Santa Cruz County

Grand Jury

2006- 2007

Final Report

County of Santa Cruz

GRAND JURY

701 OCEAN STREET, ROOM 318- I

Santa Cruz, Ca 95060

( 831) 454- 2099

June 28, 2007

Your Honor Judge Almquist and Citizens of Santa Cruz County,

We respectfully offer our report to the citizens of Santa Cruz County with the hope that we have

contributed to the transparency of government and a deeper understanding of our county

services. We have researched each report as thoroughly as possible and gathered a depth and

breath of knowledge that could not have been gained in any other way. In so doing, the Grand

Jury has followed a tradition that dates back to medieval England’s King Henry II.

The practice of overseeing local government was included in the formation of the colonies and

incorporated into the writing of the U. S. Constitution. In California, the Grand Jury system has

existed in every county since 1850. It has the charge to examine local governmental agencies and

effect change by producing findings, recommendations for improvement and commendations.

The title “ Grand” refers to the seating of a panel of 19 members instead of 12 in the criminal jury

system.

Santa Cruz County is one of the few remaining counties to select their jurors from the list of

voters and vehicle registrations. The jurors are selected in a drawing after going through a

selection process to assure representation from each of the supervisorial districts and interviews

with the presiding judge. Now that the work is completed in the Santa Cruz Grand Jury Report of

2006- 07, we will pass the torch to the next year’s jurors.

Each of us as jury members gained new and unexpected insights that greatly helped us meet the

challenges that we faced, and I would like to offer my sincere thanks to each member for being

willing to work diligently and professionally to the end of our term of service.

We would also like to thank those who provided material during our investigations, thereby

helping to set a higher degree of accountability and endeavor to benefit our County. Due to the

fact that an average citizen has limited time to observe and ask questions of their governing

body, we, the jury, sought to be the ears, eyes and voice in your quest for excellence in

government.

Sincerely,

Yamindira KanagaSundaram

Foreperson

2006- 2007 Grand Jury of Santa Cruz County

Santa Cruz County Grand Jury

2006- 2007 Final Report

Table of Contents

Introduction to the Santa Cruz Grand Jury

Grand Jurors

Section 1: Audit and Finance Committee Reports

Window Dressing or Effective Oversight?

Measure D Bonds and the Cabrillo Community College District

Property Assessment: What’s Business Property Really Worth?

1 - 1

1 - 11

Section 2: Cities and County Committee Report

Electronic Voting: A Strategy for Managing the Voting Process 2 - 1

Section 3: Criminal Justice Committee Reports

Santa Cruz County Jails Review 3 - 1

Last Night, First Right: Police Surveillance of First Amendment Activity 3 - 19

Section 4: Health and Human Services Committee Report

Surviving Sudden Cardiac Arrest: Improving the Odds with Automated External

Defibrillators

4 - 1

Section 5: Schools and Libraries Committee Report

Checked In: Santa Cruz Library System Follow- up Review

Report Card: Pajaro Valley Unified School District

5 - 1

5 - 9

Section 6: Special Districts Committee Reports

A Question of Ethics — are Local Agencies Complying with New Ethics Law? 6 - 1

Section 7: Instructions for Respondents 7 - 1

This page intentionally left blank.

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Introduction to the Santa Cruz County

Grand Jury

Two Types of Grand Juries in Santa Cruz County

As with many California counties, Santa Cruz County has two types of Grand Juries. The

regular, or civil, Grand Jury is an investigative body that serves for one year. There are

nineteen members on the jury. The civil Grand Jury is not involved with trials but rather

serves as a watchdog over local government and other tax- supported entities.

The other Grand Jury is a criminal Grand Jury that deals with issuing indictments

( charging a person with a criminal or public offense). This jury is called up as needed on

a case- by- case basis.

Duties and Powers of the Civil Grand Jury

The Civil Grand Jury has three primary functions:

• To randomly audit local governmental agencies and officials.

• to publish its investigative findings and recommendations toward improving those

governmental operations in the interest of the community being served.

• To investigate citizens' complaints.

The Civil Grand Jury investigates local government agencies and officials to evaluate if

they are acting properly. If a Grand Jury determines that they are not, it has various

options. The most frequently used option is the presentation of a report outlining the

Grand Jury's findings and recommendations in the matter. Such reports are public and

sometimes attract media attention. Agencies or elected officials discussed in the report

must respond specifically to the report's findings and recommendations according to a

specific timeline.

Citizens may file complaints with the Grand Jury to request that it investigate what they

perceive as wrongdoing by a public agency, such as a school district or a police

department. The Jury decides if a complaint has merit and is not obligated to pursue

every complaint. County complaint forms are available from the following address:

Santa Cruz County Grand Jury

701 Ocean Street, Room 318- I

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

( 831) 454- 2099

FAX ( 831) 454- 3387

grandjury@ co. santa- cruz. ca. us

www. co. santa- cruz. ca. us/ grandjury

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

This page intentionally left blank.

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Grand Jurors

2006- 2007

Yamindira KanagaSundaram, Foreperson

Margaret Cheney

Carol Felton

Janette George

Hilary Hamm

Carol Hara

Bill Hay

Jonathan Krupp

Armand Langmo

Charlie McFadden

Pat Rex

Eric Rice

Bob Shaw

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jurors, from left: Pat Rex, Hilary Hamm, Carol Hara, Janette George,

Jon Krupp, Margaret Cheney, Bill Hay, Charlie McFadden, Eric Rice, Bob Shaw, Armand Langmo, and Yamindira

KanagaSundaram. Not pictured: Carol Felton

Santa Cruz County

Grand Jury

Final Report:

Section 1

Audit and Finance Committee Reports

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Window Dressing or Effective Oversight?

Citizen Oversight Committee, Measure D Bonds

Cabrillo Community College District

Synopsis

An investigation was completed to determine if the Cabrillo Community College District

had clearly identified and described the projects proposed to the voters and effectively

initiated, structured and implemented the Citizen Oversight Committee ( COC) required

as part of Measure D, a $ 118.5 million Bond Fund passed by county voters in March

2004. The investigation reviewed the performance of the oversight committee, including

its reports to the public. The investigation did not reveal any misappropriation of funds or

any violations of the law or regulations in the creation and operation of the committee.

However, it did reveal several areas where the district and the committee could improve

oversight and provide greater transparency to the public in the expenditure of the bond

funds.

Definitions

COC

Citizen Oversight Committee.

Independent Audit

An audit by a Certified Public Accountant of the financial statement of the District’s

Measure D Bond Fund and a performance audit to assure that funds have only been

expended on voter approved projects.

Measure D Funds

The $ 118.5 million Measure D Bond Funds passed by the County voters in March 2004

to use for construction, rehabilitation and leasing of school facilities.

Background

Legislation

Proposition 39, an initiative constitutional amendment and statute, was passed by state

voters in November of 2000. It amended the California Constitution and resulted in a

revision to the California Education Code. It provided for a 55% vote to pass local bond

measures, in lieu of the standard 2/ 3 vote requirement, if specific accountability

requirements were incorporated in the bond measure. These “ accountability

requirements” ( Article XIIIA Sec 1 ( b) ( 3) of the California Constitution) for school bond

measures are summarized as follows:

• Must require that funds can only be spent for construction, rehabilitation, and/ or

leasing of facilities including furnishings and equipment.

• Must contain a list of specific school facilities projects to be funded.

Page 1 – 1 Window Dressing or Effective Oversight?

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

• Must require an independent annual performance audit to ensure that funds have

only been spent for the projects listed in the measure.

• Must require an independent annual financial audit until funds have been spent.

In addition, California Education Code Sections 15278- 15282 directs that the bond

measure require the formation of an independent Citizen Oversight Committee. Its

purpose is to inform the public as to the district’s compliance with the above

accountability requirements. The scope of its activities is divided into two categories,

required and optional, as follows:

Required Optional

1. Ensure that the district conforms to

accountability requirements.

2. Ensure that the district does not

spend these funds on salaries or

other operating expenses.

1. Receive and review performance

audits.

2. Receive and review financial

audits.

3. Inspect school facilities and

grounds.

4. Receive and review deferred

maintenance proposals.

5. Review efforts by the district to

implement cost- saving measures

The Education Code also specifies that the Citizen Oversight Committee shall:

• Consist of a least seven members. Four members shall come from specified

interest groups.

• Have members who are not district employees, officials, contractors, vendors or

consultants.

• Have members who serve for a term of two to four years without compensation.

• Receive from the district all necessary technical and administrative support to

further its purpose.

• Hold meetings open to the public with published meeting minutes.

• Report on its activities to the public at least once per year.

Measure D bonds for the Cabrillo Community College District for $ 118.5 million

committed the district to incorporate statutory requirements described above to qualify

for the 55% voter approval standard.

Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? Page 1 - 2

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Status of Measure D funds

Design and construction is well under way on a number of projects. Some projects are

complete. As of June 30, 2006, $ 24.4 million had been expended and a total of $ 101. 2

million had been committed. The oversight committee has published two annual reports,

and two annual financial and performance audits have been conducted. Enough work has

been completed to allow an initial evaluation of the performance of the district and the

Citizen Oversight Committee in meeting their obligations under Measure D.

Voter Pamphlet Information

The California Constitution requires that a bond measure contain a list of specific school

facility projects for accountability purposes. The list contained in the voter pamphlet for

Measure D was organized into a paragraph format naming categories of projects, albeit

with some specific projects noted. This specific list is not used in subsequent documents

as the projects are reported on and tracked. In fact, a new approach to the list is

developed for each type of report. The following illustrates the point:

Voter Pamphlet ( VP)................................................................. 9 categories of projects

Master Plan of November 3 2004 ( referenced in VP)............... 29 projects/ categories

COC 1st Annual Report ( 2005).................................................. 17 projects/ categories

2005 Audit Report..................................................................... 8 projects/ categories

2006 Audit Report..................................................................... 7 projects/ categories

COC 2nd Annual Report ( 2006)................................................. 22 projects/ categories

Master Plan, Measure D Project list January 18, 2007............. 70 projects

It’s understood that the format of the project descriptions used for the voter pamphlet

may have been drafted for ease of reading; however, this format makes the reporting and

accountability to the public problematic. It is not as transparent as it could be.

The reference to the District Facilities Master Plan and the November 3, 2003

amendment is not very helpful either. Even if a voter were to take the trouble to find this

document, the amendment still deals largely in categories of projects, not strictly a list of

specific projects. The net effect is that the specific project list is more obscure than

necessary.

It seems clear from the language of the law that there is to be a certain level of specificity

in the project list. It states, “ A list of specific school facilities projects to be funded...”

shall be included in the proposition as an “ accountability requirement” ( Article XIIIA Sec

1 ( b) ( 3). If the list is specific, clear and well defined, it will be traceable in reports to the

public as to when funds are expended and when they are not. Accountability will thereby

be maintained. It should start with the master plan and the voter pamphlet and then be

carried through to other reports and documents.

Page 1 – 3 Window Dressing or Effective Oversight?

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

It is recognized that the list will change somewhat over time to adjust to unforeseen

circumstances. This should be covered by annotations to the list. There is no suggestion

that anyone is trying to mislead the public, but the public has a right to understand what

they are voting for and what they are getting as the projects progress.

Independence of the Citizen Oversight Committee

The Education Code stipulates that an oversight committee member shall not be an

employee, or an official of the district or a vendor, contractor or consultant to the district.

In order for the committee to provide objective oversight, this independence is essential.

It appears that the district has met the letter of the law. The question remains as to

whether this specific legal requirement is all that is necessary to provide credible

independent oversight.

There are several practical things that the district could do to enhance the independence

and thus the credibility of the oversight committee and the district’s standing in the eyes

of the public. The normal review functions could include additional items which may

result in recommendations to the board for consideration. After a response from the

board, the oversight committee would go on record with its acceptance or its objection.

