Agenda packet — City Council and Concurrent Authorities, December 5, 2023 (part 2 of 4)

The San Joaquin County Public Works Department provides accounting services for the ESJGWA and develops budgets for approval by the ESJGWA Board and the County Board of Supervisors (JPA, Article 4.10). The Grand Jury found the annual proposed budgets on the County Administrator’s Office (CAO) Budget public website to be an excellent overview of both Zone 2 and ESJGWA origination, purpose, and fiscal year planning. Revenues collected for Zone 2 and the ESJGWA are held separately in the County Treasury (JPA, Article 5.7). The Zone 2 fund is not audited separately from the District, and the County Auditor-Controller’s Office does not prepare a separate financial statement. The Flood Control & Water Conservation District posts on its website the annual Engineer’s reports for the beneficial use Zones 9 and 10. These reports include services provided, the budget to provide the services, and the criteria. However, according to witness testimony, the District does not post an annual report for Zone 2 accountability.

ESJGWA is audited annually in accordance with JPA Article 5.8 and is included in the “County of San Joaquin, California” annual audit, which is conducted by an independent auditor. Within this audit, the ESJGWA is labeled a “Nonmajor Special District Governed by the Board of Supervisors.” Audits reviewed by the Grand Jury from 2014 to 2021 include ESJGWA from 2017 on, with a brief description of “Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority… established in 2017.” However, from 2018 to 2021, the balance sheet column heading lists the ESJGWA as the “Eastern San Joaquin Ground Water Banking Authority,” which is a different agency established prior to the ESJGWA, and which terminated in 2022. A review of preceding audits does not include any Eastern San Joaquin authorities. The Grand Jury also received ESJGWA fund reports (labeled “21451”) from the

ATTACHMENT A
303

98 Auditor-Controller’s Office and compared fund balances. The Grand Jury noted that year-end balances between the audits and the fund reports differ, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Differences Between County Audited Year-End Balances and the 21451 Fund Report Audit Combining Balance Sheet
2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
– 386,618 (641,657) (483,152) 474,139
Audit Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
– 369,813 (641,657) (483,152) 275,982
ESJGWA 21451 Fund Report
2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
370,409 380,025 (553,577) (328,783) 442,117
Neither the County nor ESJGWA provides easy access to ESJGWA financial information. The County’s OpenGov Financial Data Transparency Portal can be utilized to examine how Zone 2 funds are used, but the Grand Jury found it very difficult to locate and access this information. The Zone 2 budget link leads to a page with only minimal information. More information regarding Zone 2 and projects is available elsewhere on the District’s website, but it is difficult to find that information.

Similarly, the ESJGWA’s website does not provide a convenient link to ESJGWA budgets or financial information. That information can only be found by searching through agenda meeting packets of the Board and the Steering Committee. Even so, budget information presented at a meeting might not be included in the packets. For example, on February 8, 2023, the Steering Committee considered a draft budget proposal, but the proposal was not included in the meeting packet available to the public. The Grand Jury requested and received a copy of the proposed budget presentation, but it was not clear how the public would know to request that information.

Findings
F2.2.1 Important Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority financial information is not readily available on the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website, effectively depriving the public access to this information.

F2.2.2 Important Zone 2 financial information is not readily available on the San Joaquin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District’s website, therefore does not meet the public’s need for transparency.

F2.2.3 The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority is included in the annual San Joaquin County independent audit, but the audited fund balance differs from the fund balance report, calling into question the data included in the reported financials.

F2.2.4 The independent auditor lists and discusses the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority in the “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.” The balance sheet column heading listing the

ATTACHMENT A
304

99 previous Ground Water Banking Authority (GBA) is incorrect, lessening public confidence in the audit.

Recommendations
R2.2.1 By November 1, 2023, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board modify the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website to provide the public clear and convenient access to a more detailed Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority budget with prior-year actuals.

R2.2.2 By November 1, 2023, the County Board of Supervisors modify the Flood Control & Water Conservation District’s website to provide the public clear and convenient access to financial and project information related to the use of Zone 2 funds, including prior year actuals and services provided each year.

R2.2.3 By November 1, 2023, the County Auditor-Controller’s Office explain the difference between the County annual audits and the #21451 fund reports and make the explanation available to the public.

R2.2.4 By November 1, 2023, the County Auditor-Controller’s Office review the County independent audit balance sheets column header and the description narrative to confirm Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority as the entity audited and use the correct name in future independent audit balance sheets.

3.0 Public Information and Transparency
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) is a public entity formed through a joint exercise of powers agreement (JPA), pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (California Government Code Section 6500 et seq.). Its member independent special districts (ISDs), cities, and San Joaquin County are also local government agencies. Although these entities, individually and collectively, can be effective at their various local government responsibilities, what they do and how they operate is often a mystery to the public. Recognizing the need for transparency and accountability, the State has over the years enacted several pieces of legislation. These include the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950–54963) and SB 929, part of the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

The Brown Act is the State’s “sunshine law” for local agencies, requiring them to conduct their business at open and public meetings. It is based upon the policy that the people must be informed so they can keep control over their government. Among other things, the Brown Act requires meeting agendas for the Board of Directors and standing committees to be posted in a public place and on the agency’s website, if it has one, at least 72 hours in advance to help the public participate. Standing committees are committees that have been formally established by the Board with set meeting times. Ad hoc committees, which are temporary committees formed for a single task and then dissolved, are not subject to the Brown Act. JPAs such as the ESJGWA are subject to the provisions of the Brown Act.

ATTACHMENT A
305

100

3.1 Website
SB 929 required that by January 2020, all ISDs must establish and maintain a website. The ESJGWA has established a website, esjgroundwater.org, which provides general information about groundwater sustainability; meeting times, agendas, and minutes; outreach efforts during GSP development; and various reports. While not an ISD itself, the ESJGWA includes many ISDs as members and in the interest of transparency and good governance should adhere to the same website standards as its member agencies. These requirements include posting:
• contact information;
• the most recent agendas for Board and all standing committee meetings; • a report of financial transactions or link to the State Controller’s website; and • board compensation or link to the State Controller’s website.

In addition to these requirements of SB 929, SB 272 requires agencies to provide an Enterprise System Catalog, a list of certain software programs used by the agency. Government Code Section 7405 requires all public agency websites be accessible to visually impaired and deaf persons.

