Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

1 week ago

A Database of Dangerous Dogs: San Diego County Should Publish Biters’ Addresses, Grand Jury Says

If a pet dog has a history of biting, does the public have a right to know?

The grand jury in San Diego County considered this question and answered in the affirmative.

In an investigation prompted by a complaint from a dog bite victim who found the official response inadequate, the watchdog group recommended that San Diego County publish the addresses of dog owners whose pets have been determined to be dangerous.

“Dog bites can cause physical and psychological harm and spread disease,” the grand jury said in a report to the Board of Supervisors last week. “About 2,500 dog bites are reported annually by San Diego County to the California Department of Public Health, although the true number is larger as not all cities make the required report.”

The supervisors sent the report to the county’s Animal Services Department for review.

The county has a dog bite page on its website giving tips on how owners can keep their dogs from biting and how others can avoid being bitten.

It instructs those bitten on how to report the incident and provides a link to a dog bite report. But it provides no information on where dangerous dogs may be encountered.

Citing examples of dangerous-dog databases maintained by the state of Virginia; Volusia County in Florida; and Minneapolis, the grand jury recommended the county “develop a plan for collecting information about the location of a declared dangerous dog within the county and posting this information, so it is readily available to the public.”

The report found several deficiencies in how the county, and cities in the county, handle dog bite incidents. Not all cities pass on dog bite reports to the county, and some lack regulations allowing animal control officers to fine owners of dogs that are dangerous.

The grand jury recommended that all cities that don’t already have them develop regulations allowing officers to cite and fine owners for violating animal control ordinances, and that all dog bites be reported annually.

Dogs that have been declared to be dangerous must be muzzled in public, and the owner is required to post warning signs and maintain liability insurance of at least $100,000.

But in recommending a database of dogs that have been declared dangerous, the watchdog group acknowledged a hurdle.

The procedure for designating dogs as dangerous requires the victim to testify in a court hearing. Victims interviewed by the grand jury described testifying as “a daunting experience” and one of the primary reasons hearings seldom occur.

“In the San Diego Humane Society reports for the last 3 fiscal years, 9 to 18 Dangerous Dog hearings a year took place, with 78% to 90% of those hearings resulting in the declaration that the dog was dangerous,” the report said.

Although not recommending any changes to make the process more accessible, the grand jury commended cities that levy fines of up to $500 for multiple violations of dog ordinances as a way of encouraging responsible ownership. ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

1 week ago

September 20, 2024

A recent report by the San Diego County Grand Jury commended the San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE) for the resources and guidance they provide county school districts and charter schools, as well as their leadership at the local and national levels in addressing cybersecurity challenges in K-12 education.
The report noted that while SDCOE has no oversight on what school districts do around cybersecurity, they “exert influence by providing a broad set of products and services to help them improve their cybersecurity readiness.”

SDCOE technology services include vulnerability assessments and remediation, setup and configuration guidance for critical security controls, cybersecurity best-practices, and post-incident review. SDCOE also offers San Diego County districts the Red Herring software solution for free to provide phishing awareness training, and risk management and insurance products are offered through the Joint Powers Authority.

“While cybersecurity attacks in K-12 have increased in both frequency and complexity over the last decade, SDCOE and its ITS Cybersecurity team have been leading the effort to meet these challenges,” said Terry Loftus, assistant superintendent and chief information officer. “It's affirming for SDCOE to receive positive recognition in this report.”

The grand jury interviewed seven districts and determined these districts are at varying stages of cybersecurity preparedness. Collectively, it rated the group of districts at a moderate level of cybersecurity readiness.

The grand jury’s findings were presented in general terms to avoid exposing any security vulnerabilities, examining human readiness, technical readiness, and organizational readiness as it relates to cybersecurity.

Human readiness refers to how prepared employees and students are to notice potential phishing attacks through suspicious emails or other means. The grand jury recommended that all employees and students, with a particular focus on new hires, receive annual cybersecurity training and implement a phishing awareness solution such as Red Herring.

Technical readiness factors they examined at each district included multi-factor authentication (MFA) and password management, patch management procedures, backup management procedures and disaster recovery, distribute denial of service protection, and vulnerability scanning.

