The 1998-99 Grand Jury, in accordance with State mandated Penal Code section 925,

investigated and reported on the operation, accounts and records of the officers, departments and activities of the County.

Three areas of concern were selected for reporting:

1. The independent audit of the material financial position of the County performed by

KPMG Peat Marwick LLC. (KPMG) .

Respondents included the Board of Supervisors (BOS), the County Administrator (CA) and the Auditor-Controller (A-C).

Finding 1. Identification and resolution of Y2K operational issues in the County of Santa Barbara have not been subject to sufficient centralized coordination and verification.

Recommendation 1. The County Administrator should ensure that the Information Systems Advisory Council (ISAC) or a specially appointed task force with authority to act should take a more proactive stance regarding Y2K issues.

Response 1. The BOS and CA disagreed, saying theY2K compliance team is in place.

Finding 2. There are no departmental accountability measures or standards in place to ensure Y2K compliance.

Recommendation 2. The County Administrator should direct ISAC to develop County-wide standards and completion dates for resolution of Y2K issues.

Response 2. The BOS and CA disagreed, restating that the Y2K compliance team is in place.

Finding 3. The recording of the acquisition or disposal of a fixed asset remains a cumbersome manual process.

Recommendation 3(a). The Auditor-Controller should ensure that policies and procedures regarding the acquisition and disposal of fixed assets are implemented countywide and monitored for compliance.

Response 3(a). The recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future.

Recommendation 3(b). The Auditor-Controller should take action to replace the manual method of reporting acquisitions and disposal of fixed assets with a software driven system.

Response 3(b). The A-C agrees with the finding and recommendations and reports action will be complete in the next fiscal year.

Finding 4. Unfunded capital improvements and liabilities have been identified but not presented in a manner that is easily available to the public.

Recommendation 4. The BOS should identify all unfunded liabilities and capital improvements each year in the annual budget document in a single concise table.

Response 4. The Auditor-Controller disagreed with both the finding and the recommendation stating that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) fulfills this criteria. He added that the recommendation should not be implemented because it may be misleading.

Finding 5. Significant errors in calculating revenues due to the County from the State may require the County to return revenue to the State.

Recommendation 5. The Auditor-Controller should institute procedures and provide adequate resources to test and verify the formulas used for revenue calculations as they are changed by the State.

Response 5. The A-C partially disagreed with the finding citing the complexity of legal issues and divergent interpretations. He stated the recommendation has not been implemented but may be in the future.

Finding 6. There is no regular external audit and report on procedures in the Treasurer-Tax Collectors office.

Recommendation 6(a). The Board of Supervisors should expand the annual independent audit to include an examination of the Treasurer-Tax Collectors office.

Response 6(a). The recommendation will not be implemented because the Internal Audit Division is a more cost-effective way of ensuring that adequate internal controls exist.

Recommendation 6(b). The Auditor-Controller should, at a minimum, perform operational audits bi-annually in departments that handle large funds.

Response 6(b). The County Administrator partially agreed and stated that Internal Audit Division conducts Countywide cash handling audits every two to four years. Resource limitations prevent bi-annual audits of the County departments.

Finding 7. The Grand Jury was not automatically informed of the independent auditors progress during the course of the annual audit.

Recommendation 7. The Auditor-Controller should ensure that each Grand Jury automatically receives all information regarding the audits including copies of correspondence and meeting notices.

Response 7. The County Administrator and Auditor-Controller disagreed, saying the Grand Jury receives flash reports and that is all that is required.

The Auditor-Controller and staff have been supportive of the Grand Jury during this

investigation. Most of the recommendations have been accepted or will be implemented.

Performance Based Budgeting (PBB) is in its developmental stage in Santa Barbara County. It is a tool to measure performance, accounting for expenditures of public funds as well as ensuring meaningful improvement in services to the public.

The County has included Recurring Performance Measures (RPM) for the past two years. Each department has the responsibility to develop the measures that reflect its strategic goals and provide useful information in the future.

To better understand Performance Based Budgeting and Recurring Performance Measures, the Grand Jury (GJ) interviewed the Auditor-Controller (A-C) and various department heads and staff members of departments. The Jury also attended Financial Information Network (FIN) training, budget training for department heads and staff as well as quarterly evaluation meetings for selected departments. Materials reviewed for the study included a look at the Santa Barbara County budget for 1998-99, the Strategic Plan for the Board of Supervisors and County, and materials provided by the County and by Performance Strategies Inc. The Jury also compared Recurring Performance Measures from 1997-98 to those developed for 1998-99 in three selected departments.

The GJ had seven findings and recommendations with all responses from the Board of Supervisors (BOS) encapsulated in the report from the County Administrator (CA).

Finding 1. Many Recurring Performance Measures seem to be unrelated to the department’s significant activities and, at the same time, there is an absence of measures for significant departmental activities.

Recommendation 1. All departments should develop RPMs that reflect activities that are key service differentiators; make up a high percentage of cost, and are capable of being improved.