The Grand Jury found that the ESJGWA’s website does not fully comply with these transparency and accessibility laws, and only one of the 16 member GSAs is in full compliance. First, esjgroundwater.org does not include a financial transaction report (such reports must be submitted to the State Controller’s Office annually), nor does it have a link to the State Controller’s website.

Second, the website does not include a Board of Director’s compensation report nor link to the State Controller’s website. Third, it does not include an Enterprise System Catalog. Fourth, a cursory test by a Grand Jury member using the accessibility.org compliance checker indicated the ESJGWA’s website does not comply with State government accessibility guidelines. Several ESJGWA Board and staff members interviewed by the Grand Jury could not confirm if the website was accessible to sight-impaired persons. See Appendix B, ESJGWA Website Compliance, for compliance details.

The Grand Jury heard testimony from several individuals connected with the ESJGWA that included uncertainty about whether the website was compliant with applicable statutes, recognized that deficiencies existed, and acknowledged that complaints had been received. These witnesses also testified that staff work demands are high, and the timely posting of information to the website is a lesser priority that they would like to rectify.

Findings
F3.1.1 The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website does not provide the State- required Financial Transaction Report or a link to the State Controller’s website, which decreases transparency.

F3.1.2 The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website does not list the Board compensation report or a link to the State Controller’s website, reducing transparency.

ATTACHMENT A
306

101
F3.1.3 The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website does not provide an Enterprise System Catalog, which violates public records and transparency reporting requirements.

F3.1.4 The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website does not meet the accessibility requirements established by Government Code Section 7405, which could make it difficult for some members of the public to access the site and could expose the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority to legal action.

F3.1.5 The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website is not updated in a timely manner, causing frustration for site visitors and the appearance of a lack of transparency.

Recommendations
R3.1.1 By November 1, 2023, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors update their website to include the current Financial Transaction Report (or link to the State Controller’s website) to ensure compliance with SB 929.

R3.1.2 By November 1, 2023, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors update their website to include a Board compensation report (or link to the State Controller’s website) to ensure compliance with SB 929.

R3.1.3 By November 1, 2023, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors update their website to include an Enterprise System Catalog to ensure compliance with SB 272.

R3.1.4 By November 1, 2023, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors ensure that their website complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 7405.

R3.1.5 By November 1, 2023, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors consult with San Joaquin County’s Information Systems Division to recommend, develop, and implement methodologies to ensure the timely posting of information to the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website.

3.2 Board, Standing Committees, and Advisory Committees The ESJGWA Board of Directors meets monthly, as described in the JPA Agreement and Board Bylaws. These governance documents also provided for the establishment of one or more advisory committees, technical committees, and ad hoc (temporary, single purpose) committees. The Board of Directors had its first meeting in June 2017 and the Advisory Committee in May 2018. Because they were formally established and meet on a continuing basis, meetings of the Board and the Advisory Committee (which in 2020 became the Steering Committee) must be conducted in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

3.2.1 Meeting Times, Cancellations, and Scheduling Changes: When Do You Meet? Open meetings are a primary way for interested citizens to engage with and provide input to public agencies and officials. The ESJGWA’s Bylaws and its website state that regular Board meetings are

ATTACHMENT A
307

102
held on the second Wednesday of each month “at 9:30 a.m. or at a time specified by the Authority Board.” The website indicates Board meetings are held at 11:00 a.m. After examining agendas and meeting minutes, the Grand Jury determined Board meetings have commenced at 10:30 a.m. since March 2020. At its meeting held January 11, 2023, the Board voted to move to a quarterly meeting schedule, with occasional special meetings as needed, and with a starting time of 10:30 a.m.

Advisory and Steering Committee meetings have generally also been held during morning hours, prior to Board meetings. As noted in Section 1.1, SGMA guidance suggests that public meetings be held “at times that support participation.” The Grand Jury heard testimony and received documentary evidence that requests to hold public meetings after regular working hours had been made multiple times over several years. These requests stated holding meetings after work hours would help promote public participation and outreach. To date, no changes have been made. Most member GSAs also hold their monthly Board meetings in the morning time or early afternoon; 25% hold them after regular working hours.

In reviewing Board and Advisory/Steering Committee agendas and meeting minutes from the formation of the ESJGWA until present, the Grand Jury noted an increasing number of meeting cancellations over time, as shown in Table 2. All scheduled meetings of the Steering Committee from February to June 2022 were cancelled. In June 2020, the Board reduced its number of meetings, convening approximately quarterly until January 2022 when a monthly schedule was resumed. The Steering Committee continued a monthly schedule during this period. Meetings and meeting cancellations for the Board and Advisory/Steering Committee were properly noticed in accordance with the Brown Act.

Table 2. Number of Meetings Cancelled from Inception to Present

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
(thru
May)
Board of
Directors
1 1 2 1* 0 4* 3
Steering
Committee
— 1 1 3* 3 8* 2
* The status of one or more additional meetings is unknown as no minutes were published.

3.2.2 Technical Advisory Committee: Ad Hoc or Not?
From its beginnings, the ESJGWA envisioned the need for one or more ad hoc committees to investigate, advise, and provide the Board with recommendations on various technical, policy, and other matters that the Board would then act on. Being ad hoc, these committees met on an as- needed basis without an established schedule or published agenda, and their meetings were not noticed in advance. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has operated as an ad hoc committee.

Based on an examination of Board and Steering Committee meeting minutes, a compiled listing of TAC meeting dates and assignments from February 2020 to March 2023, and witness testimony, the Grand Jury concluded that the TAC has existed in some form nearly continuously since 2017.

One witness commented: “The TAC has been around a long time.” In the Board meeting minutes of

ATTACHMENT A
308

103
June 9, 2021, a member of the public questioned why “TAC meetings are open to the Public, but no notice is provided on the ESJ Groundwater website.” The minutes also note, “In response to TAC notices, it was confirmed that the meeting section will be updated on the ESJ Groundwater website appropriately to follow Brown Act.” The Grand Jury found no listing of TAC meeting notices on esjgroundwater.org. At the Board meeting held February 8, 2023, in response to past public comments, Board members and staff discussed whether the TAC was a standing committee, demonstrating ambivalence about the TAC’s ad hoc status.