Some examples that the committee could undertake are:

• By- laws

• Selection of the independent auditor

• Audit scope and methodology ( prior to the audit)

• Final audit report ( prior to board acceptance)

Citizen Oversight Committee Membership

The seven- member minimum requirement listed in the Education Code allows for five

members from interest groups ( a business person, taxpayer, senior citizen, representative

from a college support organization and a student) as well as two at- large members not

belonging to one of these groups. Since it is likely that some expertise that would benefit

the committee in its work would be found in the at- large members, the possibility of

increasing the number of members to bring a broader range of expertise should be

considered. The argument that more at- large members would dilute the voices of the

stipulated interest groups is true. However, that was already contemplated in the law

when it stipulated that seven members is a minimum.

There are a number of specific areas of expertise that could be invited in press releases

and other solicitations and should be given weight in consideration for COC membership.

Some of these areas are as follows:

• Accounting

• Financial Management

• Auditing

Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? Page 1 - 4

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

• Construction

• Construction Management

• School Administration

• Experience with DSA

• Value Engineering

Citizen Oversight Committee By- Laws

The committee’s by- laws were prepared by the district and issued to the committee. The

by- laws authorize facility inspections and review functions for: the audit report, deferred

maintenance proposals and cost- saving measures when offered by the district. The

available meeting minutes do not reflect any review of deferred maintenance and cost

saving proposals.

The by- laws do not define the process to deal with concerns or issues raised by the

oversight committee itself. They do not authorize a committee role in working with the

district to establish priorities when projects are delayed or cancelled, as suggested by the

text of Measure D. In fact, the by- laws devote twice as much space to what the committee

is not authorized to do than what they are authorized to do.

Independent Audit Report

The performance audit dated June 30, 2005 reported on some categories of projects

traceable to the Master Facilities Plan and the November 3, 2003 amendment, but not on

a complete specific project list that could be regularly monitored in future reports. It did

not list the authorized projects for which no funds have been expended. Such listing may

not be required by the law but would enhance transparency and aid the voter in

understanding the status of the Measure D projects. This first audit report does not

mention the total number of invoices paid with Measure D funds and the number of

invoices checked and their total value. Such numbers would give a better insight to the

scope of the audit and the basis for accepting the conclusions of the audit. It merely states

that they found no non- compliances. Since we do not know the size of the sample and the

total number of invoices, the Grand Jury does not have a basis for judging the reliability

of the implied conclusion that there have been no misappropriations of funds.

The performance audit dated June 30, 2006 has similar shortcomings. Although the

inspected invoices ( totaling 25% of expended funds) are listed, the total available

invoices for inspection are not listed. Furthermore, the 25% value was not applied to each

category of expenditure. All that is certified is that they found no misappropriations in

what they looked at. We, therefore, do not have an independent auditor’s opinion that

there have been no misappropriations of funds.

Construction Quality Control and Construction Safety Programs

The Citizen Oversight Committee appears to have no role in the review of construction

quality control and construction safety programs. Although such a role is not required by

Page 1 – 5 Window Dressing or Effective Oversight?

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

law, one might expect that the committee would insist on seeing program documentation

to confirm that such programs are in place. Quality control problems could have a serious

impact on cost and schedule. The public is reliant on the district to oversee these

functions. The district contracts with contractors, the construction manager and inspector

of record to assure quality and safety. However, in order to manage these areas and

ensure compliance, an agreement on the definition of roles and responsibilities is critical.

The district has not fully implemented or defined an integrated program that captures all

construction activities. The design team and the construction contractors play the key

role, but the oversight function of the district over the contractors, construction manager

and the inspector of record is critical to such projects. Many elements are in place, but

there is no single document for each of these two areas that defines the role and

responsibilities of all the parties.

Findings

1. The specific project list which defines for the voters what they are voting on is not

clear and consistent in the District Master Plan, voter pamphlet, COC Annual

Report and the performance audits.

2. The district has narrowly interpreted ( as reflected by the development and

provisions in the by- laws) the requirement for COC independence. It meets the

minimum membership requirements specified in the California Education Code.

3. The district limited the membership to the legally required seven members and

did not pursue expanding the number of members to obtain relevant expertise on

the oversight committee to provide more effective oversight.

4. The Citizen Oversight Committee by- laws were, in effect, imposed on the

committee without significant discussion or a vote by the committee members.

These by- laws limited the committee’s authorized activities ( only four listed

activities) to less than what was communicated to the voters that is to “ work with

the Citizen’s Oversight Committee on prioritizing ... projects...” per the voter

pamphlet.

5. The independent performance audit reports by two CPAs did not express an

opinion about whether or not there had been any misappropriation of funds.

6. The district has not defined and published an integrated construction quality

control program document and a construction safety program document for the

Measure D projects.

7. One inspector of record did not agree that he had responsibility for what was

called “ quality control” by the construction manager.

Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? Page 1 - 6

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Conclusions

1. Greater transparency can and should be achieved in tracking projects. In order for

the oversight committee, auditors, district staff and the public to track the specific

projects throughout the life of the Measure D program, it is necessary for the

district to define and maintain a consistent, detailed specific list in all the public

documents.

2. The oversight committee would be more credible and effective if it were to

function with more independence and a broader scope of authorized activities.

3. The oversight committee could be more effective if it were to have members with

expertise covering more of the relevant Measure D program activities.

4. The oversight committee should be given the opportunity to review, discuss,

propose and then formally adopt its own by- laws.

5. The performance audits are not adequate to establish, with credibility, that there

have been no misappropriations of funds.

6. Some projects have had significant quality control problems. One inspector of

record was released from the program by the district in part due to disagreements

over the inspector’s role in quality control. With regard to construction safety,

there have not been major safety incidents to date. In both these areas, however, a

more defined and rigorous approach to management is needed.

7. The members of the COC are sincere and civic minded. They deserve our thanks

for being willing to serve. Furthermore, the district staff was found to be

cooperative and competent in their dealings with the Grand Jury.

8. The oversight of the Measure D Bond projects is more than “ window dressing,”

but it can be improved.

Recommendations

1. For bond measures, the district should develop a clearly numbered specific

facilities project list for the voter pamphlet and use that specific list in future

tracking and reporting.

2. For future Citizen Oversight Committee annual reports, the committee should

develop a specific facilities project list that translates all of the Measure D project

categories to a project list and identifies those projects for which Measure D funds

are planned but have not been expended to date.

3. The independence of the oversight committee should be strengthened. The

committee should be more proactive and take the following steps with the

district’s concurrence and cooperation:

• Review, recommend changes to the district, if any and, formally adopt the

by- laws, with or without comments.

Page 1 – 7 Window Dressing or Effective Oversight?

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

• Review and formally comment on the selection of the independent auditor

prior to the appointment.

• Review and formally recommend changes to the District, if any, on the

audit scope and methodology prior to the audit being conducted.

• Review and comment to the District on the final audit report and formally

accept with or without comments.

4. Increase efforts to solicit membership in the Citizen Oversight Committee to a

broader audience such as with newspaper advertisements and/ or announcements

inviting individuals with specific relevant expertise to apply.

5. Revise by- laws to describe the process for resolving issues of concern to the

oversight committee.

6. Revise by- laws to include the committee’s role in prioritizing projects for delays

or cancellations as described in Measure D.

7. The district should document the roles and responsibilities of the district, the

construction manager, the contractors and the inspector of record for construction

quality control and safety.

8. In the future, the auditor should use a more specific facilities project list.

9. In future audits, the processes and a sufficient number of invoices should be tested

to allow the auditor to render an opinion with a high and defined level of

confidence that there has been no misappropriation of funds.

10. In future audits, the auditor should report on the number of invoices examined and

the total invoices processed for the Measure D fund.

Responses Requested

Entity Findings Recommendations Respond

Within

Cabrillo Community

College Governing

Board

1 - 7 1 - 10 90 Days

October 1, 2007

Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? Page 1 - 8

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

References

Documents

Voter Pamphlet for Santa Cruz County March 2, 2004

Cabrillo College District Facilities Master Plan November 3, 2003 update

Cabrillo College District Facilities Master Plan March 7, 2007 update

Cabrillo College Organizational Chart dated September 2, 2004

Citizens Oversight Committee Annual Report March 2004 through June 2005

Citizens Oversight Committee Annual Report March 2005 through June 2006

COC Meeting Minutes dated August 24, 2004

COC Meeting Minutes dated December 14, 2004

COC Meeting Minutes dated March 8, 2005

COC Meeting Minutes dated June 14, 2005

COC Meeting Minutes dated July 12, 2005

COC Meeting Minutes dated August 4, 2005

COC Meeting Minutes dated Nov 9, 2005

COC Meeting Minutes dated February 7, 2006

COC Meeting Minutes dated May 9, 2006

COC Meeting Minutes dated August 8, 2006

Measure D Bond Fund Financial and Performance Audit June 2005

Measure D Bond Fund Financial and Performance Audit June 2006

District By- Laws for Citizens Oversight Committee — undated

Stradling/ Yocca/ Carlson/ Routh-- Bond Council Agreement of May 1, 2003

Bogard/ Kitchell Agreement for Construction Management Services of January 7, 2004

and amended March 1, 2006

Bogard/ Kitchel ( David Tanza) letter of March 15, 2007 Subject: Quality Control

CA Constitution Article XIIIA Section 1 Subdivision ( b) Paragraph 3

CA Education Code Section 15278- 15282

CA Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 1, Title 24, Sec 4- 341 to 343

Web Sites

Cabrillo Community College and COC: www. cabrillo. edu

California Constitution text: www. leginfo. ca. gov/ const. hmtl

California Education Code: www. leginfo. ca. gov

San Joaquin Delta College and COC: www. bond. deltacollege. edu

El Camino College and COC: www. elcamino. edu

Page 1 – 9 Window Dressing or Effective Oversight?

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

This page intentionally left blank.

Window Dressing or Effective Oversight? Page 1 - 10

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Property Assessment: What’s Business Property Really Worth? Page 1 - 11

Property Assessment:

What’s business property really worth?

Synopsis

The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury reviewed the process used by the Santa Cruz County

Assessor’s Office to establish value and determine the reduced assessment on a business

property.

The Grand Jury used information from a previously decided case of a large commercial

entity that involved a collection of businesses, parcels and associated improvements. One

of the key elements of this case was the use of an assessment methodology known as the

“ income method” for, at least in part, determining the fair market value of a business

property.

The Grand Jury’s objective was not to validate or “ second guess” the assessor’s actual

determination of the full cash value in the case reviewed but to understand the process

employed in making that determination and to evaluate whether that process would

deliver a fair and reasonable property valuation. No attempt was made to review all of the

assessor’s processes.

Definitions

Assessment

An estimate of the “ full cash value” of a parcel and improvements for the purpose of

determining the property tax.

Capitalization

Converting regular income over a period of time to an equivalent monetary value.

Comparables

Like properties, equipment and improvements having known market values that can be

used to estimate the value of targeted properties, equipment and improvements.

Consolidated Financial Reports

A combined financial statement for a corporate entity which includes all of the profit

centers in one combined financial statement.

EBITDA

Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization — a measure of

business income.

Income Method

A property assessment methodology used to establish the value of business property in

which capitalization of a net income stream is used as one approximation. That is to say,

we estimate the capital investment that would be required to produce the net revenue

stream. We must assume a reasonable rate of return commensurate with the risk. The

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 12 Property Assessment: What’s Business Property Really Worth?

resultant capital investment would include land and improvements. To arrive at a

calculated land value, the value of the improvements would be subtracted.

Parcel

Basic unit of real property subject to an assessment.

Proposition 13

An amendment to the California Constitution passed by the voters in June 1978,

governing the taxation of real property. Proposition 13 prescribed an assessment structure

for establishing the base full cash value of a property and imposed limits on increases in

the assessment above the base.