Response 1. The CA responded that RPMs depend on the organizational level at which an activity is being measured. He added that some departments’ significant activities are project related and therefore do not lend themselves to RPMs. He added that the Grand Jury’s recommendation is being implemented on an ongoing basis.

Finding 2. Numerous Recurring Performance Measures for each department studied were developed and implemented without clearly observable links to department strategic goals and objectives.

Recommendation 2. All departments should reevaluate their Recurring Performance Measure. The number of RPMs should be reduced and each one should be more selective, more challenging and more clearly linked to the mission statement of each department.

Response 2. The CA responded that the substance of the recommendation is being implemented but disagrees on reduction of RPM numbers.

Finding 3. Current Recurring Performance Measures largely focus on quantitative results, many of which are related to timely performance and are unnecessarily brief, lacking detail that could make them more understandable and meaningful---showing the true significance of what is being measured.

Recommendation 3(a). All departments should use RPMs that show the value of the activity in relation to entire scope of data available.

Response 3(a). The County Administrator agreed saying the recommendation is being implemented at every opportunity.

Recommendation 3(b). All departments should consider each quantitative measurement in terms of potential negative side effect and develop RPMs that measure the qualitative aspects of those measures.

Response 3(b). The recommendation will be implemented on an ongoing basis with a particular emphasis during the next two years.

Recommendation 3(c). All departments should provide data for outcome and service-quality indicators to help staff in assessing the success and shortcomings of the RPM. This may mean the expansion of cost centers to more accurately reflected the department’s activities.

Response 3(c). The recommendation will be implemented on an ongoing basis with a particular emphasis during the next two years.

Finding 4. Training for department heads and managers with respect to techniques for developing Recurring Performance Measures was reported to be insufficient. As a result, many RPMs are not defined well enough to provide meaningful data over time.

Recommendation 4. The CA should offer extensive training, including department-specific training, for department staff on an ongoing basis.

Recommendation 4. The recommendation has been implemented.

Finding 5. Management staff was responsible for developing the initial Recurring Performance Measures. The County’s front-line workers have little knowledge or understanding of RPMs.

Recommendation 5(a). The CA should provide staff training and workshops at all levels to create a "buy in" to RPMs by staff as part of a team-building process.

Response 5(a). The recommendation has been implemented.

Recommendation 5(b). All departments should include discussion of relevant RPMs in each employee’s annual performance review.

Response 5(b). This will not be implemented for general employees at this time, although it could become a factor in the future.

Finding 6. Quarterly reviews are held with each department to evaluate actual performance, but little time is spent discussing the reliability or value of the measure itself as it is written. Additionally, there is no stated plan for benchmarking with other agencies using performance measure information.

Recommendation 6. The CA should develop a comprehensive plan to address continued refinement of the RPMs themselves as well as benchmarking with other agencies using performance measures information.

Response 6. The CA was in partial agreement with the finding but said he will include a project in the 1999-2000 budget to undertake this effort.

Finding 7. The County has tied salary increases to Recurring Performance Measures that do not directly improve specific department processes.

Recommendation 7. The CA and all individual departments should refrain from introducing significant changes or incentives associated with specific RPMs until the measures are consistent and reliable, measuring the primary processes within the departments.

Response 7. In effect, this recommendation is implemented, according to the CA, who added that pay incentives are not tied to performance measures that are unreliable or unimportant.

The quality of the findings and recommendations was good and were accepted in a constructive manner. Most of these findings and recommendations have been accepted and implemented.

The 1998-99 Grand Jury, in response to a complaint regarding staffing and volunteer issues, opened a formal investigation into the Animal Health and Regulation Division (AH&R) of the Environmental Health Services within the Department of Health Care Services (now the Public Health Department).

The 1998-99 Grand Jury interviewed various individuals at the three animal shelters (Santa Barbara, Lompoc and Santa Maria). Members of the Public Health Department’s management were interviewed, as well as numerous volunteers. As part of the investigation, the1998-99 Grand Jury studied the Department Manual, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Dog Adoption Welfare Group (DAWG), the Board of Supervisors Resolution regarding the Shelter Animal Volunteer Effort (SAVE) organization, and the mission statement for the Companion Animal Placement Assistance (CAPA) volunteer group.

Following are the abbreviated findings and recommendations from the 1998-99 Grand Jury and the Responses from the Board of Supervisors:

Finding 1. There is considerable discord between Animal Health and Regulation Staff and public volunteers. Incomplete and outdated policy, procedure manuals and weak AH&R management contribute to the discord.

Recommendation 1. The AH&R Director should immediately revise the Animal Health and Regulation Manual.

Response 1. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) response to the finding was to adopt the Public Health Department’s response as the BOS response (partially disagree). The Public Health Department partially accepted the finding and stated that the recommendation required further analysis.

Finding 2. Inconsistent agreements among volunteer organizations and overzealous volunteers undermine staff relationships with volunteers.

