to remain anonymous; therefore,

confidentiality is protected. Every effort is made not to single out homeless children. 4

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 48 Review of Educational Services Available to

Homeless Children in Santa Cruz County Schools

10. The following services are offered to homeless children in Santa Cruz County4,5:

• One- on- one tutoring: 16 UCSC students, recruited and trained by the County

Office of Education, work as tutors.

• In- class academic support: Tutors assist teachers as classroom aids up to three

days a week at elementary schools. They assist the homeless children as well as

other students in the class.

• Outreach and coordination of services: They work with an extended network of

child protective services, shelters, churches and other outreach agencies. There are

over 150 agencies working with the homeless.

• Case management: They keep rather extensive reports of the young people

receiving direct services. They include outcomes, how they are doing in school,

anecdotal notes, report cards and reports from tutors.

• Outreach to homeless runaway youth: The County Office of Education

coordinates a multi- disciplinary team to support youths living on the street. The

team consists of a number of County agencies that provide services such as

shelters, meals, substance abuse, counseling, and mental and medical care services.

• Counseling services: They provide one- on- one, family, drug and alcohol and life

skills counseling.

• Transportation: The County Office of Education provides bus passes and

linkages to other transportation services.

• Parent support: The liaison person meets with parents initially and then in

follow- up sessions.

• Staff development and heightening awareness presentations: Seminars and

workshops are presented to teachers, administrators and others outlining special

needs of homeless children.

• Skills training: Adolescent life skills coaching and peer support groups for

homeless teens.

• Supplies: The County Office of Education provides backpacks, shoes, school

supplies and other materials necessary for success in school.

• Enrollment assistance: Schools assist children with “ Declarations of Residency”

forms and permanent record retrieval.

• Medical and dental referral: Children with health problems are referred by a

school nurse for available medical services.

• Job placement: Schools refer teenagers who are seeking work experience.

• Transferring schools: Students transferring to different schools receive

assistance.

11. Both the County Office of Education and the Santa Cruz City School District have

solicited additional funds and materials from the community to augment the McKinney

Grant.

12. The Santa Cruz County Office of Education was commended for running a “ model”

program by the National Coalition for Education for Homeless Children and Youth. They

have also received commendation from the Federal Document of Promising Practices for

Educating Homeless Youth.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of Educational Services Available to

Homeless Children in Santa Cruz County Schools Page 49

13. The greatest challenge is “ finding the children,” was stated by Jo Ann Allen. If the parents

do not enroll the children in school or if they are not referred by local homeless agencies,

the children may never attend school. Children who need counseling often find it difficult

to attend sessions. Further training is required for educators, administrators and staff to

identify homeless children.

14. Funding for this homeless program has come in the form of a yearly grant from the

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. It is a federal program that provides

“ seed” money for lead agencies around the country to set up homeless education

programs. As with other “ seed” money grants, it is designed to get successful programs

started that will eventually develop other sources of funding. Although the County Office

of Education has received this grant for 12 years, it was uncertain the grant would

continue. To ensure the flow of funds to Santa Cruz County, the County Office of

Education recommended that the Santa Cruz City School District apply for the grant as

the lead agency.

15. The McKinney Grant of $ 150,000 per year was awarded in late October to the Santa Cruz

City School District for a period of three years.

The Santa Cruz County Office of Education will continue to be involved in the program as

a contractor. The expertise they have developed will still be available to all the public

school districts in the County. The grant provides funds to employ an Educational

Resource Coordinator.

16. The goal is to have all school districts in the County set up their own programs. The

increasing numbers of homeless children have been a factor in this decentralization of

leadership.

17. The Santa Cruz City School District is now the lead agency with the County Office of

Education serving as a contractor. Santa Cruz City School District has hired a new

program administrator who works closely with the homeless liaison from the County

Office of Education.

18. The County Office of Education is still working with all schools districts in the county in

improving enrollment procedures, providing bus passes, maintaining a donation account,

conducting their yearly homeless children survey and providing tutors.

19. Other School Districts are encouraged to set up their homeless education program to meet

special needs of their own students.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 50 Review of Educational Services Available to

Homeless Children in Santa Cruz County Schools

Conclusions

The Santa Cruz County Office of Education has demonstrated leadership for developing a

model Homeless K- 12 Education Program in California. They have done an outstanding job

of assisting homeless children in Santa Cruz County.

The Grand Jury applauds Jo Anne Allen for her work in developing this model program. After

12 years in the program, Ms. Allen has become the leading authority and local and national

spokesperson on educating homeless children. Her enthusiasm, knowledge, and leadership

have played a paramount role in the success of this program.

Community agencies helping homeless families in Santa Cruz County deserve credit for their

financial and human services support for the County Office of Education and homeless

children these last 12 years.