Proposition 8

An amendment to the California Constitution that amended portions of Proposition 13

( see below) passed by the voters in November 1978. Proposition 8 permits property tax

payers to request a reassessment of their property when they believe that their property

has been reduced in value due to damage or other economic conditions. As Proposition

13 did not provide a mechanism for reducing the assessment, Proposition 8 was passed a

short time later to incorporate a reduction mechanism.

Background

Assessor’s Office Responsibilities

Property taxes are based on the assessed value of a property. It is the responsibility of the

assessor to establish the full cash value of the property upon which the amount of

property tax is calculated. The assessor does not collect taxes nor set the rules for how a

property is assessed. In order to meet the responsibilities of the office, the assessor must:

• Locate and identify the ownership of all taxable property in the county.

• Establish a value for each property subject to property taxation.

• List the value of each property on the assessment roll.

• Apply any applicable legal exemptions and exclusions.

Assessed Valuations

The assessed value of real property is determined by law which includes the effects of

Proposition 13. Proposition 13, passed in June of 1978, requires that the assessed value of

real property be set at the 1975- 76 full cash value ( base year value). Real property is then

reappraised only when a change in ownership occurs, or after new construction is

completed. Generally, a change in ownership is a sale or transfer of property; new

construction is an addition or improvement to a property. Except for these two instances,

property assessments can be increased annually by the percentage increase in the

consumer price index but by not more than 2%.

However, business personal property ( non- land/ improvements such as equipment) and

certain restricted properties are reappraised annually. The owners of all businesses must

file a property statement each year detailing costs of all supplies, equipment and fixtures

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Property Assessment: What’s Business Property Really Worth? Page 1 - 13

at each location. This annual statement is required unless the property qualifies for direct

assessment ( appraised by assessor). Business inventory is exempt from taxation.

Proposition 8, passed in November of 1978, amended Proposition 13 providing

clarifications and a mechanism allowing an assessor to reduce an assessment when a

property has been substantially damaged or its value has been reduced by “ other factors”

such as economic conditions. A reduction to the base- year value under the auspices of

Proposition 8 is not permanent. Assessors are required to track every reduction until the

base year value is restored.

A number of factors are used in assessing or reassessing the value of business property:

• Market price of comparable land, considered at the most likely highest value

usage.

• Construction costs.

• Equipment and improvements costs.

• Business income, commonly EBITDA – earnings before interest, taxes,

depreciation, and amortization.

Disputed Assessments

It is the assessor’s responsibility to establish a value for each property subject to property

taxation. Property owners who disagree with the assessor’s appraisal can present their

case to the assessor and provide evidence supporting a claim for a lower assessment.

In the event that the property owner fails to convince the assessor, the property owner has

the right to appeal to the Assessment Appeals Board, a three- person board of citizens

appointed by the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors.

Finally, property owners who are not satisfied with a determination by the Assessment

Appeals Board can take their case to Superior Court.

Scope

The scope of this Grand Jury investigation was limited to a review of the assessor’s

process used to reassess a unique commercial property owned by a privately held

company. No attempt was made by the Grand Jury to validate or “ second guess” the

assessed value determined by the assessor.

Findings

1. The case studied involved one company having a large number of parcels and

multiple businesses. It was necessary for the assessor, with the property owner’s

eventual concurrence, to segregate the parcels and associated improvements and

other assets in order to determine which parcels, improvements and other assets

were related to the requested assessment reduction.

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 14 Property Assessment: What’s Business Property Really Worth?

2. The business associated with the requested assessment reduction in this particular

case is relatively unique making the use of “ comparables” difficult. The

Assessor’s Office, therefore, relied on the Income Method for determining the

value of the property.

3. The initial assessment was established using base- year values adjusted per the

requirements of Proposition 13 and augmented by annual valuations of

equipment. Reductions under the auspices of Proposition 8 were based on

multiple factors including the capitalization of the business’ five- year average

income stream.

4. A one- year study of the business was conducted by the assessor. Industry experts

were consulted to assure the assessor’s understanding of the business and the

reasonableness of various valuations.

5. Externally audited consolidated financial reports were used as a starting point for

the income analysis. Secondary financial reports, isolating the business associated

with the requested assessment reduction from the consolidated financials, were

prepared by the property owner.

6. The property owner’s accounting processes, audited consolidated financial reports

and breakouts were tested by the assessor’s staff working both at the property

owner’s site and in the Assessor’s Office.

7. An agreement stipulating the value of the property in question for tax purposes

( Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release) was approved by the Assessment

Appeals Board and executed by the property owner and the county.

8. Annual reviews by the assessor of the reduced assessment are being conducted as

required.

Conclusions

1. Based only on the case described in this report, the Grand Jury found the

assessor’s process for handling the request for a reduced assessment of business

property owned by a privately held company to be reasonable, thorough and

professionally conducted.

2. A company’s stated income can be suppressed by paying excessive salaries or

other benefits to owners, employees or vendors. This can affect the company’s

Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization ( EBITDA),

which can then artificially lower its assessment.

3. A higher level of confidence in the financial statements provided by business

property owners would be realized by having an external auditing firm review and

certify the statements. The certification should apply to that portion of the

business which is being used for property evaluation purposes.

4. The current Assessor’s Office web site does a reasonably good job of describing

the assessor’s functions for the majority of the county’s properties. However,

many citizens are concerned about how the larger county taxpayers are assessed

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Property Assessment: What’s Business Property Really Worth? Page 1 - 15

and whether their size and influence leads to preferential treatment.

5. A more effective public outreach could reduce the concerns about possible

preferential treatment for some large high profile land parcels.

Recommendations

1. Expand the Assessor’s Office web site to include a discussion of how business

assessments are conducted. Without disclosing confidential financial information,

the methodology used by the Assessor’s Office should be explained for different

categories of properties so that the appraisal approach is more transparent. This

would enhance the public’s understanding and perception of the fairness of the

assessment process.

2. When the income method is used, thoroughly investigate the ownership structure

of a business to assure that the Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and

Amortization ( EBITDA) is not being reduced through expenses that principally

benefit the owners or owner- related parties ( e. g., excessive salaries,

“ consultancies,” travel and entertainment, gifts). If such expenses are found to

have reduced the income of the business being evaluated, they should be added

back into the stated EBITDA.

3. When using a business property owner’s financial statements to determine the

income stream to be used in the assessment of business property, require that

those statements be audited and certified by an independent external auditing firm

for the applicable portion of the business.

Responses Required

Entity Findings Recommendations

Respond

Within

Santa Cruz County

Assessor

1- 3 60 Days

September 1, 2007

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 1 - 16 Property Assessment: What’s Business Property Really Worth?

Appendix – Sources

Documents

Property owner’s financial reports — audited consolidated financial reports,

breakout of financials describing the business associated with requested

assessment reduction.

Assessor’s working documents — spreadsheets used in validating property

owner’s breakout.

Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (“ Stipulation Agreement”).

Other legal documents — Assessor’s Office.

Web Sites

Proposition 8 ( 1978) — http:// traynor. uchastings. edu/ cgi-bin/

starfinder/ 18364/ calprop. txt

Proposition 13 ( 1978) — http:// www. leginfo. ca. gov/. const/. article_ 13A

Santa Cruz County Assessor — http:// www. co. santa- cruz. ca. us/ asr/ index. htm

Santa Cruz County

Grand Jury

Final Report:

Section 2

Cities and County Committee Report

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Electronic Voting Page 2 - 1

Electronic Voting

A Strategy for Managing the Voting Process

Synopsis

The Grand Jury investigated Santa Cruz County’s response to the requirements of the

“ Help America Vote Act” and the county’s effectiveness in implementing so- called

“ electronic” or “ computerized” voting machines. The investigation revealed that the

county’s strategy in deploying new voting machines was effective. The overall security,

reliability and accuracy of the voting and counting process were found to have met

reasonable expectations. In general, the suitability of polling stations and worker training

was also found to have been adequate. Public reaction to electronic voting was measured

in an exit poll on the day of the November 2006 election. There were areas that could be

further improved from the standpoint of efficiency and public confidence and

understanding of the process. These areas are identified in this report.

“ This is the biggest change we’ve seen in the elections process in the history of

the nation.” Bruce McPherson, former California Secretary of State

Background

“ The Help America Vote Act” ( HAVA or the Act) was passed by Congress in 2002 to

provide assistance with the establishment of minimum election administration standards

for federal elections. HAVA provides the states with funds, which in part are to be

disseminated to the counties to meet the various provisions of the Act. The Act requires:

• Nationwide implementation of provisional voting.

• Voter ID requirements for new voters in federal elections.

• Replacement of punch card and lever voting machines.

• Voting system accessibility for voters with specific needs.

• A centralized statewide voter registration database in each state and territory.

• Specialized handling of absentee ballot applications for military and overseas

voters.

• Each state and territory to define what constitutes a valid vote.

As the result of both federal and state legislation, HAVA and California’s Proposition 41

( the Voting Modernization Act), major changes are occurring in the processes by which

state and Santa Cruz County voters cast their ballots, as well as in the way votes are

tabulated. Regarding the move to electronic voting machines, the former California

Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson, said: “ This is the biggest change we’ve seen in the

elections process in the history of the nation.”

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 2 Electronic Voting

With this change, specialized computers are used directly by voters in casting their

ballots and provide for automation of the tabulation of the votes.

Early attempts to use such machines around the country have led to a number of

problems — from power outages that made machines unusable, to machines rebooting

for unknown reasons mid- day during an election, to difficulties experienced by precinct

staff in starting the machines and properly capturing totals.

There are several vendors of voting machines, including: Sequoia Systems ( the system

used by Santa Cruz County in the November 2006 election), Diebold Machine, and

ES& S Machine. To date, there have not been any reports of significant Sequoia failures,

but serious concerns have been raised about the reliability of other systems. In North

Carolina, it was reported that 16,000 votes were lost ( Diebold Machine). Also, there were

18,000 missing votes in Florida, which have not been resolved ( ES& S Machine).

Reliability concerns arise both from questions about the workings of the generally

privately owned and proprietary software and the vulnerability of the machines to fraud.

According to an expert, fraud results from manipulations of the operating software

( hacking) or of physical manipulations, such as swapping out memory cards containing

the machine software and/ or the vote totals. The new California Secretary of State, Debra

Bowen, has recently commissioned a study of the matter. She has formed a team of

highly technical members. They will be doing a “ top to bottom” review of the various

voting systems. This study will include:

• Reviewing the source code. It is proposed to maintain the source code at the state

level.

• Performing “ attack” testing to ensure that the system cannot be hacked.

• Conducting a voting system documentation study.

This will be the first time that Sequoia Voting Systems has been reviewed by the State of

California.

Santa Cruz County evaluated several options before selecting Sequoia Systems as the

vendor for new voting equipment. Santa Cruz County has been notably cautious in their

approach to changing the voting processes, both because of concerns regarding the

reliability of the new systems and because of cost issues. Our county has opted to

implement the minimum legally required system — which is to have a single touch

screen machine in each precinct polling location and to allow voters to choose between

paper ballots capable of being optically scanned or the touch screen machine. Although

optical scanning had been used in earlier elections, voters began using touch screen

machines in the last election ( November 2006).

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Electronic Voting Page 2 - 3

Scope

The Grand Jury has chosen to review the following issues as they relate to the new voting

process:

• Adequacy of security in the election process.

• Performance of the voting machines.

• Reliability and accuracy of the vote tallies.

• Adequacy of poll worker training.

• Suitability of polling place physical arrangements.

• Adequacy of election staffing.

• Adequacy of public education of the voting process.

• Suitability of the current strategy to comply with the Help America Vote Act.

• Poll worker and voter opinions of the new process.

o Poll worker and voter surveys.

o Grand Jury observations.

Definitions

400C Ballot Counter

Machine that counts the paper absentee ballots.