Recommendation 2. The Board of Supervisors should rescind its existing agreements with volunteers and re-establish the authority of the Animal Health and Regulation Department policy and procedures. If formal agreements with volunteer groups are needed, they should be restricted to volunteer rights and obligations and should not include details of shelter operations. Operational details should be in the department manual.

Response 2. The Board of Supervisors partially agreed and partially disagreed with the finding. The volunteer organization agreements were created in response to the volunteer groups’ request. The recommendations will not be implemented. The County will honor its agreements with the volunteer groups.

Finding 3(a). The volunteer organization (DAWG) exerts an inappropriate level of influence on the inner workings of the Animal Health and Regulation Department through its individual and collective access to the Board of Supervisors.

Recommendation 3(a). The Director and staff of AH&R should control routine shelter operations with support from management and the Board of Supervisors.

Response 3(a). The Board adopted the Public Health Department response as the Board of Supervisors response (disagree partially). The PHD response was that historically, when certain shelter volunteers have become dissatisfied, they have sought satisfaction with the BOS, placing the BOS in the role of mediator to resolve constituent concerns.

Finding 3(b). The conduct of the DAWG volunteers has resulted in staff resignations and has created poor morale and an adversarial environment within the department.

Recommendation 3(b): The Board of Supervisors should recognize that its responsiveness to volunteers may well circumvent policy and place staff in an untenable position.

Response 3(b): The Board adopted the Public Health Department response as the Board of Supervisors response (disagree partially to the finding). The Board responded that the recommendation will not be implemented since it is not a recommendation.

Finding 4(a). Mediation of conflicts is an important skill for the Director of Animal Health and Regulation. However, he is not mediating conflicts in a satisfactory manner, in part, because of pressure from the Board of Supervisors to placate volunteers.

Recommendation 4(a). The Director of Health Care Services should update the position description for the AH&R Director to emphasize the duty of "conflict mediator between volunteers and staff".

Response 4(a). The Board adopted the PHD’s response as the BOS response in disagreeing partially. The PHD disagreed partially with the finding but stated that the recommendation has been implemented.

Finding 4(b). Staff feels hostage to volunteers because of volunteers’ access to the Board of Supervisors.

Recommendation 4(b). The director of Animal Health and Regulation, as well as all levels of management, including the Board of Supervisors, should create a supportive environment for AH&R staff.

Response 4(b). The Board partially agreed and partially disagreed with the finding, but the Department is taking steps to ensure that both the volunteers and the County staff adheres to the provisions within the MOU’s and Resolutions.

Finding 5. The Board of Supervisors creates public/private partnerships by accepting contributions, either by cash or in-kind services, for County activities.

Recommendation 5. The Board of Supervisors should accept responsibility for ensuring that public/private partnerships do not have a negative impact on County activities by developing and enforcing policies and procedures for these partnerships.

Response 5. The Board disagreed with the finding. The recommendation will not be implemented.

The Board of Supervisors has either wholly or partially disagreed with all seven of the Grand Jury findings. However, the BOS responses to 1, 4(a) and 4(b) were only partially disagreed with and the recommendations are being implemented or considered.

This investigation was initiated as a result of letters from the public addressed to the Grand Jury. The objective of the investigation was to explore in depth those areas where problems had been encountered. The concerns were job classification, compensation and payroll simplification in the County.

The Grand Jury interviewed a number of department heads, various members of the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and participants in the negotiations of Memorandums of Understanding (MOU). Additional information was obtained from the State relating to payroll concepts, job classification structure and pay ranges from other similar agencies. The concerns are all inter-related and should be corrected during the planned payroll update program. Respondents included the Board of Supervisors (BOS), the Auditor-Controller (A-C), the County Administrator (CA) and the Personnel Department (PD).

Finding 1. There are numerous narrowly defined job classifications creating a rigid workforce structure.

Recommendation 1. The Board of Supervisors should form a ‘flexibility’ pilot project to try creating a model for grouping jobs by skill-sets.

Response 1. The BOS partially accepted the finding but rejected the recommendation in the form that the Grand Jury suggested.

Finding 2. A consensus plan for restructuring the job-classification structure does not exist.

Recommendation 2(a). The Personnel Department, the Auditor-Controller and the County Administrator should appoint a project team to develop and implement an automated system for Human Resources, Payroll and other related areas.

Response 2(a). The CA responded that the recommendation has been implemented.

Recommendation 2(b). The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrator and the Payroll Steering Committee to have a consensus plan for job classification.

Response 2(b). The CA, BOS and PD disagreed with the recommendation saying it is not warranted and not reasonable.

Finding 3. There is no schedule to review job classifications regularly.

Recommendation 3. The Personnel Department should establish a regular review process for all job classifications.

Response 3. Personnel agreed with the finding but stated that the recommendation will not be implemented because it would not be beneficial to spend more money on a system that is currently effective.

Finding 4. Issues relating to compensation and benefits, job classification structure and collective bargaining are addressed by the County only periodically, prior to initiating the collective bargaining process.