The report noted that MFA “is one of the most critical tools in defending against cyberattacks,” and recommended all districts in the county implement these measures for all staff members.
Organizational readiness looked at the districts’ staffing around cybersecurity and technical expertise, the importance leadership placed on cybersecurity, and cyber insurance. Experience varied widely based on the district’s size. While the grand jury found there is no one-size-fits-all solution, they determined one best practice is clear: “there should be one individual who is responsible and accountable for cybersecurity readiness in the district.”
To ensure all districts in San Diego County are prepared for cyberattacks, the Grand Jury encouraged all districts to review and implement recommendations highlighted in the report.
The report concluded with recommendations for training, MFA, and cyber insurance, and recommended SDCOE continue supporting school districts and charter schools with their cybersecurity efforts. ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 weeks ago

Council Members Call Out “Cherry-Picking” in [Santa Clara County] Civil Grand Jury Personal Responses

The Silicon Valley Voice, David Alexander , posted 03:00 AM, September 17, 2024

Earlier this month, the Santa Clara City Council spent hours duking it out over how to respond to a civil grand jury report that takes aim at its dysfunction. However, that meeting’s goal was to establish the council’s position.
In addition to requiring the council to respond as a body, the grand jury also required each council member to respond to the claims contained in the report, titled “Irreconcilable Differences.” Those responses paint a similar picture to the issues raised during deliberations.

Perhaps the biggest issue, according to council member responses, is the grand jury, in Council Member Raj Chahal’s words, “cherry picking” behavior.

Claiming to have watched “400 hours” of meetings, the grand jury called out several council members’ behavior from the dais. However, absent from those pointed criticisms were any directed at Mayor Lisa Gillmor or Council Member Kathy Watanabe. Unsurprisingly, both Gillmor and Watanabe’s responses basically amount to agreeing with every finding and recommendation.

As Vice Mayor Anthony Becker puts it in his response, the behavior on the dais could undoubtedly be improved, but the grand jury’s accusations are not lobbed at the “whole city council, including the mayor.” This lopsided characterization calls into question, in the eyes of the council majority, the motives behind such attacks.

“The fact that the narrative focuses on the five as a group in collusion seems more to imply a biased jury,” Council Member Kevin Park wrote in his response. “Interestingly, some of the arguments used by the jury were exactly those used by members Watanabe and Gillmor in council meetings. Rather than make findings, it seems like the jury was told what to look at, or what to say.”

Many of the grand jury’s conclusions call for specific members to take various types of training. That training includes ethics training and training in parliamentary procedure. Further, the grand jury chastises several council members for more passive things such as “snickering” or “smiling.”

Several council members, in their responses, saw the discourse as them defending themselves, or, as Chahal put it, “[r]espect is two-way traffic.” Similarly, some said what the grand jury characterizes as “disrespect” is simply disagreement, or as Becker puts it, that council members “engage in very robust discussions.”

“Democracy is about debate, disagreements and compromise. Council members can disagree without being disagreeable,” Council Member Karen Hardy wrote. “My experience is council members weigh the facts and vote their conscience. The lack of ethics claims are subjective and only reflect a difference of opinion … There is nothing illegal or wrong with such[,] and one should not make assumptions about someone else’s actions or intent. Also[,] I am only responsible for my own reactions, not other people’s. We should treat each other with respect, and it is not my job to ‘police’ others.”

Council Member Suds Jain, in his response, points out what he sees as pettiness on the part of Gillmor and Watanabe. Overall, he wrote, the council works very well together. Frequently, Gillmor or Watanabe will go against the majority simply because the idea is not one of theirs.
For instance, he points to the duo opposing the Santa Clara Lawn Bowlers clubhouse in June and Gillmor red-sticker vetoing several of his ideas at the council’s priority setting session, despite him not poo-pooing any of her suggestions.
“Gillmor has acolytes who constantly abuse [c]ouncil members and create videos that suggest they are acting unethically,” Jain wrote. “Gillmor texts constantly from the dais[,] which I consider to be ex-parte communication where it seems she is coordinating these attacks.”