Electronic Voting

Using computers to capture, record and tally votes.

HAVA

Help American Vote Act — act passed by Congress in 2002 which specifies that all

federal elections must meet certain minimum standards.

Memory Pack

A cartridge which plugs into scanner and contains the files unique to that precinct.

Memory Stick

A portable device which stores data.

Optical Scanner

Computer equipment that scans, counts, and accumulates the paper ballots.

Paper Trail

Verification of each voter’s choices. The paper trail on the touch screen computer

consists of a compilation of the voter’s votes that is visible to the voter at the end of the

ballot process.

Polling Place

A place where people vote, usually — but not always — voting precincts have their own

polling places.

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 4 Electronic Voting

Poll Worker

A person who is trained to work in the polling place.

Proposition 41

Voting Modernization Act of 2002 — state proposition which authorized the state to sell

$ 200 million in bonds for updating voting systems.

Proprietary

Exclusive; secret; may not be accessed by anyone but the owner.

Results Cartridge

A cartridge which plugs into the touch screen machine; it contains the unique form for

that precinct and a data field for counting the votes as they are input on the screen by the

voter.

Sequoia Systems

One of several voting computer system vendors; the vendor chosen by Santa Cruz

County and used in the November 2006 election.

SERVE

Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Equipment.

SQL Server

SQL ( Structured Query Language) is the programming language that communicates or

interfaces with the database that stores voting data. The server is the main computer on

which the database resides.

Touch Screen

A computer display which the voter can control by touching the screen.

Voting Precinct

One of several districts into which a city or county is divided for voting. Most precincts

have their own polling places, but in Santa Cruz County’s November 2006 election, some

precincts shared polling places.

Findings

1. Adequacy of Security in the Election Process

A. Data Security

1. The Sequoia Systems ( Sequoia) software is privately owned and proprietary.

California is requesting that the code be accessible to the state.

2. Sequoia equipment and software goes through extensive testing by Sequoia

Systems. This testing is required by the state.

3. The Sequoia Systems’ touch screen voting machine uses a voter verified

paper trail which is the fundamental protection against software errors in

recording the vote, provided there is a good audit procedure following the

election.

4. Procedures are in place to protect the integrity of the data on the voting

machines’ memory packs and results cartridges. These items are external and

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Electronic Voting Page 2 - 5

removable and protected with traceable seals. Any sign of tampering with the

seals is reported to the Election Department and investigated. There is a

standard reporting form, and written procedures are provided to the poll

workers.

5. The ballot information file for each precinct was created by the Santa Cruz

County Election’s Department’s Information Systems Analyst and the

program coordinators. It was sent electronically to Sequoia, the vendor,

where the ballot election files were created. Sequoia also provided the

printed paper ballots. There was a unique file created for each precinct. Files

were then sent back electronically to the SQL server which resides in the

Information Systems Analyst’s office for updating and testing. Sequoia

provided all testing scripts and assisted in the testing this past election.

6. Prior to the November 2006 election, the ballot information was reviewed,

modified and approved by the county program coordinators and the

Information Systems Analyst until it was ready to be sealed. The Information

Systems Analyst, via a memory stick, manually extracted the data and loaded

it onto a stand- alone laptop system. The cartridges for the voting machines

were written from this system. They were sealed and coded. Once sealed,

they were ready for distribution to the voting machines.

7. During the last election, some areas for improvement on warehouse check- in

and out of equipment were noted. For example, the person checking out

equipment was not identified.

B. Warehouse Security

8. All voting equipment and accessories for Santa Cruz County are stored in a

secure warehouse within the city of Santa Cruz. The exception to this is the

SQL server, which is used as a network server for the Elections Department,

and the 400C ( absentee paper ballot counter) which resides in the

Information Systems Analyst’s secured office. All files are backed up and

stored in a storage area offsite at the Elections Department warehouse.

9. The results cartridges for the touch screens and memory packs for the

scanners are created on a stand- alone computer at the warehouse. They are

then loaded and sealed into the appropriate precinct equipment and stored

until ready to be shipped to the polling place. Access to both the warehouse

and office are controlled through the use of color- coded security badges.

Four Elections Department supervisors with the widest access to the county's

voting machines and voting materials have their own color- coded badge.

Temporary employees, who must be escorted and supervised inside the

secure area, have a different color badge, as do permanent Elections

Department employees, visitors and exhibitors, and voting machine vendors.

10. The warehouse has an alarm system, provided by First Alarm. An access

card is required in order to enter. The Information Systems Analyst,

Department Information Systems Specialist and the Election Officer have the

First Alarm access code.

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 6 Electronic Voting

11. A large door is locked from the inside. All equipment is within a caged area

of the warehouse with controlled access.

C. Poll Site Security/ Physical Equipment

12. The assigned person at each precinct picks up the voting equipment from the

warehouse the day before the election. The cartridges are already in place

and sealed. A poll worker takes the equipment home. On election day, they

take it to the polling place and set it up.

13. At the close of the polls, two designated persons break the seals on the

results cartridge and the memory pack and remove them from the machines.

Cartridges and seals are put in a sealable orange bag. The printer is removed

from the touch screen machine for transport. The orange bag and printer are

prepared by an inspector and a designated person. These items are taken to

the election department, where the bags are checked, verified, and stored in

the Information Systems Analyst office until ready to tally. The person who

checked out the equipment and brought it to the polling site is also

responsible for taking it back to the county building. All voting equipment is

eventually returned to the warehouse for storage.

14. After the November 2006 election, the above process was reviewed by

election staff. It was found that there were delays in equipment check- in.

15. The issue of fire protection of the polling places was not addressed when the

polling places were chosen. Since most poll sites are in public buildings, it

was assumed that the fire protection available at the poll site location would

be relied on.

2. Performance of the Voting Machines

17. Sequoia Systems is a state- approved vendor for the new voting equipment.

They were chosen by Santa Cruz County to provide the voting equipment.

18. The touch screen voting machine has a printer which records the votes. It has

300 feet of paper inside the machine. During the last election, the paper often

jammed.

19. During the November 2006 election, two or three scanners failed and at least

12 printers jammed. When the failed scanners were tested, it was determined

that they probably had been damaged in transport.

20. The 400C Ballot Counter Machine reads the ballots very quickly. However,

the catch basket, which is located outside the machine, is not large enough to

hold all of the ballots. As a result, ballots can get bent or be ejected onto the

floor.

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Electronic Voting Page 2 - 7

3. Reliability and Accuracy of the Vote Tallies

21. The results cartridge plugs into touch screen equipment. It contains a

database for capturing the votes as they are input by the voter. This cartridge

cannot be removed without breaking a seal.

22. The memory pack plugs into the optical scanner. It also uses a database for

capturing the votes as they are input when the ballot is scanned. The memory

pack cannot be removed without breaking a seal.

23. Firmware ( software imbedded in the machine) operates the machines. The

Secretary of State demands the firmware be at a specific level ( version). It

cannot be changed after 60 days prior to election. A test is run to ensure the

firmware level ( version) is correct.

24. To ensure the reliability and accuracy of the equipment, logic and accuracy

testing is conducted by the vendor and county personnel. Some experts

believe that this testing is insufficient for validating the accuracy and

reliability of the vote. They argue that it consists only of verifying whether

the equipment is working. It does not evaluate the equipment’s security.

25. After they are finished voting, voters who use the touch screen equipment

can verify the accuracy of their votes by looking at a compilation of their

votes that is displayed in a window on the machine.

26. Following a written procedure, the designated poll worker and one other poll

worker break the outer seal and assist the first voter to verify prior to his or

her vote that the “ total votes” displayed is zero. Both the poll worker and the

voter sign an official document verifying that the vote count is zero.

27. On 10 percent of machines, a random sample with full paper recount is taken

to check that the machines are tallying correctly.

28. After the November 2006 election, Capitola initiated a manual recount. Each

precinct was reconciled separately. With approximately 3000 votes to count,

it came out to within one vote of the machine count. The final election

results did not change.

29. During the November 2006 election, a number of absentee ballots had to be

redone due to the types of pens used. Some voters used pens that bled

through the paper and could not be read by the scanner.

30. Provisional ballots were being used for voters who had come to the wrong

polling place. Some provisional ballots had to be redone because they were

folded the wrong way.

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 8 Electronic Voting

4. Adequacy of Poll Worker Training

31. An organized training plan with documentation was provided for the poll

workers and inspectors. One person at each polling site was trained and

certified to use the machines. There were “ rovers” who traveled between

polling sites to check on machines and supplies.

32. Before the November 2006 election, county staff did a lot of on- the- job

training while concurrently preparing for the election because the equipment

arrived late.

33, The training documentation from the vendor had to be completely redone

because it had to be customized to the design of the Santa Cruz County

election model.

34. In the future, the Elections Department plans to create a professional DVD to

supplement poll worker training.

35. Poll workers have documentation binders which have flip charts and

checklists. Also, they are trained how to deal with the press and observers.

36. Poll workers indicated they wanted more “ hands- on training” with the

machines in addition to having more poll workers trained on the equipment.

These machines are sophisticated computer equipment, and if something

goes wrong, many poll workers don’t know what to do. ( See Poll Worker

Survey in the Appendix for more information.)

5. Suitability of Polling Place Physical Arrangements

37. The physical arrangement of the polling places was similar to past elections.

This consistency contributed to a stable atmosphere.

38. The touch screen machine was positioned with the back of the machine to

the wall. This placement meant that the voter’s selections could be seen by

others standing nearby.

39. The county was proactive in making the touch screen machine wheel chair

accessible by re- engineering the support legs. In addition, they custom

designed carrying bags for the scanner.

40. Santa Cruz County was sued by the State Attorney General for not following

Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA) regulations for polling sites. The

parties agreed to settle the lawsuit without finding that the county had

violated the ADA regulations.

41. Some polling places that were shared by more than one precinct also shared

touch screen machines. This arrangement caused some confusion because

voters had to identify which precinct they were voting in as the first step in

the voting process, and many did not know.

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Electronic Voting Page 2 - 9

6. Adequacy of Election Department staffing

42. In the start- up process for the new voting system, the Department

Information Systems Specialist, Elections Officer, Assistant County Clerk

and the Information Systems Analyst were trained first, and then they were

able to provide training for others. Sometimes training occurred

simultaneously with the installation of the new equipment.

43. The staffing for the poll places was conducted in the same manner as in

previous elections. Polling place staff is typically temporary help from the

community. The polling place supervisors are relied upon to pick up the

equipment at the warehouse the day before the election, keep it at their

houses overnight and take it to their polling places in the morning for set up.

7. Adequacy of Public Education of the Voting Process

44. In an effort to educate the public, the Elections Department distributed

thousands of voter pamphlets to the public via U. S. mail. The department

personnel also gave speeches and distributed educational material at local

public schools, bookstores, the Capitola Mall, and the county fair. Media

promotion included television and public radio interviews and press releases.

45. Despite the education campaign, some voters were confused as to how to

mark their ballots. For example, some voters who used the paper ballots did

not understand how to connect the arrows to the candidate or issue they were

voting on.

46. In general, voters who used the touch screen machine seemed unaware of the

importance of verifying their votes by comparing them with the compilation

of their ballot that was visible through a window on the machine.

8. Suitability of the Current Strategy to Comply with HAVA

47. County election officials determined that there would be one touch screen at

each polling place. The new scanner would be the main voting machine.

They reported that this choice proved to be a good decision. Not only did it

provide the necessary accommodations for voters with disabilities, but it also

ensured the reliability of the voting process. Having a mixture of

technologies ensured that votes could be cast in the event of equipment

failures. For example, if the touch screen printer jammed, except for those

who are sight impaired, voters had an option to use a paper ballot.

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 10 Electronic Voting

48. A recent news release announced that Florida will shift its voting system to a

system of casting paper ballots counted by scanning machines. Several

counties around the country will be moving to adopt the touch screen system

with the paper trail.