Recommendations 4. The Board of Supervisors should develop a plan for addressing issues that include, but may not be limited to job classification structure, compensation and benefits, and a master Memo of Understanding.

Response 4. While giving partial agreement to the finding, the BOS said the recommendation would not be implemented at this time because of governmental restrictions.

Finding 5. The collective bargaining process is seen as unnecessarily adversarial and time consuming.

Recommendation 5(a). The Board of Supervisors should consider taking steps prior to MOU negotiations to formulate a single MOU.

Response 5(a). The BOS responded that the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable.

Recommendation 5(b). The Board of Supervisors should authorize its negotiating team to negotiate a contract that can be brought back to the BOS for ratification or rejections.

Response 5(b). The recommendation has been implemented for the past 11 years when the current Personnel Department Director took office.

It is our opinion that the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator and Personnel Department provided adequate responses to the findings and recommendations. Full responses to findings and recommendations may be found in the County Clerk’s Office or on the Grand Jury Web Site.

The Los Alamos Community Services District (LACSD) started as a Water District in 1956, expanding to include a wastewater treatment facility in 1985, completely funded with federal and state grants. The County of Santa Barbara extended loans of $181,000 to the group from 1982 through 1986. The obligation was forgiven in 1988. In 1987, LACSD issued and sold $474,242 in general obligation bonds at interest rates of between 7.65 to 8.35 percent. As of June 30, 1998, a total of $379,000 was still outstanding. In 1998, the projected revenue increased to $139,000 but the expenses were forecast at $302,000. This deficit increase was after sanitary services for the 361 customers was increased.

A group of Los Alamos citizens contacted the Grand Jury (GJ) expressing concern about the recent increases in sewer service charges, generous pay increases to district staff (19 percent overall in two years with two employees getting salary increases of 45 percent) and imprudent spending on the part of the Board of Directors. The group was also concerned about the availability of future water supplies for the district which has the third lowest water rates in the County.

The GJ met with local citizens, past and present members of the LACSD Board, LACSD staff, the Santa Barbara County Auditor-Controller, County Legal Counsel, a representative of the Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO) and several elected officials. The GJ also examined LACSD’s audited financial statements for 1994 through 1998 as well as auditors’ management letters, budgets, minutes of board meetings for the previous 30 months and the five year plan for both water and wastewater. Following are the abbreviated findings, recommendations and responses of the Los Alamos Community Services District and the Auditor-Controller.

Finding 1. The revenue generated by Los Alamos Community Services District is not sufficient to meet the financial obligations of the district.

Recommendation 1.The LACSD Board should undertake a thorough analysis of expenditures with a view toward reducing costs. At the same time consideration should be given to increasing water, sewer and connection fees.

Response 1. The LACSD Board disagreed with the finding but said it would take the recommendation under advisement. The board has changed the sewer system depreciation period from thirty years to a seventy-five year accounting period, resulting in a positive financial impact. This will reduce the amount of money needed to be set aside in a separate account for future repairs and /or replacements. After this has been accomplished, the LACSD Board will do an evaluation by June 30, 1999.

Finding 2. There is no general manager at the district to manage operations and provide guidance to the Board.

Recommendation 2. The LACSD Board should explore options for sharing administrative services with other districts or for being annexed by a larger nearby district with greater resources.

Response 2. The LACSD Board disagreed wholly with the finding and recommendation stating that it will not be implemented because it is not warranted or needed by statute.

Finding 3. Insufficient funds are being set aside for capital improvements and deferred maintenance.

Recommendation 3. The Board should augment the existing capital accounts by a required contribution schedule to address future maintenance needs, capital expenditures and other long-term financial obligations.

Response 3. The LACSD Board disagreed with the finding and said the recommendation required more study stating that once the financial implications of the extension of the existing sewer system depreciation schedule becomes known, the Board can then evaluate the need for rate increases.

Finding 4. The Santa Barbara County Auditor-Controller (A-C) is not required to review, on a regular basis, audited financial reports submitted by independent special districts.

Recommendation 4. The A-C should review these reports and, when a letter of going concern accompanies any statement, the A-C should issue a public notice regarding the financial position of the district.

Response 4. The Auditor-Controller agreed and will begin implementation with the financial statements submitted for the year ending June 30, 1998. The A-C will annually file a report with the Board of Supervisors when all district audits have been received or no later than thirty days following the end of the one-year audit deadline. The report will include the discussion and public disclosure of entities that receive qualified opinions or opinions that include issues that could affect the going concern of the entity.

The LACSD Board has not addressed the continuing deficits run up over the last several years and has not adopted a 1999-2000 fiscal year budget as of September 1999. The financial well being of the district should be watched carefully.

The GJ visited each of the facilities listed in the introduction. Staff members on duty at the time of the visits were interviewed. Detainees, when present, were also interviewed. All facilities were inspected at least once, with many sites receiving two or more visits. Following are the abbreviated findings, recommendations and responses.