Similarly, Park took issue with the grand jury painting his taking aim at a member of the public designated “special advisor to the mayor” as unethical. He wrote that “no person — even a person to an appointed position — should feel free from criticism,” noting that he was taking a shot at the position, not the person holding the position.
As evidence of how low it will stoop to seemingly substantiate its arguments, Park pointed to the grand jury using unresolved matters — such as California Fair Political Practices Commission complaints — as fodder for its accusations. He noted how the Constitution ensures that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Along with Park, his colleagues also invoked higher notions of justice, ones that harken back to the country’s founding.
“Lady Justice is a symbol of the judicial system that stands for the belief that courts and judicial system protect the rights of the people without consideration of other factors,” Chahal wrote. “She is often depicted as a blindfolded woman, holding scales and a sword, which represent impartiality, fairness, and the pursuit of justice. I expected the same impartiality and fairness in this grand jury report for the findings and recommendations[,] which I think is [sic] missing.” ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 weeks ago

Santa Cruz Seeks Extension for [Santa Cruz County] Grand Jury

SANTA CRUZ — Faced with concerns about the thoroughness of its response to several civil watchdog reports, the Santa Cruz City Council voted this week to request a month-long extension.

The council was set to approve three draft responses to reports issued this year by the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury. One response in particular, titled “City Of Santa Cruz: Preventing Rape and Domestic Violence,” drew public critique. Additional reports requiring city response were titled “Honoring Commitments to the Public” and “Housing for Whom.”

Gillian Greensite, who spoke for herself as a local resident but also served on the most recent grand jury panel, said the reports have no enforcement mechanisms but are designed to work with the reports’ focus. She said the report responses before the council Tuesday were inadequate and at times inaccurate.

The domestic violence and rape prevention report recommended 10 city operational changes aimed at recommitting to a more than 40-year-old ordinance. Councilmember Sandy Brown proposed seeking more time for the city’s responses and forming a council ad-hoc committee to flesh them out. ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 weeks ago

Marin Supes Refute Jail, Juvenile Hall Report

"In summary, our services are not only adequate and aligned with industry standards but are also continually evolving and improving."

MARIN COUNTY, CA — The Marin County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously approved its response to a Civil Grand Jury Report on the county jail and juvenile hall, disagreeing with all but one of the findings.

The six-page response follows the release of Marin County Civil Grand Jury's June report called "Marin County Justice Center: A Model for Change," which found both the Marin County Jail and the Marin County Juvenile Hall dated and ill-equipped to address the needs of the changing inmate populations.

The supervisors agreed with the finding that the small population of the Marin County Juvenile Hall "does not justify the extraordinary expense of maintaining the existing facility."
However, they "wholly or partially" disagreed with the remaining points:
-the jail is dated and doesn't meet modern standards;
-a complex classification system and Assembly Bill 109, legislation that realigned placement for non-violent offenders and resulted in increased jail populations, have reduced programming capacity;
-the jail lacks adequate medical and mental health facilities;
-additional programs are needed at the jail, but physical limitations make them unavailable;
-the jail's subterranean location precludes its expansion;
-the juvenile hall is dated, and its prison-like facility doesn't create a restorative justice atmosphere;
-the juvenile hall is inaccessible to many parents and guardians of youths held there.

Among several recommendations, the report by the Civil Grand Jury, a group of civilians who audit government practices, called for the board to initiate a study to consider the creation of a new justice center to accommodate those with low-level felonies and — in a separate facility on the same campus — a space for juveniles.

Before the supervisors' decision, Gary Besser, strategic projects manager for the county, said staff disagreed with the overall finding that the extraordinary cost of a new and larger jail facility would add benefit to the criminal justice system in Marin.

"Furthermore, the legality of a single facility that houses both adults and minors is likely a violation of several state and federal statutes," Besser said.

The supervisors' response addressing each of the findings and the board's reasons for agreeing, disagreeing or partially disagreeing can be found here.

It further highlights plans to implement the Civil Grand Jury's recommendation to remove furniture or objects that could be used to inflict harm.

A letter from Marin County Sheriff Jamie Scardina detailed his disagreement with several findings as well, specifically noting that the jail is only 30 years old; it has passed state inspections every year of its existence; any complexities brought on by AB 109 have been offset by an overage decrease in the jail's average daily population, which has been trending downward over the last five years; and the mental health services provided meet and exceed industry standards.

"In summary, our services are not only adequate and aligned with industry standards but are also continually evolving and improving," Scardina stated. ... See MoreSee Less