3.2.3 Identifying Members of the Board: Who Are They?
During its investigation, the Grand Jury attempted to find the names of individuals representing member GSAs on the ESJGWA Board of Directors by examining its website, meeting agendas, and meeting minutes, and by querying witnesses. One witness, when asked if they could identify Board members, said they could not because “There are a bunch.” Unlike its member GSAs, the ESJGWA does not identify who serves on the Board of Directors, either on its website or on its printed meeting agendas. Currently, the only way for the public to find who sits on the Board is by searching the minutes of Board meetings, where attending members are named in the roll call section. If a Board member was absent, or if their alternate attended, the Board member’s identity would remain unknown. All the member GSAs provide the names and contact information for their Board members on their websites, and more than half list them on meeting agendas. Some provide photos of Board members on their websites as well.

Findings
F3.2.1 The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board routinely holds its meetings at times that differ from those stated in its Bylaws and on its website. Together with cancellations and a reduction in the number of Board meetings, this creates confusion and reduces opportunities for public engagement.

F3.2.2 The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Technical Advisory Committee is a de facto standing committee but does not follow noticing and transparency requirements for its meetings, violating the Brown Act and giving the public no insight or input into its activities.

F3.2.3 The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority does not identify the individuals who serve on the Board of Directors on either its website or its agendas, making it difficult for the public to ascertain who governs the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority and who from each Groundwater Sustainability Agency sits on their Board.

Recommendations
R3.2.1 By November 1, 2023, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors amend its Bylaws and update its website to reflect the actual meeting time of the Board.

R3.2.2 By November 1, 2023, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors, during a public meeting, discuss and implement options that would enable increased public attendance at its meetings.

ATTACHMENT A
309

104
R3.2.3 By November 1, 2023, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors acknowledge at one of its meetings that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is a standing committee and direct that the TAC begin holding its meetings in compliance with the Brown Act.

R3.2.4 By November 1, 2023, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors ensure that its website has been updated to include the name, position, and contact information for each person serving on the Board and that this information be kept current.

R3.2.5 By November 1, 2023, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors ensure the name and position of each current Board member be included in the agenda of each Board meeting.

3.3 Meeting Minutes
Minutes for a particular ESJGWA Board or Advisory/Steering Committee meeting are included in the agenda packet for the next meeting of that body. Agendas and agenda packets are posted on esjgroundwater.org/Agendas. There is no indication on the Agendas web page that minutes of the previous meeting are included in agenda packets. Member GSAs and other local government agency websites viewed by the Grand Jury frequently provide separate links to their meetings’ minutes. The Grand Jury sometimes found it difficult to locate the minutes for a Board or Advisory/Steering Committee meeting held on a particular date, especially when the following meeting (and sometimes several meetings) had been cancelled. In a few instances, minutes are missing from the website, making it impossible for the Grand Jury to verify whether the previously scheduled meeting had occurred. Several stakeholder witnesses also expressed frustration with meeting minutes that are difficult to locate or missing.

Finding
F3.3.1 The minutes of Board and Steering Committee meetings are difficult to locate on the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority website and sometimes are not posted for months or at all, resulting in frustration for interested parties and a lack of transparency.

Recommendation
R3.3.1 By November 1, 2023, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors make changes to the website to ensure all meeting minutes (including drafts) are posted within 10 business days of the meeting adjournment and made easily available to the public.

4.0 Administrative Issues

4.1 Lapse in the County’s MOA with Cal Water
Cal Water has participated as part of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) by means of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Cal Water and San Joaquin County. The original MOA was approved in May 2017 and stipulated it would terminate in three years or once the County adopted a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) but could be extended for up to two years. In December 2019, after the member Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and County all adopted the initial GSP, the term of the original MOA was extended for another two

ATTACHMENT A
310

105
years. That renewed agreement lapsed in December 2021; however, the County Board of Supervisors did not approve another MOA with Cal Water until November 29, 2022. Witnesses confirmed during Grand Jury questioning that the MOA had lapsed because of administrative oversight.

4.2 Inadequate Staff Support
Article 3.10 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) states the ESJGWA does not anticipate having any employees, but that employees of member GSAs may, with the GSA’s consent, serve as ex officio employees. Certain County staff also fulfill ESJGWA staff roles. The Grand Jury heard testimony from several witnesses indicating staff support for the ESJGWA is insufficient. It was mentioned that certain staff members must fulfill multiple roles and shoulder many critical responsibilities and that doing so had resulted in overwork and stress. Other testimony related that some desired efforts in support of the ESJGWA’s work were delayed or went unfulfilled and that a primary reason was a lack of resources and staffing. The high cost involved for staffing was mentioned several times. In addition, as noted in Section 3.1, other witness testimony and some documents supplied to the Grand Jury indicated updates to the ESJGWA’s website have been delayed because of a shortage of staff support.

Findings
F4.1 San Joaquin County and Cal Water allowed their Memorandum of Agreement to automatically terminate in December 2021 and failed to renew it until November 2022, which undermines public confidence in the County’s governance and due diligence in tracking all legal agreements.

F4.2 The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority has insufficient staff support, which negatively impacts its ability to operate efficiently and can result in staff burnout and possible administrative delays and errors.

Recommendations
R4.1 By November 1, 2023, the San Joaquin Board of Supervisors develop, adopt, and implement a methodology for reviewing Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority governance and contractual documents regularly to ensure that any that are approaching expiration can be acted upon promptly.

R4.2 By November 1, 2023, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board develop a recommendation and proposal for additional staffing necessary to adequately support its activities and present this proposal to the member Groundwater Sustainability Agencies’ Boards and the County Board of Supervisors for approval.

Conclusion
On March 2, 2023, the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) recommended approval of the GSPs for six critical subbasins, including the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. In its announcement, DWR noted: “While additional analytical work is needed during implementation, DWR deemed the

ATTACHMENT A
311

106
framework for management sufficient under the law.” The Grand Jury commends the ESJGWA and its member GSAs for their years of hard work to achieve this milestone accomplishment.

Going forward, the Grand Jury believes the ESJGWA has much to do to improve the public’s knowledge, understanding, and confidence in its operations. Needed improvements include increasing transparency of its operations and financial workings; revamping the presentation of information at public meetings and on the website to make it more complete and more accessible; improving and expanding communication efforts to identify, reach out, educate, and engage with the Subbasin’s diverse stakeholder communities; and allocating more resources for administrative support to ensure efficient and timely operations. While the ESJGWA has begun to address some of these concerns, by incorporating the Grand Jury recommendations the ESJGWA will raise awareness of their efforts and better serve the interests of San Joaquin County’s groundwater users.