Sheriff’s Facilities (Respondent was the Sheriff of Santa Barbara County).

Recommendation 1.The Sheriff should review the history of referral requests to medical services and ensure inmates are diagnosed and referred in a timely manner.

Response 1.The Sheriff disagreed with both the finding and the recommendation, stating that current reviews have shown no evidence of delays.

Finding 2. Overcrowding continues at jail facilities.

Recommendation 2. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) should continue to pursue funding for additional jails.

Response 2. The Board of Supervisors’ response indicated that it is still attempting to secure financing for the proposed North County Jail.

Finding 3. There is no computer access to the Sheriff’s main computer from the New Cuyama substation.

Recommendation 3. The Sheriff should provide resources to connect the New Cuyama substation with the main computer network.

Response 3. The problem is being addressed and connectivity with the substation computer has been established as of August 31, 1999.

Municipal Police Departments (Respondents included the Mayor of Santa Maria, the Chief of Police and Mayor of the City of Lompoc, the City Administrator of Guadelupe and the Mayor of Santa Barbara.)

Finding 1. All municipal police departments in the County lack space.

Recommendation 1.All jurisdictions should work toward alleviating overcrowding of police facilities.

Response 1.All municipal departments agreed with the finding and are, to varying degrees, seeking long-term solutions to the overcrowding issue.

Finding 2. The Santa Maria Police Department (SMPD) temporarily restrains suspects using an iron railing installed in a corridor at the station.

Recommendation 2. The SMPD should evaluate alternative methods of restraining individuals..

Response 2.The SMPD uses the iron railing only when the other rooms are full, and then, only as a temporary measure while booking suspects. The long-term solution will be the construction of a new, larger facility.

Finding 3. The SMPD stores critical files in the basement of the police department, obstructing a fire exit.

Recommendation 3. Remove all records to a more appropriate location.

Response 3. The SMPD agreed and will move the files to the current law library when it is vacated next fiscal year.

Probation Department Facilities

There were no findings or recommendations concerning Probation Department facilities.

Many law enforcement agencies within the County appear to have crowded facilities. It will take many years for the facilities to catch up with the explosion in inmate population.

The 1998-99 Grand Jury (GJ) was contacted by a group of citizens with specific concerns about the lack of zoning enforcement in Santa Barbara County. The Jury expanded its investigation of the Zoning Administration, a Division of the Planning and Development Department (P&D), to include a study of all divisions of P&D, with the exception of the Energy Division. The focus of the investigation was on the Development Review, Building and Safety, Comprehensive Planning and Administration divisions.

The Grand Jury reviewed previous Grand Jury reports, met with staff members from the department, interviewed the Department Director, made site visits to the department and viewed a demonstration of newly developed permit tracking software system as well as speaking with members of the private sector, developers, private planning contractors, individual applicants and members of the Planning Commission. The GJ reviewed information available on the P&D Department’s Web Site and California Environmental Quality Act information. The GJ also investigated alternative solutions to a permit processing and related planning and development procedures.

Interviews with staff revealed chronic, wide spread problems resulting in an adversarial relationship with the public, interdepartmental rancor, inconsistent training of employees and inappropriate policy decisions by staff. Following is a summary of findings, recommendations and responses by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and P&D as well as the County Administrator (CA) and the Planning Commission (PC). (For the full text of the responses see the Grand Jury Web Site.)

Finding 1. Application approvals or denials are delayed or inconsistent because of a breakdown in the process.

Recommendation 1. The P&D Director, along with the CA, should identify the elements of the operation causing the breakdown and be accountable for making necessary corrections.

Response 1. The BOS and other respondents were in partial agreement with the finding, but cited circumstances not in the GJ report for qualifying their responses. Both the BOS and P&D agreed that the recommended corrections have been partially implemented and that the work will continue.

Finding 2. Procedures and policies, particularly for land use, are outdated and ambiguous.

Recommendation 2(a). The GJ recommended the BOS adopt an updated version of the Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (ETGM) to provide clear guidelines to the public.

Response 2(a)The Board of Supervisors agreed that some land-use plans, policies and ordinances need consideration but said the recommendation would not be implemented because it is not warranted.

Recommendation 2(b). The BOS, together with P&D, should update all land-use policies and ordinances as well as include Environmental Impact Reports with community plans and implement a regular schedule for review and revision.

Response 2(b). The BOS agreed saying the recommendation has been and will continue to be implemented, in part, by periodic community plan updates and revisions.

Finding 3. Appeals by the public result from the lack of clearly articulated policies regarding land-use and environmental thresholds. Outdated community plans offer planners excessive latitude in issuing findings on projects as well as attaching mitigating conditions to projects. This results in inconsistent treatment of projects. The BOS and Planning Commission spend excessive time hearing appeals that could be resolved through alternative processes.

Recommendation 3(a). The Grand Jury called for well defined policies regarding land use and environmental thresholds. The recommendation to P&D and the PC called for continuous update of land use policies to provide a tight framework for each community. Additionally, it recommended mediation or mandatory arbitration as part of the application appeals process.

