Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 days ago

After years of delays, Oakland updates decades-old 911 dispatch technology

Oakland leaders said the successful installation will lead to a more resilient emergency calling system and faster 911 response times. Oakland still has the worst 911 answer times in California.
By Candice Nguyen and Matt Ulrich • Published September 5, 2024

Oakland leaders announced successful hardware and software upgrades to its decades-old 911 technology. As a result, they said Oaklanders should have a more reliable emergency calling system, and 911 answer times should eventually improve.

On Thursday, Oakland leaders announced successful hardware and software upgrades to its decades-old 911 technology. As a result, they said Oaklanders should have a more reliable emergency calling system, and 911 answer times should eventually improve.
The move comes after a series of reports by NBC Bay Area’s Investigative Unit showing Oakland PD has the worst emergency calling response time out of 440 911 centers across California.
As for Thursday, Oakland PD was picking up 51% of its 911 calls within the State’s 15 second standard. Oakland needs to be at 90%, according to the State.

NBC Bay Area has analyzed state data showing, as of June 2024, Oakland PD’s average 911 answer time was 50 seconds – still the longest in California. 50 seconds is more than triple the State’s requirement of within 15 seconds.

The second longest is CHP Golden Gate’s communication center, which serves a larger region and has an average answer time of 25.8 seconds. CHP Golden Gate has more than cut its response times in half since last year. Oakland’s progress has been significantly slower, according to the data.

At Oakland PD’s 911 center on Thursday, Mayor Sheng Thao, the city’s IT Director Tony Batalla and 911 manager Gina Cheng announced what they’re calling the first major upgrade to Oakland’s 911 computer aided dispatch system in more than 20 years.

But it’s been fraught with delays. Oakland city council initially approved the $12.8 million dollar upgrade back in 2017 – seven years ago.

Since then, the project has been plagued by problems and was blasted in two Alameda County civil grand jury reports. One said, if the city keeps delaying the upgrades, it “risks catastrophic failure” and dispatcher “will be back to pen and pencil.” That happened last summer. Oakland blamed it on a power outage.

IT Director Batalla said the new system should help prevent a 911 outage like that again. “The infrastructure is running here in Oakland at a data facility called Digital Realty Trust. That’s a commercial data center facility. It’s built to withstand any kind of power blips. It’s highly secure, both digitally and physically. And what that means is that we’ve taken huge steps towards implementing reliable, secure, resilient infrastructure,” Batalla said. ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 weeks ago

Sonoma County jail commissary prices are rising, and inmates and their families are getting squeezed

Marisa Endicott, The Press Democrat, 8/24/24 reported on rising commissary prices in the Sonoma County Jail commissary. In 2021 the county grand jury released a report on the issue. Read the full article at
www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/sonoma-county-jail-commissary/?ref=TSM ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 weeks ago

Santa Barbara Leaders Weigh in on Report on Handling Encampments:

City Council Responds to Grand Jury Report on Encampments Following Statewide Order

Santa Barbara City Council discusses Civil Grand Jury’s Report on how to handle encampments across the community, according to Aidan Kenney of the Santa Barbara Independent on 8/23/24. See full article at
www.independent.com/2024/08/23/santa-barbara-leaders-weigh-in-on-report-on-handling-encampments/ ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 weeks ago

Lookout Santa Cruz

A photo shows the Santa Cruz County Jail.

Santa Cruz County Jail. Credit: Kevin Painchaud / Lookout Santa CruzPosted inPolitics & Policy

As new boss is named, Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office rejects report critical of jail conditions

by Christopher NeelyAugust 28, 2024

In June, the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury published a highly critical investigation into the conditions and mental health care inside the county’s jails. On Tuesday, the sheriff’s office submitted its formal response to the investigation, disputing nearly all of its findings.

On the same day that incoming sheriff Chris Clark acknowledged the “need to improve the facilities charged with medical and mental health care for our incarcerated population” in Santa Cruz County, the sheriff’s office submitted a formal rejection of a recent investigation criticizing the living conditions and mental health care inside the county jail system.

Published by the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury in June, the investigative report immediately drew the ire of Sheriff Jim Hart. The civil grand jury, a citizen-led government watchdog mandated by the state in each county, is required to publish an investigation related to the county jail each year. Hart, at the time, said the investigation was the “most factually inaccurate” report he’d seen in 36 years with the sheriff’s office, a criticism he reemphasized during a one-on-one interview with Lookout in August.