Disclaimers
Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911, 924.1(a), and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929).

Response Requirements
California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report for the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors and San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, and within 60 days of receipt of the report for the San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller. • The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors shall respond to:

Findings F1.2.1, F1.2.2, F1.3.1, F1.3.2, F2.2.1, F3.1.1, F3.1.2, F3.1.3, F3.1.4, F3.1.5, F3.2.1, F3.2.2, F3.2.3, F3.3.1, and F4.2;
Recommendations R1.2.1, R1.2.2, R1.3.1, R1.3.2, R2.2.1, R3.1.1, R3.1.2, R3.1.3, R3.1.4, R3.1.5, R3.2.1, R3.2.2, R3.2.3, R3.2.4, R3.2.5, R3.3.1, and R4.2. • The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to:

Findings F2.2.2 and F4.1;
Recommendations R2.2.2 and R4.1.
• The San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller shall respond to:

Findings F2.2.3 and F2.2.4;
Recommendations R2.2.3 and R2.2.4.

ATTACHMENT A
312

107
Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to:

Honorable Michael D. Coughlan, Presiding Judge
San Joaquin County Superior Court
180 E Weber Ave, Suite 1306J
Stockton, California 95202
Also, please email a copy of the response to Mr. Irving Jimenez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected].

ATTACHMENT A
313

108
Appendix A: Stakeholder Engagement Chart for GSP Development To assist GSAs with identifying individuals and groups they expected to engage with or inform while developing their GSP, the DWR provided the following chart to “stimulate brainstorming.” DWR noted that the list is not exclusive.

(Source: Guidance Document for Groundwater Sustainability Plan Stakeholder Communication and Engagement.

California Department of Water Resources. January 2018.)

ATTACHMENT A
314

109
Appendix B: ESJGWA and GSA Website Compliance

ATTACHMENT A
315

110

ATTACHMENT A
316

111

ATTACHMENT A
317

112

ATTACHMENT A
318
113

SECTION 3:

LAW AND JUSTICE
Law and Jus�ce Report with a Special Report
on the Juvenile Jus�ce System and
Con�nuum of Care Reform ............................ Page 115

ATTACHMENT A
319
114

ATTACHMENT A
320

115
2022–2023 San Joaquin County Grand Jury

Working Title 1: Working Title 2 (Case No. xx20)
Law and Jus�ce Report with a Special Report on the Juvenile Jus�ce System and Con�nuum of Care Reform
Introduc�on and Background
California Penal Code sec�ons 919(a) and 919(b) authorize the Grand Jury to inquire into the condi�on of jails and public prisons operated by the State, County, and Ci�es within the jurisdic�on of San Joaquin County (SJC). The Grand Jury may inves�gate maters pertaining to law enforcement including the Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce, police, juvenile jus�ce, public safety, proba�on, and the inspec�on of deten�on facili�es within the county.

Law Enforcement Department Descrip�ons
The following are overviews of the various law enforcement agencies that the Grand Jury reviewed.

The many programs and ac�vi�es found in the descrip�ons are not meant to be a complete survey of each department, but rather examples of the types of ac�vi�es that the Grand Jury noted or were described in presenta�ons. Most programs and ac�vi�es would overlap in all city police departments or the San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce. For example, a Neighborhood Watch program is described in the Stockton and Tracy Police Departments, yet likely all or most of the agencies would have such a program.

Summary
The 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report reviewed the law enforcement and public agencies within San Joaquin County including the:
• City police departments of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy. • San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce.
• College, university, and school departments of public safety, i.e., San Joaquin Delta College, the University of the Paciﬁc, and Stockton Uniﬁed School District. • San Joaquin County Jail and Lodi Jail.
• Juvenile Deten�on Facility under the Juvenile Deten�on Service within the San Joaquin County Proba�on Department.

ATTACHMENT A
321

116
• Agencies with signiﬁcant security concerns, i.e., The Port of Stockton and the California Health Care Facility.

The Grand Jury had presenta�ons from all of the agencies except the California Health Care Facility.

Jury members toured six city police departments (Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy) and also toured the San Joaquin County Jail, the Lodi Jail, the Juvenile Deten�on Facility, the Port of Stockton, and the California Health Care Facility. Interviews were also conducted.

The police chiefs and the San Joaquin Sheriﬀ were asked to comment on the following issues:
• Collabora�ve rela�ons between law enforcement and ci�zens. • Community Mental Health Response Program.
• Homelessness issues.
• 9-1-1 dispatch policies.
• Mass casualty and ac�ve shooter response policies.
• Racial proﬁling percep�ons.
• Crime sta�s�cs.
• Staﬃng demands and recruitment strategies.

In view of the na�onal concerns related to law enforcement use of force events, the Grand Jury members par�cipated in ride-along sessions with law enforcement agencies to observe the law enforcement oﬃcers’ interac�ons with the ci�zens they are sworn to serve. All Grand Jury members who spent �me with law enforcement oﬃcers during their ride-along sessions commented on the professional manner each of the oﬃcers or depu�es displayed. They demonstrated appropriate de- escala�on techniques and guidance with each of the complainants or suspects they encountered.

Staﬀ shortages is a common concern expressed by many of the law enforcement agencies. This results in longer response �mes to calls for service. Some agencies are having diﬃculty using the newly installed computer Data Base Management System (DBMS) which provides required data to the Department of Jus�ce.

This report includes informa�on gleaned from the presenta�ons, facility visits, independent research of agency websites, documents provided by the agencies, and individuals’ ride-along observa�ons. A lis�ng of the types of calls for service jurors observed during their ride-along sessions follows the agency descrip�on.

Collabora�ve Rela�ons Between Law Enforcement and Ci�zens A focus common in all the agencies’ presenta�ons was their eﬀort to inform and engage with their communi�es. This was seen as a crucial endeavor in a na�onal news climate where law enforcement is o�en viewed nega�vely. Outreach programs designed to engage and educate the public include enhancing website and social media presence, special events, coﬀee talks, iden�fying and working with youth-centered events and organiza�ons, and collabora�ng with businesses. This allows oﬃcers opportuni�es to interact with the community in posi�ve ways.