Response 3(a). Although agreeing that the concept of continual updating of comprehensive and community plans is "a laudable idea," P&D and the BOS disagreed with the recommendation saying it is not possible.

Recommendation 3(b). The P&D Director should exercise more leadership with deputy directors to ensure that departmental policies are being implemented.

Response 3(b). The BOS agreed, saying the recommendation is being implemented.

Recommendation 3(c). Deputy directors should clearly define division processes to ensure that consistent findings and mitigations are presented that actually reflect the policies of the department.

Response 3(c). The BOS agreed, saying the recommendation is being implemented.

Recommendation 3(d). The Planning Commission should adopt a mediation or mandatory arbitration requirement as part of the application appeals process.

Response 3(d). The BOS disagreed saying the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.

Finding 4. The pre-application process increases rather than decreases possible confusion over processing time and the cost of the application process. It also increases work for the staff and generates less revenue.

Recommendation 4. Develop a new application process that alleviates these problems.

Response 4. The BOS agreed saying the recommendation is being implemented.

Finding 5. Inadequate and poorly trained staff and staff turnover has created a huge backlog of unprocessed project applications.

Recommendation 5. The P&D Director should develop a comprehensive program that includes training in planning rules and regulations, particularly in the agricultural areas; training in "real world" issues, and cross training at all levels to increase staff understanding and decrease turnover.

Response 5. Agreeing in part, the BOS responded that there is a backlog for the reasons stated in the finding, but there has been an increase in applications which is also a factor. The BOS added that the recommendation will be implemented in phases over the next 16 months.

Finding 6. An adversarial climate exists between P&D and the development and agricultural communities.

Recommendation 6(a). The P&D Director should eliminate confusion in the application process by streamlining it. The GJ also recommended an outside agent undertake a re-engineering of the application process.

Response 6(a). The BOS and P&D partially agreed with the finding, saying there is a problem with some of the agricultural and development communities. The BOS said the streamlining of the application process will be implemented within the next 12 months and will be monitored through the Quarterly Operations Review meetings between the CA and the Director. No outside agent will be consulted at this time.

Recommendation 6(b). The P&D Director should initiate a dialogue with the development community that results in practical actions and a more collaborative process.

Response 6(b). The BOS said the recommendation is being implemented.

Finding 7. Fees are charged to applicants for project review and permitting with no ceiling, no detailed explanation of charges and no P&D commitment to timeliness.

Recommendation 7(a). The P&D Director should commit to timeliness guarantees for project review that, at a minimum, meet California Environmental Quality Act requirements.

Response 7(a). The respondents said the recommendation will not be implemented because absolute time and/or cost guarantees are not reasonable in such a complicated process.

Recommendation 7(b). The P&D Director and deputies should commit to a fee estimate that includes a price cap.

Response 7(b). The recommendation will not be implemented because, according to P&D, there are too many variables. P&D does, however, commit to offer its best estimates early in a project’s life, as well as to explaining variances, and to tracking costs through the Project Tracking system.

Recommendation 7(c). The P&D Director should implement a detailed billing for P&D services which offers a full explanation of services rendered for fees charged.

Response 7(c). Respondents said the recommendation will be implemented within four months.

Finding 8. Reported zoning violations are not dealt with in a timely manner. Fines and penalties, when levied, are either not collected or are waived.

Recommendation 8(a). The department should resolve zoning enforcement complaints within three months.

Response 8(a). The BOS said the recommendation will not be implemented as stated because it is not reasonable.

Recommendation 8(b). The P&D Director should enforce and collect zoning fines. Fines levied for violations should not be routinely waived.

Response 8(b). The respondents said the recommendation has been implemented.

Recommendation 8(c).The BOS should permit zoning fines to remain in the department and be used to fund additional positions for zoning enforcement officers.

Response to 8(c). The BOS said the recommendation has been implemented.

Recommendation 8(d). The P&D Director should consider contracting zoning enforcement activities out to the private sector.

Response to 8(d). The BOS said the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted, feasible or desirable.

Finding 9. Inefficient use of workspace as well as insufficient workspace impede the department’s ability to function effectively.

Recommendation 9. The BOS and P&D Director should diligently explore a space solution that reduces the fragmentation of the department and provides a physical environment that will support a seamless planning and permitting process.

Response 9. The respondents said the recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in phases as space and funding can be secured.

The 1998-99 Grand Jury was one of several in 10 years to try to untangle the bureaucratic inefficiency that plagues P&D. The department still seems unable to deliver timely, consistent service to the citizens of the County.

The philosophical growth vs. slow growth struggle that splits the BOS and trickles down through the Planning Commission, as well as to every department of P&D, exacerbates departmental confusion.

Conflicting instructions to personnel by individuals in management, outdated plans, policies and procedures as well as a crowded work environment all contribute to poor departmental performance.