Recommendations

1. It is recommended that each school district within the county maintain the same level and

quality of support for homeless children as has been provided by the County Office of

Education. It is further recommended that the spirit by which that office helped homeless

children be carried over in the decentralization process.

2. Each school district should develop programs that will meet the challenges of identifying

homeless children within their designated boundaries.

3. Each school district should develop a plan to meet the special counseling needs of

homeless children.

4. Each school district should develop a training program that trains its component groups to

identify homeless children and understand the special needs of these children.

5. Each school district should continue to protect the confidentiality of homeless children.

6. The County Office of Education should support the school districts within the county by

training staff members and administrators in establishing their district homeless programs

and making them successful.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of Educational Services Available to

Homeless Children in Santa Cruz County Schools Page 51

Response Required

Entity Recommendations Respond Within

Bonny Doon Union Elementary 2 - 5 60 Days

Happy Valley Elementary 2 - 5 60 Days

Live Oak School District 2 - 5 60 Days

Mountain Elementary 2 - 5 60 Days

Pacific Elementary 2 - 5 60 Days

Pajaro Valley Unified School District 2 - 5 60 Days

San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District 2 - 5 60 Days

Santa Cruz City School District 2 - 5 60 Days

Scotts Valley Unified School District 2 - 5 60 Days

Soquel Union Elementary School District 2 - 5 60 Days

County Office of Education 6 60 Days

Sources:

1 Santa Cruz County Homeless 2000, Census and Needs Assessment Comprehensive Report, United Way

sponsor, Survey conducted by Applied Survey Research, July 2000.

2 School Survey about Homeless Children prepared by the Santa Cruz County Office of Education and

distributed to schools within Santa Cruz County, March 2000.

3 Enrolling Students Living in Homeless Situations, California Department of Education, Sacramento,

CA, 1999.

4 Interview with Jo Ann Allen, Coordinator of Student Support Services, Santa Cruz County Office of

Education, October 18, 2000.

5 Interview with Vicki Downing, School Community Liaison for the Santa Cruz City School District and

Patricia Schroeder, Secondary School Social Worker, April 3, 2001.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 52 Review of Educational Services Available to

Homeless Children in Santa Cruz County Schools

This page intentionally left blank.

County of Santa Cruz

Health and Human Services

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Review of Health Care Services for

Low- Income Families in Santa Cruz County Page 53

Review of Health Care Services for

Low- Income Families in Santa Cruz County

Background

Under state law, county government is responsible for providing medical care for indigent

residents. The extent of this responsibility has never been set forth in precise terms by the

state legislature.

In recent years, the cost of medical care has soared far above the Consumer Price Index. In

response, federal and state governments have enacted a profusion of categorical health

programs that have an impact on county governments. Categorical health programs target

defined classes of vulnerable people, specific health conditions and diseases. Among the

groups affected are poor individuals and families, the disabled and the aged. These programs

have had the effect of providing significant financial assistance to county governments, which

lack a tax base of sufficient size to meet the rising cost of health care for indigent persons.

County matching funds for categorical programs range from fifteen to twenty percent of total

costs. County government is mandated to operate these programs in conformity with state and

federal regulations.

Medicaid accompanied the passage of Medicare in the mid- sixties. At state option, these

programs provide significant federal assistance for the care of indigent families and

individuals. The larger, more populous states, like California, jumped at the opportunity

permitted in the law to provide extremely comprehensive benefits to eligible welfare families.

This state also availed itself of the option to extend benefits to poor families not receiving

public assistance, but still too poor to afford to pay for medical care or insurance coverage.

Over the ensuing years Medicaid has grown far beyond early projections to become a multi-billion

dollar national subsidy to the states and counties for the provision of medical services

to indigent persons. It is, by far, the largest of categorical health programs.

Experience with Medi- Cal, however, has made clear that the potential benefits of health

insurance coverage evaporate without access to a reliable source of high quality health care.

Places where poor people reside are usually devoid of the health care resources necessary for

quality care. Most private providers are not willing to accord equal access in their practices to

Medi- Cal patients nor make adaptations to the cultural and language diversity of ethnic

minorities that are so crucial to beneficial treatment outcomes.

2000- 01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 54 Review of Health Care Services for

Low- Income Families in Santa Cruz County

A categorical approach to people with a variety of health care needs has produced tangible

health benefits but also an accumulation of regulations with two notable drawbacks

• Eligibility standards and processes are confusing both to experienced health

professionals and the people these programs are intended to reach. Lengthy and

intrusive application procedures act as a disincentive to seek help, especially for some

Hispanic families who have learned to be wary of any official inquiry which might

adversely affect their immigration status.

• Fragmentation of services at the local level has disrupted the building of a cohesive

service delivery system responsive to the needs of the entire family. Individuals in the

same family may each be eligible for several types of health service delivered at

different times and locations. Families who rely on these programs have real difficulty

understanding and coping with this fragmented and disorderly way