9. Poll Worker and Voter Opinions of the New Process

A. Poll Worker and Voter Surveys

49. On election day, the Grand Jury conducted a two- part poll worker survey and

collected 104 surveys for analysis. The first part of the survey covered the

poll worker training ( see # 4 above — Adequacy of Poll Worker Training),

and the second part was a critique of the election day process. While most

were extremely positive as to the work of the Elections Department, they

made substantive recommendations for continued improvement of the

elections process including the use and placement of the equipment. [ See

Appendix for full results of the survey.]

One hundred and four poll workers out of a total of 917 in Santa Cruz

County were surveyed. They were asked to rate aspects of the voting

experience from 1 to 5, with five being the best rating possible. The results

were as follows:

• Training materials: 4.3

• Overall preparation: 4.0

• Adequacy of election day staffing: 4.5

• Ease of equipment set up: 4.3

• Workers indicated they wanted more training on the machines and

“ hands on” practice.

50. The Grand Jury also conducted exit surveys with 320 voters throughout the

county. ( The total votes cast was recorded as 50,189 in 170 polling places.)

The results of the survey are as follows:

• Only about 19 percent of the sample chose to use the touch screen

machines.

• One hundred percent of those who chose to use the touch screen felt

comfortable using it.

• Ten percent of those who chose to use the paper ballot with optical

scanner felt uncomfortable using it.

B. Grand Jury Observations

51. Members of the Grand Jury made general observations while conducting the

exit voter and poll worker’ surveys at the November 2006 election. They

witnessed the failure of some equipment and agreed with many of the

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Electronic Voting Page 2 - 11

solutions suggested by the poll workers. [ See Appendix for more information

about the survey.]

52. During the November 2006 election, it was observed that most poll workers

gave paper ballots to the voters and did not indicate that the touch screen

method was available.

53. It was also observed that not all voters were offered a receipt for voting when

they used the touch screen machine.

Conclusions

1. It is a matter of national priority to have a transparent electronic process and

accurate election results.

2. The County Elections Department has done a good job of securing the voting

data. It has provided traceable seals, “ stand- alone” cartridge creation and

storage, extensive testing, detailed procedures and complete systems backup.

3. The touch screen voting machine adopted by the county uses a voter- verified

paper trail which provides verifiable voting results and a method for testing.

This system, combined with a good audit procedure, ensures voting

accuracy.

4. For the November 2006 election, Sequoia Systems not only supplied the test

cases, but also assisted in the testing. There was no independently controlled

testing in addition to what the vendor provided.

5. The Elections Department warehouse — where the cartridges are prepared

and stored until ready for shipment to the polling place — is sufficiently

secure. Besides being badge access controlled, it is protected by the First

Alarm Security System.

6. Proper procedures are in place to ensure the security of the data.

7. All types of equipment had problems. Printers jammed, and two or three

scanners failed. Proactive planning by the Elections Department helped

mitigate these problems.

8. The 400C Ballot Counter had problems that need to be corrected in the

future. Although it counted the votes quickly, some ballots were damaged

when they were ejected from the machine.

9. The Elections Department was proactive in creating written procedures for

all aspects of the election process and identifying areas of improvement after

the election. Poll workers were supplied with good procedures to do their

jobs.

10. The touch screen set up provided adequate wheel chair access. The Elections

Department was proactive in re- engineering the machine support legs to

accommodate a wheel chair. However, the placement of the touch screen

computers in some polling places contributed to the lack of voter privacy,

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 12 Electronic Voting

Also, some co- located precincts shared a touch screen, which confused some

voters when they were asked to identify their precinct.

11. The fact that Santa Cruz County is not flat in several locations and uses

many older buildings as polling sites led to a lawsuit against the county

alleging the county’s failure to comply with accessibility regulations. The

parties agreed to settle the lawsuit without finding that the county had

violated the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.

12. Because several staffers had to be both trainers and trainees, the Elections

Department was stretched very thin in training for the new voting system.

Due to this shortage of staff and time crunches, some poll workers were not

completely prepared. Even though the poll workers were trained to advise

voters that the touch screen was available for their use, most workers

presented the paper ballot as the only option.

13. Voter awareness and understanding of the new voting process could have

been better. Even though voters were informed about the new process, many

lacked a good understanding of how it differed from the previous process,

and some were confused about the new ballots. Many understood that the

touch screen was new but did not realize that their paper ballot was being

scanned, which was a new process.

14. Although there was some confusion over the new process, most voters felt

comfortable using the new equipment.

15. Although this change in the voting system complied with the “ Help America

Vote Act,” using the new technology did, in fact, take longer, cost the county

more and required more staff and testing.

16. The strategy to put just one touch screen at each polling place proved to be a

good one. It satisfied the requirements for voter accessibility while providing

more current technology for voters. The mixture of technology also provided

backup. If the printer or other equipment had a problem, voters had another

way to cast their votes.

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Electronic Voting Page 2 - 13

Recommendations

1. The Elections Department should continue to make security improvements,

thereby ensuring the integrity of the data.

2. Because this was the first year using the new electronic voting system, the

Elections Department relied heavily upon the vendor for testing and support.

In the future, the Election Department needs to create and conduct its own

testing program.

3. The use of the verifiable paper trail on the touch screen voting machine has

proven successful. Pubic awareness of this method of verification should be

stressed in the future.

4. The poll workers should continue to follow procedures established for

ensuring the security of the data, which include traceable seals on the

memory packs and results cartridges and procedures for handling the seals. If

a seal is found broken on a machine, that machine should not be used. In

addition, all machines which have a broken seal at the end of the day, should

undergo a full manual count.

5. The Elections Department should work with the vendor to solve the various

problems that arose with the ballot counter damaging ballots.

6. The Elections Department should set up procedures for auditing the absentee

ballots.

7. Because comprehensive poll worker training proved difficult to provide with

a limited staff and it is important to have most poll workers trained on the

machines, staffing should be increased so that the management is not

stretched too far by overseeing the election process while also training other

staff and temporary employees.

8. In future elections, the touch screen machines should be set up to provide

more privacy for the voter. The side panels should also be larger for privacy

in voting.

9. Each precinct should have its own touch screen in the future to avoid voter

confusion.

10. Because the “ ledger” size of the paper ballots was too large to fit

comfortably in the old polling booths, the size of the paper should be

adjusted to solve this problem.

11. Because of the common practice of storing the equipment at the polling place

supervisor’s house overnight, these supervisors should be identified as far in

advance as possible to allow for additional training on security procedures

and the vulnerability of the equipment.

12. The Elections Department should plan to strengthen its “ advertising”

campaign for future elections. It should focus on educating the voters to

verify the paper trail when using the touch screen equipment.

13. The Elections Department should review the appendix to this report and take

appropriate action based on poll worker and public responses.

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 14 Electronic Voting

14. Since a number of poll workers dropped out the night before and morning of

election day, requiring substitutes that were not trained, a pool of trained

alternate poll workers should be available on election day to substitute in

case of poll worker absenteeism.

Commendations

1. The Elections Department has provided a secure warehouse to protect the

equipment and store the data. They have done an excellent job with physical

security.

2. Since all types of the new voting equipment had operational problems, the

Elections Department should be commended for using a mixed equipment

approach that allowed for backup in case a machine had problems. Except

for the visually impaired, this approach mitigated most problems.

3. The Elections Department did an excellent job of ensuring that the votes

were tallied correctly. Procedures were put in place to ensure a starting count

of zero, traceable seals, verifiable paper trail and a 10 percent manual count.

4. The Election Department provided all workers with good procedures to do

their jobs. Written procedures will ensure the smooth operations of future

elections.

5. The Elections Department should be commended for being proactive in

making the environment available for the voters with disabilities.

6. The Elections Department deserves a major commendation on its strategy of

putting just one touch screen at each polling place.

Responses Required

Entity Findings Recommendations Respond Within

Santa Cruz County

Board of Supervisors

7 60 Days

September 1, 2007

Elections Officer 1 - 46 1- 14

90 Days

October 1, 2007

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Electronic Voting Page 2 - 15

Sources

Interviewed:

• County Clerk and Election Department staff

• Department Information Systems Specialist

• Information Systems Anyaly6st

• Assistant County Clerk

• Electronic Voting Expert

Reviewed:

• Board Minutes

• County Reports.

• Newspaper Articles

Web Sites:

• Santa Cruz County Elections Department. This has a great deal of information

about the plan for the last November election and links to info on the products to be

used. There is also information about the bidding and selection process.

( http:// votescount. com/).

• Online flash demo of use of a touch screen voting machine.

http:// sequoiavote. com/ demo. php? lang= vv

• Brochure of the new optical scan system.

http:// www. sequoiavote. com/ docs/ insight. pdf

• Link to the Sequoia Brochure describing the touch screen machines.

http:// sequoiavote. com/ docs/ AVCEdge. pdf

• A national website devoted to the controversy. www. blackboxvoting. org

• A 38 page report from an Secretary of State funded study. http:// accurate-voting.

org/ 2006/ 02/ 19/ security- analysis- of- the- accubasic- interpreter. pdf

• A panel appeared on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, discussing this issue. This is

a transcript of that telecast. http:// www. pbs. org/ newshour/ bb/ politics/ jan-june06/

voting_ 06- 15. html

• An executive summary of the “ Secure Electronic Registration and Voting

Experiment” ( SERVE) A few lines down is a link to click to the author’s bios.

http:// servesecurityreport. org/

• The official site of the California Secretary of State: http:// www. ss. ca. gov/

2005 – 2006 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 - 16 Electronic Voting

This page intentionally left blank.

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Electronic Voting Appendix Page 2 - 17

Electronic Voting

A Strategy for Managing the Voting Process

Appendix

Voter & Poll Worker Surveys – Procedure

As part of the inquiry into the electronic voting, the Grand Jury was interested in the voter response to the

changes, poll worker training, and observing Election Day procedures.

Two informal survey forms were developed to gather voter and poll worker response.

Grand Jury members signed up to observe at the polling places of their choice and at the time they

desired to participate.

Attending a poll worker training was an option offered to the jury members. Some but not all jury

members elected to attend the training.

Each participating jury member was given a packet of materials at the full panel meeting. This packet

included the following:

• Blank Voter Survey Forms in English and Spanish

• Blank Poll Worker Survey Forms

• An ID Badge from the County Elections Department

• A letter of introduction from the Registrar of Voters

• Poll observation instructions from the Registrar of Voters

• Clipboards and pencils

Voters could either fill out the survey on their own or give their answers to the jury member who

recorded their responses.

Poll workers were given the opportunity to fill out the surveys on the spot or when they had time during

the day, with a jury member coming back to collect them.

At the end of Election Day, each participating jury member returned their materials to a box in the jury

room along with their observations at various precincts. The results were tallied and all responses

recorded. The following is the compilation results of the voter and poll worker surveys. Due to the

volume of written comments, a sampling of the comments is included here.

A total of 320 voter surveys were collected and tallied.

A total of 104 poll workers surveys were collected and tallied.

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 – 18 Electronic Voting Appendix

Voters Survey and Tallied Responses Total: 320

1. Did you vote using the touch screen or the optical scanner, and why?

o Touch Screen:……………………………. 57

o Optical Scanner:……………………………………………. 245

o Absentee………………………………………………………………………… 17

o Audio system…………………………………………………………………………………… 1

Why? Touch Screen Optical Absentee Audio

o Available:………………………………….. 16 82 1 0

o Ease of Use:………………………………. 14 53 3 0

o Trustworthy:……………………………… 3 55 0 0

o Other:……………………………………… 22 40 0 0

A) If you used the touch screen, how did you check your vote?

o Touch Screen: ……………… 10

o Voter Verified Paper Trail:.. 12

o Both:…………………………. 28

o Neither:……………………… 2

B) If you used the optical scanner, did it accept your ballot easily?

o Yes:…………………………....................... 207

o No:…………………………………………. 7

Please answer the following questions on a scale of 1 to 5.