It has taken, and will continue to take, a Herculean resolve and a diligent ongoing commitment by all involved to effect meaningful change. Stringent citizen oversight is recommended.

The 1998-1999 Grand Jury (GJ) investigation into the Goleta Water District (GWD) resulted from customer complaints concerning district operations, public access to committee meeting and possible violation of the Brown Act, which instructs public commissions, boards, councils and other public agencies in the State to make deliberations and take actions openly.

Interviews were conducted with complainants, members of the Goleta Water District Board of Directors, General Manager and previous members of the Board of Directors, as well as with the County Planning and Development Department, previous district employees and other water and sewer special district staff in the county. Numerous documents from other districts such as agendas, minutes, rate and fee studies, annual financial audits and financial records were reviewed. Tours of the district facilities and of the reclamation facilities of the Goleta Sanitary District were made. Grand Jury members also attended district board meetings and consulted with the District Attorney’s office and the Superior Court legal counsel.

Finding 1. The Goleta Water District is less than diligent in executing "open meeting compliance" in accordance with the Brown Act. District meetings are improperly noticed to the public.

Recommendation 1. The GWD should post agendas for all meetings at least 72 hours in advance in designated locations; hold closed sessions only for the special agenda items permitted by the Brown Act , and tape and retain the clearly audible tapes of the board meetings for one year.

Response 1. The GWD disagreed with the finding saying the Grand Jury failed to cite specific instances. It agreed with the recommendation saying it is now standard practice.

Finding 2. The minutes of the Goleta Water District meetings do not provide a comprehensive public record of the district’s activity.

Recommendation 2. The GWB should prepare and retain minutes reflective of board and committee meetings.

Response 2. The GWB disagreed with the finding saying that there was comprehensive public record of board actions. It answered the recommendation saying it recorded only actions taken by the board not every point made during debate.

Finding 3. The Goleta Water Board redefined most of its standing committees as ad hoc committees which appears to be an evasion of the Brown Act.

Recommendation 3. The Board should review the provisions of the Brown Act with an eye to defining committee status in order to avoid having its actions perceived as an avoidance of the Brown Act.

Response 3. During the course of the Grand Jury investigation the GWB eliminated confusion about standing vs. ad hoc committees. None of the committees referenced by the Grand Jury are now ad hoc.

Finding 4. The Goleta Water Board minutes do not incorporate information from advisory committees in sufficient detail for the public to understand the recommendations and the subsequent decisions made by the Board.

Recommendation 4. The Board agendas and minutes should record the recommendations of the advisory committees. Minutes should include enough information to assure the correct and complete understanding of the issues covered in committee meetings.

Response 4. The Board disagreed with the finding but said the recommendation had been implemented.

Finding 5. Goleta Water Board members are not fully informed about the status of the district’s finances.

Recommendation 5. The GWB should ensure that comprehensive financial status reports are provided and reviewed on a monthly basis.

Response 5. Again the board disagreed with the finding, saying the District is in very good financial shape, but agreed with the recommendation saying it had become standard practice.

Finding 6. The Goleta Water Board rate-policy proceedings are inconsistent and potentially inequitable to customers. Public disclosure for participating in rate-policy proceedings is not adequate.

Recommendation 6. The GWB should depend on staff specialists and consultants to prepare standard rate policy based on factual and financial information, and provide full disclosure to district customers.

Response 6. The Board disagreed with the finding saying that the last rate-setting meeting had been well attended. It partially agreed with the recommendation but said the Board is not going to rubber stamp the opinions of consultants.

Finding 7. Required County Planning and Development Department requests for service are delayed or rejected for reasons beyond the purview of the board.

Recommendation 7. The Goleta Water Board should ensure that action is taken on all requests for "can and will serve" commitments within 10 working days of receipt.

Response 7. The Board disagreed with the finding but agreed with the recommendation stating that the current process is one that both the County and district agree to.

Finding 8. The Goleta Water Board does not limit its activities to those established in the mission statement for the district. Activism beyond the requirement of the mission statement dilutes the time and money resources of the district. Issues of community governance and land use appear on board agendas.

Recommendation 8. The GWB should limit its focus and activities to providing the highest quality water at the most reasonable cost.

Response 8. While agreeing with the recommendation, the board wholly disagreed with the finding saying the current board of directors put a stop to involvement in land use decisions.

The findings of the 1998-1999 Grand Jury had been rejected by the Goleta Water District; and yet the recommendations resulting from those findings have been almost totally accepted by the Water Board, with the assertion that corrective action has been taken.

The 1998-99 Grand Jury received a series of complaints about the lack of effectiveness in the delivery and availability of services in the special education program in Santa Barbara County schools, especially pertaining to students with dyslexia, attention deficit disorders and other learning disabilities. Questions were raised on the schools’ compliance with Federal and State requirements.

The Grand Jury (G J) conducted interviews with parents, teachers, students, school administrators, County Education Office and Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) representatives. The GJ also consulted with special education advocacy groups and University of California faculty. They reviewed Federal and State laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), local regulations as outlined in SELPA guidelines, Parents’ Handbook and the Compliance Report.