PREVIOUSLY

Departing Sheriff Jim Hart defiant over grand jury criticism and a non-elected successor, says worst of fentanyl crisis yet to come

“There wasn’t a single item that we agreed with that they called out,” Hart told Lookout earlier this month. “We’re not usually defensive on these, but after reading that, it was an unbelievably slanted report.”

The civil grand jury report turned up 16 findings, many of which criticized the treatment of inmates suffering from mental illness. In its response, required by the civil grand jury process, the sheriff’s office disagreed with 15 of those findings.

The civil grand jury claimed the jail’s corrections officers were improperly placing inmates suffering from mental illness in solitary confinement for “excessively long periods,” and using isolation cells as a form of punishment. The sheriff flat-out rejected this claim, and leaned heavily on “a recent” inspection report from the Board of State and Community Corrections. The most recent report published by the BSCC was in October 2023, and determined the jail properly used its isolation cells and did not use them for punishment.

For example, the grand jury’s fifth finding read, “The use of safety cells for punishment has resulted in violations of Title 15 section 1055 and the Sheriff’s Policy and Procedures Manual policy 516.2. This may expose the Sheriff’s department to lawsuits.”

The sheriff’s office rebuffed the claim, writing, “[The] recent 2024 Title 15 Inspection specifically noted in the comments ‘safety cell is not used for punishment’ and we were found to be in compliance with Safety Cell use. The Sheriff’s Office is unaware of safety cells being used as punishment. As this report cites, the Sheriff’s Office Corrections Policy 516.2 states, ‘A sobering or safety cell shall not be used as punishment or as a substitute for treatment.’ – The Sheriff’s Office abides by this policy and denies using safety cells as punishment.”

The grand jury also drew up 14 recommendations for the sheriff’s office to improve conditions and mental health treatment in the jails, four of which explicitly called out Wellpath, the much-criticized national private health care provider that contracted with the jail. The sheriff’s office did not renew its contract with Wellpath, which expired in June. The jail’s new health care provider is NaphCare.

The sheriff’s office said it largely disagreed with the reasoning behind each of the recommendations. Among them was a recommendation that the county reopen the second unit at Rountree in Watsonville so more inmates could be placed in low- and medium-security facilities with classes and more outdoor space. The sheriff said his office did not have enough staff to reopen that unit, and didn’t have a timeline on its reopening because staffing levels continue to fluctuate.

Although it didn’t pertain specifically to jail conditions, the most contested claim from the grand jury report was that the sheriff’s office did not make inmates available for interviews, and barred the grand jury investigators from observing classes. At the time of the report, Hart told Lookout the grand jury’s interview request was “highly unusual” because they allegedly weren’t specific in whom they wanted to speak with. However, Hart said he would comply if the grand jury issued a subpoena, which they never did.

“The Sheriff’s Office did not deny access to the grand jury,” the office wrote in its response. “We asked them to provide a subpoena to interview incarcerated individuals. The Sheriff’s Office is unaware of who denied access for the grand jury to observe classes or programs.” ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 weeks ago

he Cool Down

Officials urge community to prepare for sea level rise with major consequences: 'Impacts are already being seen and felt'

Leo Collis

Tue, August 27, 2024

Residents of a Northern California county are being warned that environmental changes as a result of human-caused global heating will soon be felt by citizens if no adaptation processes are implemented.

What's happening?

According to the Marin Independent Journal, a report from the Marin County Civil Grand Jury in San Francisco has advised that every city and town needs to be prepared for rising sea levels.

The publication cited data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that suggests sea levels will rise by one foot in the San Francisco Bay Area by 2050. The Jury is now calling for protection efforts to be prioritized, as water levels are already impacting local areas.

"The consequences of sea level rise will not suddenly bubble up in 2050 in Marin, or elsewhere," the Jury's report said. "Impacts are already being seen and felt and they will become even more apparent and damaging over the coming years."

A study from the Transportation Authority of Marin's board of commissioners has identified 19 areas that are particularly vulnerable, including Marin City, Bel Marin Keys, the Hamilton wetlands, and Highways 37 and 101.