2. Were the instructions for voting clear and easy to understand?

Touch Screen 1 1 2 1 3 0 4 7 5 44 N/ A --- 1

Unclear---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clear

Optical Scanner 1 2 2 3 3 13 4 46 5 177

Unclear---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clear

Absentee/ Audio 3 1 5 9

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Electronic Voting Appendix Page 2 - 19

3. How easy was it to cast your vote?

Touch Screen 1 0 2 1 3 1 4 5 5 47

Difficult----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Easy

Optical Scanner 1 2 2 1 3 11 4 24 5 205

Difficult----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Easy

Absentee/ Audio 4 1 5 7 N/ A---- 1

4. Were the poll workers helpful?

Touch Screen 1 0 2 0 3 1 4 2 5 50 N/ A---- 1

Not Helpful----------------------------------------------------------------------- Helpful

Optical Scanner 1 1 2 1 3 4 4 33 5 212

Not Helpful----------------------------------------------------------------------- Helpful

Absentee/ Audio 5 8 N/ A---- 1

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 – 20 Electronic Voting Appendix

5. Do you feel comfortable with the new voting methods?

Touch Screen 1 0 2 2 3 1 4 4 5 48

Uncomfortable--------------------------------------------------------- Comfortable

Optical Scanner 1 17 2 7 3 28 4 30 5 170

Uncomfortable---------------------------------------------------------- Comfortable

Absentee 3 1 5 5 N/ A---- 2

Audio 5 1

Absentee Voter Comments:

• Voters surveyed said they chose to vote absentee because of the convenience it affords and out of

a lack of trust of voting machines. Two respondents said taking time during the day to vote did

not fit in with their work hours, and three reported that they appreciated the additional time they

could take filling out the ballot. Respondents also pointed to voting machine software being “ too

easy to hack into,” news reports of tampering with voting machine software and concern that their

vote “ might not count” as reasons for voting absentee.

Voter Comments on Touch Screen:

• Asked whether they used the touch screen or optical scanner, and why, voters responded that they

chose the touch screen out of curiosity, a desire to “ try the latest technology,” and to generate less

paper waste.

• Regarding whether the machines were easy to use, voters responded that “ the instructions weren’t

clear and the system wasn’t very well thought- out,” and that they could envision “ the elderly

having a lot of problems with the touch screen system.” Some voters thought that the system was

“ not particularly user friendly,” while others responded that “ it was as easy as pie to use.”

• A comment was received that “ poll workers should be better screened as to their ability to

perform needed tasks.” However, another voter admitted that they had not read instructions in

using the touch screen.

• Voters were also asked about reviewing their ballot after they had voted. “ The only problem was

in reviewing my ballot. I made a mistake – how to make a correction was not intuitive,” said one

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Electronic Voting Appendix Page 2 - 21

respondent. “ You had to actually touch the button of the candidate you mistakenly voted for to

“ undo” your vote. And then vote for the correct candidate,” another responded.

• General comments regarding the touch screen voting machine included enthusiasm for the new

technology in comments such as “ it was fun to be the first,” “ it went pretty fast,” and “ there were

too few machines so we had to wait in line. But the machines were great!” Wariness of the new

system was also clearly evident through comments such as “ needed pencil eraser to actually

‘ touch’ screen,” “ unclear what to do with a mistake,” “ change of vote not easy or clear,” “ did not

get a receipt; did I really vote?” and “ I am a computer/ electronics engineer, and do not trust the

new electronic system. The ability will always exist with them to tamper with the results and not

leave a trace.”

“ Great new technology!”/ “ Great system and location. Easy parking! Thank you.”/

“ I am slow catching on - curious – good idea – I could really check corrected / mistake”

Voter Comments on Optical Scanner:

• Asked whether they had used the touch screen or optical scanner, and why, voters said they did

not know there was a choice, that they had been “ directed” to the optical scanner, or that they had

been handed a paper ballot. Others said they had tried the touch screen, but had trouble working

with it and given up, that a touch screen was not available at the precinct at the time they voted,

that they felt there was less opportunity for failure than with the touch screen, and that they felt it

was a faster way of voting than the touch screen. Other voters responded that they felt the optical

scanner was more “ trustworthy” than the touch screen and that “ one mistake ( on the touch screen)

spoils the ballot” and it then has to be entirely redone. Many respondents offered positive

comments regarding the optical scanners, including “ great— easy and quick,” “ liked the paper,” “ I

feel good that my vote will count,” “ very convenient and easy,” and “ so much better than in the

past.”

• Asked about poll worker assistance with the optical scanners, voters surveyed were highly

complimentary of the poll workers. One said it “ would have been helpful for poll workers to

advise/ warn that paper method writing has changed from bubble to fill in arrow,” while another

suggested vests or arm bands to distinguish poll workers from voters in some of the larger

precinct voting stations.

• Asked specifically about their impressions of the optical scanner ballot and equipment, voters

noted confusion over the supposed need for a “ special pen” to record votes when a regular ball

point pen seemed to work fine,” and uncertainty involving where and how to draw an arrow on

the screen to register a vote for a particular person or issue compared with the previous method of

punching a hole on the ballot. Other concerns involved the ballot being “ too big” “ bulky,” or

“ cumbersome,” a need for more voting booths and booths to be bigger, and a desire that the

Election Day ballot more closely mirror the appearance of the Sample Ballot sent out before the

election so that voters are familiar with it. One voter expressed concern that the system can be

intimidating to people who are not naturally assertive.

• Voters were surveyed about the paper trail created by using an optical scanner ballot. Several

voters expressed a strong preference for a paper trail, again citing concern over the possibility for

fraud. One voter expressed acceptance of the current system, responding that problems are “ yet to

be seen,” but much more frequently voters expressed distrust in the use of computers in voting,

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 – 22 Electronic Voting Appendix

citing the possibility that voting data can be “ manipulated,” or that computer voter fraud could

contribute to a “ bloodless coup.” Some voter comments included: “ our system has lost control to

possible fraud;” “ I’m against computers, unless the ( there) is a clear paper trail to back up the

results;” “ I like the paper trail in case of recount;” “ don’t trust the touch screen!” and “ electronic

voting is problematic and requires a paper trail … to protect American democracy.” However, the

paper trail generated by the optical scanner did not satisfy all voters. One voter responded that “ I

get my stub to prove I voted, but no printout of what I voted for. I am suspicious of any

electronic machine counting my vote!”

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Electronic Voting Appendix Page 2 - 23

Poll workers Survey ( Part – 1) Declined ---- 1 Total: 104

Training

1. Was the instructor knowledgeable and well acquainted with the material?

1 0 2 4 3 1 4 14 5 80 N/ A ----------- 1

Unknowledgeable---------------------------------------------------------------- Knowledgeable

2. Were the training materials well prepared and easy to understand?

1 2 2 2 3 9 4 31 5 51 N/ A ------------ 1

Difficult------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Easy

3. Was there enough hands- on training with the machines?

1 12 2 8 3 15 4 19 5 31 No training -- 1

None--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Enough N/ A ------------ 6

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 – 24 Electronic Voting Appendix

4. Could the instructor answer all the participants’ questions?

1 0 2 0 3 8 4 21 5 69

None------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All N/ A ------------- 1

5. Did you feel well prepared and confident at the end of the training session?

1 0 2 5 3 19 4 42 5 33

Unprepared----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prepared

Poll Worker Training Comments:

• Poll workers reported positive experiences. They included: “ It was unsettling when you first

beginning but ( the Elections Department was) able to answer all questions I had;” and “ our

inspector made the training and the voting poll experience a great one.” Santa Cruz County Clerk

Gail Pellerin and her training staff were complimented by poll workers.

• Some poll workers reported that they had not taken a training class provided by the Elections

Department and had not undergone training in how to use the new touch screen voting system.

Some who had not undergone training, however, reported that they felt they were able to perform

their job capably either with training on Election Day or with assistance from other more

experienced poll workers at their precinct.

• Comments by poll workers who experienced problems or had recommendations included:

“ Disorganized training materials. The presenters were not experienced with presenting the

information even thought they were clearly the experts in the election material;” “ not enough

training on the process – too much on machines with no context.” A recurring response by poll

workers suggested more hands- on training with the voting computers used on Election Day is

needed. One poll worker responded, “ I felt well prepared by training and the handouts – the

‘ special circumstances’ material was very, very helpful! My recommendation is that when there is

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Electronic Voting Appendix Page 2 - 25

more than one precinct at a polling site, that an ‘ inspector general’ would help alleviate confusion

… in ( interpreting) the guidelines and directions.”

• Two poll workers echoed voters in responding that “ ballots are too big for booth,” while another

observed, “ the sample ballot used was too simple–— needs to be more real.”

Poll workers Survey ( Part 2) Same 104 surveys continued.

Election day

6. Did the training provide adequate guidelines for operations today?

1 2 2 2 3 18 4 23 5 48 N/ A ------ 1

Inadequate------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Adequate

7. Was your precinct staffed fully and correctly?

1 1 2 2 3 10 4 20 5 66

Understaffed------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well staffed

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 – 26 Electronic Voting Appendix

8. Did you have problems setting up the equipment?

1 0 2 0 3 12 4 31 5 48 N/ A ------ 2

Difficult------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Easy

9. Did you remind every voter to look at the paper verification?

1 3 2 2 3 8 4 11 5 47 N/ A ------ 7

None------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All

10. Did the voting machines operate correctly? If not, please describe the problems.

1 3 2 1 3 6 4 13 5 58

Incorrect--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Correct N/ A ------ 5

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Electronic Voting Appendix Page 2 - 27

Poll Worker Comments on Voting Machines:

• Poll workers were asked whether the voting machines operated correctly. Responses received

included: “ Optech Insight has no directions on machine to verify correct seating on alignment pin.

Caused problem on first ballot;” “ by noon, ( ballot holder) was full because it has absentee and

pink ballots, too;” “ screen sensitivity made some voting difficult— using rubber end of pencil

helped;” “ touch screen was hard to make selections at sometimes.” One poll worker reported, “ In

general, both machines appeared to work well ( at least as of 3: 20 p. m. when this survey was

completed). Ballot scanner caught a number of over voted ballots, which is excellent.”

• Problems with paper jamming in the printer were a recurring problem, according to several poll

workers. Their comments included: “ having paper problems, tape is running but is going off

track;” and “ tape broke 3 times, so our machines was not used much.” Two poll workers reported

problems with their printers which made them inoperative for part of the day, but that the

problems were addressed. “ The printer was worked on quite a bit and was non- operational for a

large part of the day. Once it was fixed it worked correctly,” one poll worker reported. Another

stated, ” Touch Screen printer was down at least two hours and required several visits by the tech

rovers.”

Positive experience:

• Two poll workers reported positive experiences with the voting machines. One reported that it

“ was set up when I arrived at 6: 05 a. m. Very affirmative response to the Electronic Voting from

the voters what used it.” The other reported, “ Machines operation OK. Didn’t hear anyone

screaming.”

11. If you needed help solving a problem, was the support from field coordinators available in a timely manner?

1 2 1 3 3 4 12 5 48 N/ A----- 4

Delayed------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timely

Poll Worker Comments on Support on Election Day:

• Poll workers were asked, “ If you needed help, was the support provided in a timely manner?”

Many respondents reported positive experiences, with comments including, “ I enjoyed my day

today everyone made it very pleasant;” “ my co- workers were wonderful, kind, patient and

knowledgeable,” and “ very responsive. Why is the grand jury spending time on such a successful

department and smooth operation?”