Community Mental Health Response Program
Police o�en interact with ci�zens with mental health issues. They coordinate with the San Joaquin County Behavioral Health Department. Mental health personnel are typically available only during business hours. Regardless of the hour or circumstance, they frequently did not get to the scene in

ATTACHMENT A
322

117
a �mely manner. Training on how to de-escalate such situa�ons and gain control without deadly force is an important eﬀort and is now mandatory for all law enforcement personnel.

Homelessness Issues
Homelessness is a problem in San Joaquin County. Homeless encampments may be seen along the freeways, under viaducts, and in parks. During ride-along sessions, law enforcement personnel were observed to be professional and humane in their interac�ons with the homeless.

Presenta�ons also emphasized this approach. Law enforcement provides informa�on about available support resources during their interac�ons with the homeless. However, more San Joaquin County resources are needed to establish adequate housing and support for the homeless. 9-1-1 Dispatch Policies
Priori�za�on protocols are in place at all dispatch centers. Priority 1 involves crimes against persons and property that are in progress. Priority 2 are crimes against persons and property where response may be delayed, and Priority 3 designates an ac�on that may be delayed. A dispatcher’s job is a diﬃcult one and takes signiﬁcant training. Due to staﬀ shortages, many departments had to come up with crea�ve solu�ons for making do with less. For example, Ripon Police Department Dispatchers serve as a dispatch center for Escalon and Lathrop. Lodi dispatchers have addi�onal jail du�es. Grand Jury members who did ride-along sessions with Lodi, Stockton, and the Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce noted the frequency of calls and oﬃcer staﬃng issues some�mes made it diﬃcult to respond in a �mely manner.

Mass Casualty and Ac�ve Shooter Response Policies
The law enforcement departments are training in mass casualty and conduc�ng ac�ve shooter response scenarios. They adhere to mutual aid training protocols for tac�cal incidents and prac�ce with other departments. The University of the Paciﬁc and Delta College police departments have trained with the Stockton Police Department. Due to recent na�onal events, training should be and is a regular ac�vity. Police chiefs noted that their oﬃcers were trained to not hesitate in responding in the event of an ongoing incident where ci�zens’ lives are in danger.

Racial Proﬁling Percep�ons
Crime reports note racial backgrounds to determine if inappropriate or unfair stops are occurring.

AB 243 requires bias training for every peace oﬃcer and a refresher course every ﬁve years. AB 953 requires law enforcement to collect data on all oﬃcer contacts. This data is collected and sent to the California Department of Jus�ce (DOJ) to be analyzed sta�s�cally with the goal of elimina�ng racial and iden�ty proﬁling.

Crime Sta�s�cs
The police departments report crime sta�s�cs to the Uniform Crime Repor�ng (UCR) program.

Several departments have crime analysts. Crimes are also analyzed through Mark43, which provides daily reports of incidents and trends. Crime sta�s�cs are reported and were evident in the presenta�ons. The� and traﬃc concerns are the largest issues in San Joaquin County. The University of the Paciﬁc (UOP) and San Joaquin Delta College’s police departments also report sta�s�cs to the Department of Educa�on (DOE) as required by the Clery Act.

ATTACHMENT A
323

118
Staﬃng Demands and Recruitment Strategies
All the law enforcement departments are faced with recrui�ng, hiring, and reten�on challenges, i.e., fewer people want to become law enforcement oﬃcers considering the news and nega�ve public percep�ons. Oﬃcer pay scales are typically lower in San Joaquin County than those in surrounding coun�es. Most of the law enforcement agencies expressed concern regarding recruitment.

Prison Rape Elimina�on Act Compliance
County custodial facili�es must be in compliance with the Code of Federal Regula�ons 28 (CFR Part 115) Prison Rape Elimina�on Act of 2003 (PREA). Failure to meet these standards can result in serious consequences for detainees and an inability to protect vulnerable individuals housed at the County custodial facili�es. This obliga�on to protect is ethically correct and required by law.

Personnel at some custodial facili�es lacked a comprehensive knowledge of all PREA requirements and some facili�es were not in compliance.

Glossary
• AB 243: California Assembly Bill requires bias training for every peace oﬃcer and a refresher course every ﬁve years.
• AB 481: California Assembly Bill No. 481, Chapter 406 passed in 2021 sets forth the requirements for law enforcement and State agencies to request military equipment including funding, acquisi�on, and use.
• AB 953: “California Assembly Bill 953-Racial and Iden�ty Proﬁling Act of 2015 (RIPA) requires law enforcement to collect data on all oﬃcer contacts/stops, eliminate racial and iden�ty proﬁling, and improve diversity and racial iden�ty sensi�vity law enforcement. The data is sent to the California Department of Jus�ce annually.”
• Academy: POST accredited training academy.
• AFIS: Automated Fingerprint Iden�ﬁca�on System.
• ASR: Annual Security Reports (California) as required by the Clery Act. • AWP: San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce Alterna�ve Work Program. • BSCC: Board of State and Community Correc�ons (California). • California Penal Code Sec�on 830.32(b): Iden�ﬁes who may be a peace oﬃcer…(b) Persons employed as members of a police department of a school district pursuant to Sec�on 38000 of the Educa�on Code, if the primary role of the police oﬃcer is the enforcement of the law as described in Sec�on 38000 of the Educa�on Code.
• California Penal Code Sec�on 832.5(a)(1): “Each department or agency in this state that employs peace oﬃcers shall establish a procedure to inves�gate complaints by members of the public against the personnel of these departments or agencies, and shall make a writen descrip�on of the procedure available to the public.”
• California Penal Code Sec�on 919(a): “The Grand Jury may inquire into the case of every person imprisoned in the jail of the county on a criminal charge and not indicted.” • California Penal Code Sec�on 919(b): “The Grand Jury shall inquire into the condi�on and management of the public prisons within the county.”
• CDCR: California Department of Correc�ons and Rehabilita�on.

ATTACHMENT A
324

119
• CERT: Custody Emergency Response Team. The jail version of a SWAT team. • Clery Act: Public Law 101-542. Higher Educa�on Act of 1965. Amended 20 U.S.C. 1092 The Jeanne Clery Act requires disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Sta�s�cs by all colleges and universi�es that par�cipate in Federal ﬁnancial aid programs. They must keep and disclose informa�on about crime on and near their respec�ve campuses.