Finding 1. Improvements could be made in the delivery of special education services in the county, regardless of funding shortfalls.

Recommendation 1(a). Special Education Local Plan Area should improve assessment and intervention to enhance compliance above minimum.

Response 1(a). SELPA continually seeks out and implements innovative assessment practices and intervention techniques to improve the educational outcomes for its students.

Recommendation 1(b). SELPA should redesign the appeal process to make it understandable and usable.

Response 1(b). SELPA has to follow the appeal process outlined in Federal and State law and cannot redesign it. These legal requirements are complex. SELPA includes a description of the procedural safeguards involving the appeal process in its Notice of Parental and Student Rights and Responsibilities. Furthermore, each time parents meet with staff to review their children’s educational plan, they are reminded of their rights, including the appeal process.

Recommendation 1(c). SELPA requires a strategic improvement plan from each district program.

Response 1(c). The California Department of Education (CDE) is currently developing guidelines for local school districts to improve the educational outcomes of special education students. CDE is also initiating a system called "Focused Monitoring" beginning in 1999-2000 that will be carried out at district level.

Recommendation 1(d). SELPA should form a consortium for special education to improve the delivery of services.

Response 1(d). SELPA is a consortium of school districts formed to comply with State requirements to assure that all children with disabilities within its jurisdiction receive

appropriate services. Children with low incidence disabilities, such as visual or hearing impairments, are served through "shared programs".

SELPA’s responses did not exactly comply with California Penal Code Section 933.05 which requires that the respondent agrees or disagrees, wholly or partially, with its findings.

The Federal Government first enacted special education legislation in 1975. In 1997 it passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which requires that all public school children who need special education and related services receive a free and appropriate public education regardless of the level or severity of their disability. At the same time the Federal Government reneged on its promise to fund 40 percent of these mandated services and instead provides only 8 percent funding. Since the State does not supply the entire funding shortfall, it is incumbent upon the districts to cover the deficit, often relying upon taking monies from their general funds. This school year, for instance, this encroachment into the general fund will cost the Santa Barbara School District almost $2 million, or roughly 28 percent of its discretionary fund. This encroachment will worsen as parental expectations for services remain high and the Federal Government continues to refuse to meet its obligations.

The 1998-99 Grand Jury (GJ) received several complaints from clients of the Family Support Division (FSD) who reported that they had received less than professional service when dealing with this arm of the District Attorney’s office. Difficulties in getting appointments as well as frequent errors in handling enforcement actions were cited. Spanish-speaking parents were, according to complaints, disparaged for their lack of language skills.

The GJ opened a formal investigation into these allegations. The object was to study operations, policies and procedures of the FSD, particularly with respect to interpersonal communications and treatment of parents. The Jury also sought to determine if non-English-speaking citizens were being properly informed.

The GJ interviewed the complainants, administrative staff members of the FSD, support staff members, family support officers and the Family Law Facilitator within the Superior Court. It reviewed documentation from the FSD Web Site, pamphlets and other materials available to parents, as well as performance statistics available from the State of California. Jurors toured the Santa Barbara office and observed the division’s computer system and operations during walk-in hours.

The Santa Barbara District Attorney responded on behalf of the Family Support Division. Following are the abbreviated findings, recommendations and responses. (For the full text of the responses, see the Grand Jury Web Site.)

Finding 1. Essential communication and problem solving skills are not emphasized in the training for family support officers.

Recommendation 1. The FSD should expand training for family support officers in the area of communication and problem solving.

Response 1. The District Attorney (DA) disagreed with the finding as well as the recommendation, stating the need was already being met.

Finding 2. The written materials parents receive are often difficult for them to understand.

Recommendation 2(a). The FSD should prepare a supplement to the State

handbook with local information as well as providing a comprehensive written explanation of all legal forms in English and Spanish.

Response 2(a). While agreeing that legally mandated forms can be difficult, the respondent said help was being provided to those who needed assistance. He disagreed with the recommendation saying it was not reasonable or necessary.

Recommendation 2(b). The FSD should develop videos explaining the rights and obligations of clients. The videos should be available to clients waiting in the FSD offices.

Response 2(b). The respondent said the recommendation was under consideration by the department.

Finding 3. The Santa Barbara County Family Support Division ranks lower than other counties in cost effectiveness and collections.

Recommendation 3. The DA should improve the cost effectiveness of the Family Support Division.

Response 3. The respondent disagreed with the finding, noting that there was no source listed in the GJ report to evaluate the finding, and strongly disagreed with the entire recommendation.

The District Attorney stated that the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury were badly researched, misleading and superficial. The 1999-2000 Grand Jury has concerns that his negativity toward the 1998-1999 Grand Jury's ivestigation may have adversely influenced his judgement about problems in the division that need addressing. However,the issue may be moot. A new California law takes the responsibility out of the hands of local authorities and vests it with the State.