• Poll workers also reported mixed responses to the timeliness of calls to the Elections Department

for help. They included: “ Inspectors very knowing & helpful!” “ phone calls went unanswered;”

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 2 – 28 Electronic Voting Appendix

“ sometimes timely, sometimes not;” “ machine tech was called about problem, arrived in about 10

minutes— will bring new machine.”

Observations/ Suggestions:

• Some general observations and suggestions offered by poll workers included: “ Paper ballots are

very difficult to remove with voter stub. Takes extra time to tear off properly. Need a sign on

scanner that says BALLOT BOX;” “ precinct number on voter pamphlet should be in much larger

print;” “ need more touch screens! Too many people had to wait!” and “ I am amazed and

impressed by the thoroughness of the checks to make sure the election is not tampered with by

anyone. Kudos to Santa Cruz Election Dept.”

Election Day Observations by Grand Jury Members Observing at the Polls

• A number of precincts were combined to make better use of handicapped access. In one instance

three precincts were combined because of facility handicapped access. In attempting to follow

the mandates of the law, other voters were displaced from their usual voting places and expressed

concern and frustration when they had to leave to find their “ new” polling place. The county

moved precincts around and voters were observed being confused and sent to other sites. Touch

screen machines were shared by three precincts at one voting location. Only the operator enters

the precinct number into the machine, which can create confusion.

• A number of voters told poll workers that they did not get their absentee ballots. One precinct

had so many absentee ballots they had to band them with rubber bands. Absentee ballots are not

secured; they can’t fit in the envelope provided by the Elections Department.

• An inspector was sitting next to the voting machine which limited privacy for those voting with

the electronic voting machine. People who came up to talk to the poll worker stood behind the

voter and were not directed away from the voting area by the poll worker.

• The time required to cast a vote seemed about the same for both electronic and paper.

• Most people used the paper ballot at the U. C. Santa Cruz polling station. Some did so and

commented they were using it because they did not trust the touch screen. As is typical at campus

precincts, many of the voters who came to the UCSC polling station did not understand or know

they had to go to their registered polling place. Many had registered at a different location and

forgot where they were supposed to go. It happens all the time. A phone number was offered for

them to call and find out their polling place. One student thought the county should provide a

phone for voters to use to make the call to find their polling place.

• This was a long ballot and took some time for voters to complete. There was one touch screen

and at times the wait for the unit was 20 minutes or more. Most voters opted for paper if they

thought the wait for the touch screen was too long. Not many actually wanted to use the touch

screen, but a few who thought about it went to paper when the wait was too long.

Santa Cruz County

Grand Jury

Final Report:

Section 3

Criminal Justice Committee Reports

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Jails Review Page 3 - 1

Santa Cruz County

Jails Review

Background

There are seven detention facilities that comprise the jail system in Santa Cruz County.

Six are operated by the Santa Cruz County; the seventh, Camp 45, is operated by the

state:

1. Main Jail

2. Rountree Medium

3. Rountree Minimum

4. Juvenile Hall

5. Blaine Street

6. Court Holding

7. Camp 45

The Main Jail, Rountree facilities, Blaine Street and the Court Holding cells are operated

by the Santa Cruz County Sheriff. Juvenile Hall is operated by the Probation Department.

The budget for each of these facilities is under the control of the county Board of

Supervisors. Camp 45 is operated by the California Department of Corrections, and its

budget is under the control of the State of California.

Scope

The Grand Jury is mandated by California Penal Code § 919( b) to inspect and report on

the conditions and management of the jail facilities within the county. To satisfy this

mandate, the Criminal Justice Committee and other members of the Grand Jury: ( 1)

inspected the Main Jail, Rountree facilities, Blaine Street, and Juvenile Hall; ( 2) spoke

with management, staff, and inmates at each facility; ( 3) reviewed previous Grand Jury

reports, paying particular attention to prior recommendations; and ( 4) reviewed

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation inspection reports for each

facility.

Main Jail

The Santa Cruz Main Jail is located at 259 Water Street, across the street from the

County Courthouse. Three visits were made. The first visit was during the afternoon and

early evening on September 29, 2006, the second visit in the afternoon on Sept. 30, 2006,

and the third visit in the evening on Feb. 2, 2007.

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 3 - 2 Jails Review

Main Jail Findings

1. In 2006, the average daily number of inmates housed in the Main Jail was 340.

On September 29 and 30, 2006, the total inmate population was 317.

Approximately 10 percent of these inmates were female. On Feb. 2, 2007, the

population was 321. Although there are a maximum of 424 beds available, the

Main Jail’s rated capacity is 311. This capacity is set by the California

Corrections Standards Authority, which inspects the jail every two years.

2. The Sheriff’s 2007 report on overcrowding, presented to the County Board of

Supervisors in February 2007, reported that, “ Although jail bookings decreased

by only 1 percent, the average monthly population at the Main Jail is down 10

percent compared to 2005. The average monthly Main Jail population in 2005

was 386 in comparison to 346 in 2006.”

3. In April 2007, the Governor and California State Legislature approved a prison

reform measure aimed at easing overcrowding at state prisons. The measure

includes $ 1.2 billion in funding to increase the number of beds at county jails

statewide by 13,000, with a requirement that counties receiving state funds match

25 percent of the state’s contribution. Counties that assist the state in providing re-entry

facilities and mental health programs for state prison parolees will receive

preference from the state for the local jail funding.

4. The jail population consists of both male and female inmates who have cases

pending, have been sentenced, or who are awaiting sentencing. Approximately 75

percent of inmates housed in the jail are repeat offenders. On Sept. 30, 2006, 80

percent were not yet sentenced.

5. The jail population is segregated, with members of competing gangs housed in

separate units, each with their own recreation room and exercise yard. Inmates

with psychological problems, sex offenders and those who are violent are also

segregated from the rest of the Main Jail population. Meals are served separately

to eliminate contact. Jail inmates come into contact with inmates from other

wings only during travel to court appearances.

6. At least one bilingual officer is on duty during every shift. Corrections officers

said the Sheriff’s Office neither actively encourages nor discourages officers to

learn Spanish, a prevalent language of inmates at the jail.

7. The Sheriff’s Office spent $ 99,000 in 2006 on remodeling and mildew removal in

one of the shower facilities at the Main Jail.

8. Arrestees who are drunk at the time of their arrest are put in the jail’s drunk tank

for a minimum of five hours. The Sheriff’s Office collects information on “ serial

inebriates,” those arrested at least four times within a 30- day period on suspicion

of being drunk in public. The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s office uses

the information as part of the implementation of Proposition 36, the statewide

measure passed in 2000 that allows first- and second- time nonviolent, simple drug

possession offenders the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment instead

of incarceration.

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Jails Review Page 3 - 3

9. Everyone who is admitted to the jail for 14 days or longer is examined by a

doctor. The jail also offers limited dentistry ( including pulling teeth, but not

fillings or more extensive dental work). Testing of inmates for tuberculosis is now

mandatory.

10. There are two nurses on duty overnight, more during days.

11. The entire corrections staff was retrained in the use of stun guns in fall 2006

following the death of an inmate in custody who had been subdued by a stun gun.

Stun guns were reintroduced back into the jail in October 2006.

12. Medical records during the September visits were found stored out in the open in

a hallway, possibly in violation of Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act privacy requirements. The records were stored properly in a

storage room during the February visit.

13. In November 2006, the Sheriff’s Office initiated regular one- hour Sunday tours of

the Main Jail that are open to the public. Approximately 250 people had toured

the Main Jail as of May 2007.

14. Corrections officers work 12- hour shifts with no overlap of shifts.

15. As of March 13, 2007, 12 corrections officer positions at the jails were unfilled.

16. On busy nights, particularly Fridays and Saturdays, the jail cannot accept and

process persons arrested as fast as they are brought to the jail. As a result, police

cars from all the county’s law enforcement jurisdictions often queue up outside

the jail, with police personnel forced to wait, sometimes more than an hour, for

their turn. During this time, the officers are off the streets rather than patrolling.

17. The Main Jail is scheduled to install a new fingerprinting system that will enable

officers to scan a prisoner’s thumb print as soon as they drive into the intake port.

This system will begin the process of identifying the prisoner, saving the officer

time later into the intake process. The same fingerprinting system will also be

used to scan prisoners before they are released from jail, providing positive

identification and reducing the chance that an inmate will be released erroneously.

18. The county’s only booking facility is in the Main Jail. Police working in the south

part of the county must transport persons who are arrested to the Main Jail in

Santa Cruz for booking.

19. Creation of a new “ prisoner classification system,” recommended by the National

Institute of Corrections, is due to be completed this spring or summer. One of the

expected benefits of the new system will be a more comprehensive analysis of

new prisoners, possibly resulting in an increase in the number of inmates

qualifying for rehabilitation programs rather than incarceration in the Main Jail.

Also, as recommended by the National Institute of Corrections, a “ Jail Population

Control Officer” has been appointed temporarily to monitor jail overcrowding

until the new classification system is completed, at which time a “ classification

team” of corrections officers will take over the task.

20. Medical services at the Main Jail, as well as at the other corrections facilities in

the county, are provided by the Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency.

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 3 - 4 Jails Review

21. In the majority of counties in California, medical services are contracted out by

the county’s Sheriff’s Department to private companies. In most of the remaining

counties, the Sheriff’s Department is responsible for providing medical care for

inmates. The model used in Santa Cruz County with the county’s Health Services

Agency responsible for providing medical care for inmates is unusual, though not

unique.

22. The California Code of Regulations establishes requirements for medical care in

county jails. Title 15, Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities, Article

11, Medical/ Mental Health Services, Sec. 1200, establishes that the Sheriff’s

Office is ultimately responsible for the provision of health care within the jails. It

states, “ Responsibility for Health Care Services: ( a) In Type I, II, III, and IV

facilities, the facility administrator shall have the responsibility to ensure

provision of emergency and basic health care services to all inmates.”

23. Detention Medical Services is a small portion of the Santa Cruz County Health

Services Agency’s responsibilities and budget. The overall budget for the Health

Services Agency is $ 135 million; the total budget for Detention Medical Services

is $ 3 million. Of the 20 Health Services Agency’s Detention Medical Services

positions, two- thirds are nurses. Four and a half positions in Detention Medical

Services were vacant as of March 2007.

24. The Health Services Agency is working toward computerization of all reports and

paperwork, but computerization of jail reports for the handling of medications and

tracking medical reports has been delayed.

25. Nursing staff turnover at the jail has been high, partly attributable to the higher

salaries nurses can earn both locally at private health institutions in the county,

including the hospital, and in jails in other counties. There have been suggestions

that the Detention Medical Services department, because it comprises only a

fraction of the entire Health Services Agency’s mission, is not being given the

attention or resources necessary to operate efficiently, and that Detention Medical

Services is losing trained, experienced personnel, resulting in lost productivity

and expertise and higher training costs. Salaries for detention medical services

personnel are currently under review to determine their competitiveness with

other similar positions. County administrators and labor representatives for nurses

initiated negotiations for a new contract in spring, 2007.

26. The Interim Director of Detention Medical Services is conducting an assessment

of costs, staffing, issues involving who has authority over detention medical

services staff, and state statutory guidelines for providing medical care to inmates.

The goal of the assessment is to determine, 1) whether inmate care is best

managed through the county’s Health Services Agency; 2) if the county would be

better served by having the Sheriff’s Office manage Detention Medical Services

itself; or 3) if the Sheriff’s Office should contract out to a private health provider.

The report is projected to be completed sometime in 2008.

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Jails Review Page 3 - 5

Main Jail Conclusions

1. The facility is well- managed. Officers and staff conducted themselves in a

professional manner during inspections, answered questions asked of them in a

thorough and knowledgeable manner, promptly provided backup information

when requested and exhibited a sense of pride in their work.

2. Overcrowding at the Main Jail continues to be a problem. Although the Sheriff’s

Office is actively working to find solutions, the state’s recently approved prison

reform package may increase the number of prisoners serving their sentence in

county jail who previously would have been incarcerated in a state prison.