Compliance is monitored by the U.S. Department of Educa�on. The law is named a�er Jeanne Clery, a 19-year-old Lehigh University student who was raped and murdered. • CHCF: California Health Care Facility located in Stockton. • CHHS: California Health and Human Services Agency.
• CMC: Community Medical Centers is a network provider of medical services that started as a volunteer eﬀort in the late 1960s. It is a network of neighborhood health centers serving over 100,000 pa�ents in San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo Coun�es. • ComCar: Community Car Program in the San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce in which depu�es work speciﬁc areas to gain greater connec�ons and trust with the community.

ComCar depu�es work in speciﬁc areas known as “micro-beats.” • COVID-19: Disease caused by Coronavirus.
• CRU: Community Revitaliza�on Unit in the San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce enforces blight laws in the County.
• DBMS: Data Base Management System is so�ware that allows organiza�ons to store, organize, and manage large amounts of data.
• Delta College: San Joaquin Delta College.
• DHCS: Department of Health Care Services (California). • DJJ: Division of Juvenile Jus�ce (California).
• DOE: Department of Educa�on (U.S.).
• DOJ: Department of Jus�ce (California).
• DSS: Department of Social Services (California).
• EBP: Evidenced-Based Programming is a method shown by scien�ﬁc research to eﬀec�vely reduce recidivism rates and increase an oﬀender’s likelihood of success following release from incarcera�on, including programs focused on educa�on, voca�onal training, mental health, substance abuse rehabilita�on, or building healthy rela�onships. • Educa�on Code Sec�on 38000: California Educa�on Code 38000 Part A states that a school district may “establish a security department…” in order to “ensure the safety of school district personnel and pupils…”
• EMP: Electronic Monitoring Program. This is house arrest with a monitoring device. • FTO: Field Training Oﬃcer is an experienced or senior member of law enforcement responsible for the training and evalua�on of a junior or proba�onary level member. • I-CAP: Stockton Police Department Intelligence-Communica�on and Planning deploys available resources in hot spot neighborhoods to prevent crime. • IEP: Individual Educa�on Program is a writen document developed for a child in grades K-12 who is eligible for Special Educa�on. The IEP is cra�ed through a team eﬀort and is reviewed at least once a year.
• Lateral or Lateral Oﬃcer: Experienced law enforcement oﬃcers recruited from other agencies.

ATTACHMENT A
325

120
• LEAD: Law Enforcement Applicant Development is a program to assist youth usually aged 16-19 interested in a career in law enforcement.
• Mark43: An AWS Partner Network Advanced Technology based in New York City that developed a cloud-based so�ware solu�on for the public safety industry. The Mark43 pla�orm oﬀers records management and computer-aided dispatch (CAD) applica�ons for a growing number of police and public service organiza�ons. • Marshall Plan: A strategic ini�a�ve adopted by the Stockton City Council to reduce crime and increase public safety. The plan was discussed in Council on January 31, 2012, and the Marshall Plan Commitee met through 2012 and held a symposium for community leaders on February 8, 2013.
• MHP: Mental Health Plan (San Joaquin County).
• NASRO: Na�onal Associa�on of School Resource Oﬃcers.
• NOBLE: Na�onal Organiza�on of Black Law Enforcement.
• OYCR: Oﬃce of Youth and Community Restora�on (California). • one.Cruikshank: The San Joaquin County Oﬃce of Educa�on program (named for Judge John F. Cruikshank, Jr.) provides a fully accredited year-round educa�on for all individuals enrolled in the Juvenile Court School. Atending school is mandatory Monday through Friday for all youth.
• POP: Problem-Oriented Policing diagnoses and solves problems that are increasing crime risks, usually in areas that are seeing compara�vely high levels of crime. POP is challenging in that agencies need to diagnose and solve what could be any of a wide range of crime- causing problems.
• POST: Peace Oﬃcer Standard and Training sets the standards for all law enforcement training.
• POST Academy: Any law enforcement academy approved by POST to provide minimum selec�on and training standards for California law enforcement. • PREA: Prison Rape Elimina�on Act established in 2003 under the Code of Federal Regula�ons 28 (CFR Part 115), the Prison Rape Elimina�on Act sets the standards for the detec�on, preven�on, reduc�on, and prosecu�on of prison sexual assault. It also provides funds to help State and local governments implement the act. • Principled Policing: Focuses on the way police interact with the public and how these interac�ons inﬂuence crime rates and the public’s view of police and willingness to obey the law. Prac�cing procedural jus�ce can have a signiﬁcant impact on compliance, coopera�on, public safety, and oﬃcer safety.
• Read 180: A reading interven�on program, u�lizing adap�ve technology, to help students who are reading two grades below level or have reading diﬃcul�es. • Resident: Any person conﬁned or detained in a juvenile facility or in a community conﬁnement facility.
• Ride-along: An opportunity for a ci�zen to ride with a police oﬃcer. • SB 92: California Senate Bill 92 Chapter 18. Commitee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Juvenile Jus�ce. Commencing July 1, 2021, it prohibits further commitment of wards to the Division of Juvenile Jus�ce unless the ward is otherwise eligible to be commited to the division and a mo�on was ﬁled to transfer the ward from the juvenile court to a court of criminal