"Marin is facing 10-12 inches of sea level rise in the span of 26 years," the study observed. "But the water has already arrived. Marin residents have been experiencing sea level rise and related tidal flooding in Corte Madera, Marin City, Mill Valley, and Sausalito, among other towns. This trend will only increase in frequency and intensity over the coming years."

Why is sea-level rise concerning?

Rising sea levels, as NASA points out, are caused by two main factors related to increasing global temperatures: melting ice-caps and ice sheets, and the expansion of water under heat — and they can result in untold damage among communities.

Homes, businesses, infrastructure, and roads can all experience significant damage or total destruction, while flooding can also lead to a number of human health risks. If flood water reaches sewage plants or waste management sites, this can result in contaminated water that can cause sickness for anyone who comes into contact with it. Saltwater intrusion and contamination can also make domestic water supplies unusable.

Some communities will be more affected than others, and it's often low-income families who are most at risk from flooding itself — and find it harder to rebuild their lives after it.

What's being done about rising sea levels?

In Marin County, officials are looking to send sea-level protection funding to the communities most at risk first. The Marin Independent Journal also noted that the Grand Jury is seeking support from state and federal legislators to create a specific agency to deal with these challenges.

But, as NASA detailed, rising sea levels are encouraged by human-caused global heating. That means we can all play a part in protecting coastal communities on the front line of this impending disaster.

While local and national governments are responsible for implementing meaningful pollution reduction efforts and programs, our individual decisions can make a difference, too.

Ditching the car in favor of a bike or using public transport can reduce the planet-warming pollution we release into the atmosphere, as can utilizing renewable sources of energy and reducing our weekly consumption of meat and dairy products. ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 weeks ago

North Coast Journal

Tuesday, August 27, 2024

Eureka City Schools to Talk Jacobs, Grand Jury Response

Posted By Thadeus Greenson @ThadeusGreenson on Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 3:34 PM

The former Jacobs Middle School site. - PHOTO BY THADEUS GREENSON

Photo by Thadeus Greenson

The California Highway Patrol appears to be back at the table, negotiating to purchase 8.3 acres of the former Jacobs Middle School campus from Eureka City Schools.

A closed session item for the board to conference with Superintendent Gary Storts, the district’s negotiator, concerning price and terms of payment of a potential deal with CHP, kicks off the agenda for the board’s Thursday meeting, which also will feature open session items discussing the future and immediate past of the Jacobs site.

In the first meeting since the district’s controversial $6 million property exchange deal with a mystery developer fell through, the board will hear an update from district staff on possible options for the Jacobs site and discuss the district’s response to a Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury report sharply critical of the board’s handling of the now defunct deal.

The California Highway Patrol has reportedly remained interested in purchasing the property to make it the future home of its Northern Humboldt headquarters since the district board abruptly voted in December to break off negotiations with the agency and instead accept the $6 million exchange offer from a mystery developer. That deal — which would have seen the district trade the property for a small home on I Street and $5.35 million in cash — fell apart earlier this month when the district declined the developer’s request to extend escrow past November and the developer, known only as AMG Communities-Jacobs, LLC, then decided to walk away from the agreement.

According to the district, the CHP had previously offered $4 million to purchase the property, which the district had declared surplus years earlier and had laid dormant since 2012.

In a draft presentation included with the staff report for Thursday’s meeting, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Paul Ziegler outlines five basic options the board can pursue with the property.

First, the district can simply opt to retain it in its current condition, fencing it off and making some improvements to the adjacent athletic fields. The presentation notes that if the board goes this route, it could then resume the surplus property sale process at any time. In its press statement announcing it was abandoning the deal, AMG Communities-Jacobs, LLC, blamed city opposition to changing the property’s zoning for its decision to walk away but said it may look to resume negotiations with the district if Measure F — a ballot measure coming before voters in November that would rezone the property, among other things — passes. City officials have strongly pushed back against AMG’s assertions, saying they had been actively trying to engage the company’s principals on their plans but received no response, but if the board takes the mystery developer at their word, holding tight for a few months could be an appealing approach.