3. The institution of mandatory testing for tuberculosis has reduced the risk to staff

and inmates of contracting this illness.

4. The new program of public tours at the Main Jail is a positive step in developing

stronger community relations between the Sheriff’s Office and the public.

5. The Health Services Agency does a professional and adequate job of providing

detention medical services for the Main Jail and other corrections facilities in

Santa Cruz County, but it does not appear that this arrangement is the most

effective and efficient for either the Health Services Agency or the Sheriff’s

Office.

6. Noncompetitive pay scales for both health services workers in the jail and

corrections officers continue to make it difficult to attract and retain experienced

employees.

7. The lack of computerization in handling medications and tracking of medical

reports exacerbates the difficult and time- consuming work that nurses must

perform at the Main Jail.

8. The lack of a booking facility in the southern portion of Santa Cruz County

reduces the time officers are available in their own jurisdictions.

Main Jail Recommendations

1. The Sheriff’s Office should implement its new prisoner classification system as

soon as possible and continue to look for additional ways to reduce overcrowding.

2. The Sheriff’s Office should aggressively pursue opening a second booking facility

in the southern portion of the county, as well as additional methods of expediting

the process for officers delivering arrestees to the jail.

3. The Sheriff’s Office should continue to offer tours of the Main Jail to the public

and consider extending the practice to its Rountree facilities in Watsonville.

4. The Board of Supervisors should evaluate the compensation given to Sheriff’s

Office corrections staff and the Health Services Agency’s Detention Medical

Services staff to assure the parity of pay of those positions compared with similar

jobs elsewhere.

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 3 - 6 Jails Review

5. The Sheriff’s Office and Health Services Agency should expedite their review of

the most effective and cost- efficient way to provide health services to the jails,

including reviewing the possibility of contracting out some or all of the jails’

health care needs to a private company.

6. The Sheriff’s Office should encourage Spanish language training for correctional

officers.

Main Jail Commendation

Jail administrators and staff and Detention Medical Services staff should be

commended for their professionalism.

Responses Required

Entity Findings Recommendations Respond

Within

Santa Cruz County

Board of

Supervisors

14, 25, 26

4

60 Days

September 1, 2007

Santa Cruz County

Sheriff- Coroner

2, 3, 17, 19

16, 18

13

22, 25, 26

6

1

2

3

5

6

60 Days

September 1, 2007

Santa Cruz County

Health Services

Agency

22, 25, 26 5 60 Days

September 1, 2007

Rountree Medium and Minimum Security jails

Background

The Rountree Facility is located on Rountree Lane in Watsonville. The facility was built

in 1993 on 11 acres and incorporates both medium and minimum security facilities for

male inmates who have been sentenced. The medium security facility houses inmates

who have been determined to not require the maximum segregation provided by the Main

Jail, but who still require locked incarceration and/ or segregation from other prisoners;

the minimum security facility houses inmates who are determined not to pose a threat,

qualify for work- release programs and do not have a high level of criminal sophistication.

Both Rountree facilities house inmates who have been convicted and sentenced for up to

one year in jail.

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Jails Review Page 3 - 7

Rountree Findings

1. The Grand Jury visited the Rountree facilities on Nov. 11, 2006. The maximum

capacity of the Rountree medium security facility is 100 inmates; the population

on Nov. 11 was 70. The minimum security facility has a maximum capacity of

280 inmates; the population on Nov. 11 was 90.

2. There are at least five correctional officers on duty at any given time at the

medium security facility. Three officers work the day shift at the minimum

security facility, three work the swing shift, and two work the overnight shift.

3. The living areas are dormitory style. A correctional officer is present in the

dormitory at all times.

4. The annual state inspection for Rountree, conducted on June 27, 2006, found the

facility in substantial compliance with environmental health, nutritional, and

medical/ mental health policies. It noted, however, “ the lack of any onsite medical

records for use by medical staff raises concerns regarding the ability to make

accurate diagnostic and treatment decisions onsite. Currently, the Main Jail staff

must be contacted to receive any medical history, diagnoses, or treatment

decisions. This degree of communication is intensive and occasionally results in

lack of sufficient data being transmitted.”

5. The dining halls in both the medium and minimum security facilities were clean,

the floors mopped, tables wiped clean. Prisoners are served a sufficient quantity

of food to meet state- mandated daily caloric requirements.

6. A brick pathway on the south side of the medium security building is cracked and

presents a trip hazard.

7. A nurse is on site at the facility four days a week, Tuesday through Friday, for

eight hours each day. Medications are distributed twice a day in marked bubble

packs that help prevent the wrong medications from being distributed to inmates.

If an inmate is injured when a nurse is not present, or the injury requires more

extensive treatment, the inmate is taken to the Main Jail or Watsonville Medical

Clinic.

8. The SAFE ( Substance Abuse Free Environment) Program, which involved

counselors visiting the facility every day with voluntary programs for prisoners

aimed at ending drug use, was cancelled as of June 30, 2006. Funding for the

program, which had been court- ordered, was not renewed by the county. The

Sheriff’s Office determined that the program was ineffective. Inmates who

participated in the last SAFE Program offered at Rountree in 2006 before it was

cancelled had already re- offended and been rearrested several months later.

9. There is an automated external defibrillator ( AED) at Rountree, but staff does not

feel comfortable operating it.

10. A program modeled after the minimum security facility requires prisoners to

begin their day by sitting up and being active when they wake rather than simply

lying in bed all day and sleeping and then being more disruptive at night. The

program was initiated in the medium security facility in October 2006. On

Monday through Friday, inmates are required after eating breakfast to make their

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 3 - 8 Jails Review

beds and clean themselves up. They can go to classes, or if they choose, they can

sit on their bunk, but they are not allowed to lie down and go back to sleep.

11. The number of activities available to inmates in the medium security facility,

including ping pong tables, weights, and additional educational opportunities, has

been expanded to provide inmates with more incentive to be more active during

the daytime.

12. Spanish is the primary language for approximately half of the inmates in the

medium- security facility. Seventy percent of the Rountree staff speaks Spanish

and a Spanish- speaking officer is on duty most, but not all, of the time.

13. Security cameras are being added above the guard watch stations in each unit in

the medium security facility to increase officer safety and inmate monitoring at

night.

14. The Rountree medium security facility does not house women. There is presently

no medium security detention facility in Santa Cruz County for women; they are

either housed in the high security Main Jail, or if they have been sentenced and

meet certain criteria, they are housed at the minimum security Blaine Street

facility.

15. Rountree does not house mentally unstable inmates who need frequent medical

attention medication. It also does not house inmates with chronic medical

conditions that require regular medical care. Those inmates are housed in the

Main Jail facility.

16. As noted in previous years’ Grand Jury reports, the lack of an on- site nurse

precludes inmates who require cardiac, psychotropic drug combinations, or

injectable medications from being placed in the medium or minimum security

facility. The Health Services Agency, which is responsible for providing medical

care for prisoners, is studying the possibility of expanding the availability of

nursing care at Rountree to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The results of that

study were due this past spring.

17. Inmates at the minimum security facility, also known as “ the farm,” are monitored

by head counts taken three times each day.

18. Between 7: 00 a. m. and 3: 00 p. m., Monday through Friday, inmates at the farm are

outside the facility at work on work crews or off- premises on work- release

programs.

19. The farm includes a well- equipped computer lab that provides basic computer

skills and training, and an auto repair shop for learning basic automotive repair

and body work skills.

20. The population center of the county is shifting to the south and there is no

booking and intake facility other than at the Main Jail in the city of Santa Cruz.

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Jails Review Page 3 - 9

Rountree Conclusions

1. The physical appearance of the facility, including the kitchen and living areas, is

exemplary.

2. Staff confidence in how to use the facility’s automated external defibrillator is not

sufficient.

3. Facility administrators have increased the number and variety of activities

available to inmates in the medium security facility during the daytime.

Concurrently, the program initiated to prevent inmates from sleeping or lying in

bed all day helps redirect their energy, resulting in more productive days and less

disruptive nights.

4. Staffing is not adequate to ensure that at least one Spanish- speaking corrections

officer is on duty at all times.

5. The lack of a medium security facility that can house lower- risk female inmates

and chronically ill inmates results in inmates who would qualify for such a facility

continuing to serve sentences in the more severe environment of the Main Jail.

6. Round- the- clock nursing staff would enable the Sheriff’s Office to shift some

low- risk prisoners out of the overcrowded Main Jail and into the less- utilized

medium security facility. It could also decrease costs related to transportation and

treatment of inmates to the Main Jail or a local clinic when they are sick. It may

or may not be cost- effective to expand the nursing staff at Rountree, given that it

has not been determined how many inmates would benefit or what the transport

costs would be.

7. The minimum security facility continues to be a positive and productive

alternative to more restrictive incarceration for low- risk inmates to serve their

time productively and take advantage of educational opportunities that can

decrease their potential to re- offend.

8. Medical records for inmates are not kept onsite at the Rountree facility. However,

the county’s Detention Medical Services utilizes a screening process that prevents

inmates with medical conditions that necessitate a higher level of medical care

from being transferred from the Main Jail to Rountree, minimizing the potential

for diagnosis and treatment complications.

9. Security and safety within the medium security units will be improved by the

planned addition of cameras above the guard watch stations.

10. Having a booking and intake facility at Rountree would reduce travel time for

officers coming from South County.

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Page 3 - 10 Jails Review

Rountree Recommendations

1. The Sheriff’s Office should provide guards with additional training in using the

onsite automated external defibrillator.

2. The Sheriff’s Office should encourage additional Spanish language training for

corrections officers.

3. The Sheriff’s Office should review the report from the Health Services Agency

when completed to determine whether expanding nursing at Rountree is

warranted.

4. The Sheriff’s Office should aggressively pursue adding a booking and intake

facility at Rountree.

Responses Required

Entity Findings Recommendations Respond

Within

Santa Cruz County

Board of

Supervisors

9

12

20

1

2

3

60 Days

September 1, 2007

Santa Cruz County

Probation Dept.

5, 13, 14 4 & 5 90 Days

October 1, 2007

Juvenile Hall

Background

Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall, located at 3650 Graham Hill Road, was built in 1968.

Undergoing several modifications over the years, the facility currently has a capacity

level of 42 beds. The Juvenile Hall site also houses Juvenile Court and some of the

Probation Departments' offices. About 25 of the county’s approximately 70 probation

officers are dedicated to serving juveniles.

Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall has been designated a model site for the Annie E. Casey

Foundation Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative ( JDAI) — one of only four facilities

in the nation. The objectives of JDAI are:

• To reduce the number of children unnecessarily or inappropriately detained.

• To minimize the number of youth who fail to appear in court or re- offend pending

adjudication.

2006- 2007 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Jails Review Page 3 - 11

• To redirect public funds toward successful reform strategies.

• To improve conditions of confinement.

The Grand Jury visited on Oct. 21, 2006, and again on March 23, 2007. This year’s

budget included an allocation of $ 175,000 to install new video monitoring cameras and

new intercoms to communicate with inmates in their rooms; as of March 23rd, proposals

for the work were being evaluated with installation anticipated to start in the next few

weeks; the new cameras and intercoms will make staff feel safer and wards more

comfortable.

Juvenile Hall Findings

Facilities

1. Juvenile Hall has been rated to house 42 juveniles by the California Department

of Corrections. The average daily population in October 2006 was 24 and in

March 2007, it was 35. In recent years, Juvenile Hall regularly housed more than

50 juveniles at a time. The Santa Cruz County Probation Department has

experienced considerable success at finding alternatives to incarceration for

juveniles arrested or awaiting trial.

2. Juveniles between the ages of 12 to 18 are housed in two different units: the “ A”

unit houses older, more sophisticated offenders who have committed more serious

crimes, and the “ B” unit houses girls an