ATTACHMENT A
326

121
jurisdic�on. This bill requires a court to consider the commitment to county-based custody as an alterna�ve to the Division of Juvenile Jus�ce.
• SB 230: California Senate Bill 230 builds on California’s rigorous officer training requirements by establishing a minimum standard on the use of force for all law enforcement agencies throughout the State. No later than January 1, 2021, it required each law enforcement agency to maintain a policy that provided guidelines on the use of force, utilizing de-escalation techniques and other alternatives to force when feasible. It also has specific guidelines for applying deadly force and factors for evaluating and reviewing all use-of-force incidents. The bill requires each agency to make its use of force policy accessible to the public. • SB 823: California Senate Bill 823 was signed into law September 30, 2020. Also known as the “Juvenile Jus�ce Realignment Act,” closes the Division of Juvenile Jus�ce and removes it from the California Department of Correc�ons and Rehabilita�on (CDCR). It places Juvenile Jus�ce under the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services in a new division called the Oﬃce of Youth and Community Restora�on (OYCR). • School-to-Prison Pipeline: Used to describe the dispropor�onate frequency of students from disadvantaged backgrounds becoming incarcerated because of harsh school and municipal policies. These policies and procedures involve zero-tolerance, suspensions, expulsions, and arrests for minor misbehavior. The school-to-prison pipeline aﬀects students of color, students with disabili�es, and LGBTQ students more than their peers. • SJC: San Joaquin County.
• SRO: School Resource Oﬃcer.
• STARS: Sheriﬀ’s Team of Ac�ve and Re�red Seniors.
• Stop Data: Ar�cle 2 of the California Code of Regula�ons (CCR 999.225) iden�ﬁes law enforcement agencies as subject to the collec�on of stop data. Stop Data is the informa�on gathered when police oﬃcers make discre�onary stops and stops resul�ng from a dispatched call for service. The Stop Data collec�on program is implemented with the inten�on of crea�ng an internal culture of accountability and ensuring that policing prac�ces are cons�tu�onal.
• STRIPE: Trained student employees at the University of the Paciﬁc who func�on as a safety escort service.
• STRTP: Short-Term Residen�al Therapeu�c Programs.
• SUAS: Small Unmanned Aircra� System.
• SUSD: Stockton Uniﬁed School District.
• SUSD DPS: Stockton Uniﬁed School District Department of Public Safety. • Title IX: The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights enforces, among other statutes, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. • UCR: Uniform Crime Repor�ng Program has generated reliable sta�s�cs for use in law enforcement since 1930. It includes data from more than 18,000 enforcement agencies.

Agencies par�cipate voluntarily and submit their crime data either through a state UCR program or directly to the FBI’s UCR Program.
• UOP: University of the Paciﬁc (some�mes also referred to as Paciﬁc). • Ward: Someone under the protec�on of the Court.

ATTACHMENT A
327

122
San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce

The San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce provides law enforcement and services for the 784,298 ci�zens of San Joaquin County. The Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce is the primary law enforcement provider for the 159,170 ci�zens in the unincorporated areas of the County. The Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce is also responsible for patrolling 500+ miles of navigable Delta waterways. The Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce staﬃng is currently near allocated levels. There is a command staﬀ consis�ng of a Sheriﬀ Public Administrator, an Undersheriﬀ, an Assistant Sheriﬀ, and a Custody Assistant Sheriﬀ. The communica�ons center and jail central control are currently understaﬀed. Fi�een of the 23 allocated Communica�ons Dispatcher II posi�ons are ﬁlled.

General Areas of Responsibility
• Airport Security.
• Animal Services.
• Civil.
• Courts.
• Criminal.
• Custody.
• Public Administrator.

Collabora�ve Rela�onships Between Law Enforcement and Ci�zens The Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce promotes collabora�ve rela�ons between law enforcement and ci�zens in the following areas:

Community Car Program (ComCar)
This program is designed to establish rela�onships and trust between the Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce and the community. ComCar depu�es work in speciﬁc areas known as “micro-beats.” Selected depu�es must display a willingness to uphold and a knowledge of the ComCar philosophy. They are expected to become experts in their assigned community, establishing good working rela�onships with residents and businesses, as well as iden�fying areas of concern.

ATTACHMENT A
328

123
Community Revitaliza�on Unit (CRU)
CRU was formed to assist ComCar depu�es in iden�fying and addressing quality of life and blight issues. CRU depu�es specialize in non-tradi�onal law enforcement tac�cs. They have recently been given Code Enforcement powers, and detailed training on County Ordinances and available resources. They work with ComCar depu�es to iden�fy where neighborhood clean-ups would help change the trajectory and pride in ownership of en�re neighborhoods.

Ci�zens Academy
This eight-week Academy is designed to make ci�zens beter informed by fostering a clear understanding of a deputy and correc�onal oﬃcer’s du�es and how they carry out those du�es. All applicants must pass a warrant check prior to acceptance into the Academy.

STARS Volunteers and Volunteer Chaplaincy Program
In addi�on to regular interac�ons through proac�ve patrols and responding to calls for service, the Field Forces Division incorporates re�red seniors, volunteer chaplains, and civilian staﬀ to bolster the Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce and community rela�onships. The Sheriﬀ’s Team of Ac�ve and Re�red Seniors (STARS) is a volunteer program for concerned ci�zens aged 50 and older. STARS volunteers assist the Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce by enhancing and promo�ng eﬀorts in crime preven�on and other tasks and services as directed. Over the last three years, the Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce has expanded its Chaplaincy Program. It currently has four volunteer chaplains fostering familiarity with the role of law enforcement in the community. Chaplains also support depu�es when dealing with ci�zens in incidents such as accidental deaths, suicides, serious accidents, drug and alcohol abuse, and other appropriate situa�ons. This provides an addi�onal layer of service to the community during tragic events.

LEAD Program
The Law Enforcement Applica�on Development Program (LEAD) operates under the umbrella of the Central Valley Chapter (CVC) of the Na�onal Organiza�on of Black Law Enforcement Execu�ves (NOBLE). It is a collabora�ve opera�on between the San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce, Stockton Police Department, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Police Department, several private enterprises, and stakeholders in the community. The goal of the program is to introduce and prepare young applicants for the possibility of a career within the law enforcement community.

Community Mental Health Response Program
Law Enforcement Responds 24/7 to:
• Bizarre or erra�c behavior/crisis/drug induced.
• Threatening behavior (armed/unarmed/threats).
• If not a danger to others or criminal.
o Will refer to a clinician.

Mental Health:
• Generally ﬁxed 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. schedule.
o A�er hours response is unlikely (referral or follow up). • Cannot respond to violent behavior.

ATTACHMENT A
329

124
o Including threats, suicide, bizarre ac�ons, under the inﬂuence or weapons. o Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce serves as a transport unit.
• Determine 72-hour commitments (5150) or immediate release. 9-1-1 Dispatch Policies
Priority 1 – Requires immediate dispatching of units (possibly Code 3) The highest priority calls are those in which the physical well-being of a person is in jeopardy, such as traﬃc accidents, suicide atempts, any call involving the use of weapons, including ﬁghts and robberies.