Bankrolled by Robin P Arkley II’s Security National to the tune of almost $1 million, Measure F seeks to block the city of Eureka’s plans to convert municipally owned parking lots in the downtown and Old Town areas into multi-family housing by including onerous parking requirements that officials say would be cost prohibitive. To make up for the lost housing units, according to proponents, the measure would rezone the Jacobs site to accommodate multi-family housing development, though that wouldn’t prevent a public agency — like the school district or the California Highway Patrol — from building something else there. The measure will be decided by Eureka voters in November.

The second option Ziegler presents is resuming negotiations with CHP, with his presentation noting it “has expressed ongoing interest in purchasing” the site. To some extent, the closed session items regarding negations with the agency indicates district staff is already exploring this option.

The third option is for the board to declare its intent to sell or lease the property, notify the public and begin a competitive bidding process that would allow it to “choose a partner,” noting the sale or lease would not necessarily have to go to the highest bidder.

The fourth option is to consider constructing workforce housing on the site. The district had previously referenced the need for workforce housing as a justification for acquiring the residential property on I Street in the exchange agreement with AMG, and the state of California has recently taken a host of actions to push districts to convert surplus property into housing for teachers and staff, as well as students and their families. The presentation notes, however, that this would entail an “extensive process.”

Finally, Ziegler’s presentation informs the board it could “explore other creative solutions,” including a property exchange like the one explored with AMG, a joint occupancy of the property or a public-private partnership to develop it.

Ziegler’s report is agendized as a discussion item, so no final action will be taken.
In related matters, the board is slated to consider its official — and legally required — reply to the grand jury report from earlier this year that blasted trustees for failing to follow the spirit of California’s open meeting laws and conduct sufficient due diligence before entering into the exchange agreement with AMG.

The proposed response — prepared by Storts — largely disagrees with the grand jury’s six findings, while saying it has implemented some of the oversight outlined in the body’s recommendations.

The draft response disagrees with the grand jury’s finding that the district failed to properly describe the property exchange on its Dec. 14 agenda, as required by state law, depriving the public of an opportunity to be informed and question the details of the board’s upcoming decision. The draft response asserts that the district met noticing requirements for the meeting, a notion experts in California open meeting laws interviewed by the Journal have disputed.

The draft response also disagrees with a grand jury finding that the district should have listed the identity of who was negotiating on behalf of AMG on the agenda, saying that’s not required by state law.

The grand jury also found that the district’s public notice of the pending real estate exchange did not include drafts of the proposed agreement and the accompanying resolution authorizing it, “therefore, the public did not have an opportunity to be informed and to question the pending decision.” The district’s draft response disagrees, saying it released the documents to the public after the board directed staff in closed session to move forward with the agreement and the item was then discussed in open session, with an opportunity for public comment.

“However,” the draft response states, “the board appreciates and understands the grand jury’s concern with allowing the public a longer opportunity to review agreements being considered by the board when feasible.”

The draft response does not address the contention of experts interviewed by the Journal that the law required the draft documents be made available to the public at the same time they were given to the majority of the board, which records indicate came days before meeting. It does, however, later concede that “the public could have been afforded additional time to review the agreement, for example, if the open session item had been deferred to a later board meeting,” but offers no reason why that wasn’t done.

In the draft response, the district flatly dismisses the notion its board acted “without sufficient prudence and due diligence,” but also says the district was under no legal obligation to perform due diligence like reviewing a developer’s financials or prequalifying them.

“The board approved a real estate transaction on the basis that the additional cash consideration would directly benefit the district’s students by aiding needed improvements to district facilities,” the draft response states. “That purpose is directly in line with the district’s mission and statutory authority, while other local public policy issues beyond the district’s responsibility may not be.”

The grand jury recommended the district take a number of actions to avoid a similar situation in the future.

First, it recommended the district designate an employee to attend closed session discussions and keep confidential notes documenting the discussions. The district’s draft response says this will not be implemented, noting it’s illegal to disclose confidential closed session discussions and that such notes “could lead to the impermissible disclosure of such information.”

The grand jury also recommended the district “make details of the Jacobs property negotiations” public, which the district’s draft response says it has already done through open session discussions and responses to public records act requests. The grand jury also recommends the district work to ensure its compliance with the “spirit and intent” of the state’s open meeting laws, which the draft response says the district is already doing.

The district should also create audio and video recordings of all its open session meetings, the grand jury recommended. The district’s draft response says it is working on implementing this change to improve the public’s ability to attend meetings remotely and review them after the fact. ... See MoreSee Less