Priority 2 – Requires dispatching as quickly as possible (Code 2) These calls for service do not require an immediate response but should be dealt with as soon as possible. However, a situa�on such as a comba�ve shopli�er being detained could fall within the Priority 1 classiﬁca�on.

Priority 3 – Requires dispatching as quickly as convenient (Code 1) The majority of calls received fall into this category. They are informa�onal in nature, or the �me element dictates that no person or property is in jeopardy. Calls in this category are handled in the order in which they are received.

Dispatch Training
• Approximate 10-month on the job training program.
• Divided into two sec�ons: call taking and radio training. • Three-week (120 hours) POST mandated Public Safety Dispatcher Basic Course. • Dispatchers must complete 24 hours of POST Con�nuing Professional Training in each two- year POST cycle to be compliant.

Crime Sta�s�cs
Overall calls for service have dropped 16.3% from 2021. Property crimes decreased 32.1%, vagrancy crimes decreased 28.4%, but violent crimes increased 11.3%.

San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce Ride-along Observa�ons During Grand Jury ride-along sessions, the Sheriff’s officer responded to calls for service that included: a reported bank fraud, suspicious persons, disturbances, welfare checks, loud music, officer assistance request from CHP, mail theft, audible alarm at a business, and an identity theft.

San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce Uniﬁed Court Services Division and County Jail Court
The San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce Uniﬁed Court Services Division provides court security to the four court facili�es in San Joaquin County. This includes the management of in-custody inmates brought to court from the county jail and juvenile facili�es, all temporary inmate holding cells,

ATTACHMENT A
330

125
courtroom security as monitored by court bailiﬀs, as well as monitoring and response to all security issues within the courthouse.

The Sheriﬀ’s Uniﬁed Court Services Division operates with a total alloca�on of 54 full-�me and 48 part-�me posi�ons. This includes one captain, one lieutenant, ﬁve sergeants, 39 full-�me depu�es, eight correc�onal oﬃcers, 48 part-�me depu�es and correc�onal oﬃcers. Approximately 26,320 inmates were transported to court in Fiscal Year 2021-2022. A private non-sworn security company is u�lized to monitor entry screening and a�er-hours courthouse security.

Court loca�ons include Stockton, Manteca, Lodi (currently closed), Tracy (currently closed), and the Juvenile Deten�on Facility.

Custody
The Sheriﬀ’s Custody Division is a complex opera�on that is managed by two captains, nine lieutenants, and an Inmate Programs Director in compliance with the California Code of Regula�on Title 15, Division 3.

Each of the nine lieutenants divided responsibili�es consis�ng of, but not limited to: management of the John Zunino Jail Complex and Honor Farm Complex (Intake, Main Jail, Honor Farm), Inmate Work Programs Unit (Alterna�ve Work Program, Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP), Work Furlough Program, and Alcohol Monitoring Program), Transporta�on/Inmate Hospital Security, Medical Services, Maintenance and Food Services Liaison, Inmate Popula�on Management, Training, Records Division, Realignment/AB 109 Liaison Construc�on Project Management, and PREA Compliance. The Inmate Program Director provides a variety of programs and services to assist oﬀenders with successful reintegra�on into the community.

Booking
• Live Scan.
o Local Automated Fingerprint Iden�ﬁca�on System (AFIS) search to verify arrestee’s iden�ty.
• Consular No�ﬁca�on.
o Completed during intake process.
o Provides no�ﬁca�on for foreign na�onals to nearest consulate (Ar�cle 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Conven�on on Consular Rela�ons.
• Programs and Services.
o Iden�fy level of educa�on and u�lize for jail programs and services. • Veterans Aﬀairs.
o Iden�fy veterans at booking to allow for contact with VA to link for eligible services.

Inmate Orienta�on
• Orienta�on videos in both English and Spanish.
• Inmate Orienta�on & Rule Book in English and Spanish given upon housing and available on tablets and kiosks.
• Housing Guidelines given upon housing, posted on inmate informa�on board, available in English and Spanish.
• Housing Unit Oﬃcer.

ATTACHMENT A
331

126
Intake Housing
• Intake housing units 1, 2, 3, and 4.
• Two oﬃcers for up to a maximum of 131 inmates.
• Double bunking.

Medical Housing and Sheltered Housing Units (Adjoined)
• Comprised of inmates with medical and mental needs.
• One oﬃcer for 39 inmates for Medical.
• Two oﬃcers for 99 inmates for Sheltered.

Medical Housing and Medical/Dental Clinic
• On-site medical care, non-emergency treatment, and behavioral services. • Cardiology.
• Pulmonology.
• Dental.
• Podiatry.
• Orthopedic.

General Popula�on Housing Unit
• Direct supervision housing.
• One oﬃcer for 64 inmates.

Administra�ve Segrega�on Unit (AdSeg)
• Maximum Security Housing.
• Two oﬃcers for 94 inmates.
• Double bunking.

Honor Farm
• 355 Board of State and Community Correc�ons (BSCC)-rated bed capacity.

Jail Popula�on
When the jail popula�on reaches its capacity, it triggers a popula�on reduc�on plan. • Total Bed Capacity: 1,585.
• State Rated Capacity: 1,550.
• BSCC does not include medical housing bed space into their rated capacity – 35 beds. • Popula�on as of October 31, 2022, was 1,249.

Educa�onal Programs
• G.E.D.
• High School Diploma.
• Oﬃce Technology.
• Crea�ve Wri�ng.
• Beyond Incarcera�on.
• Substance Abuse.
• Read 180.
• Life Skills.
• Paren�ng Skills.
• Ownership.

ATTACHMENT A
332

127
• Anger Management.
• Crea�ve Conﬂict Resolu�on.

Services
• Human Services Agency.
• Child Support.
• Root and Rebound.
• Malachi Dads.
• Resource Fair.
• Community Based Organiza�ons.
• Inkoﬀ – Tatoo Removal (coming soon).

Inmate Voca�onal Programs
In recognizing that inmates need viable job skills to re-enter as produc�ve community members, the expansion of inmate voca�onal programs is a high priority. • Forkli� Simulator.
• ABC NORCAL Construc�on Training (coming soon).
• Truck Driving Simulator (coming soon).

Alterna�ve Work Programs (AWP) and Program Par�cipa�on for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 • 2,138 applica�ons.
• 1,200 par�cipated.

Electronic & Alcohol Monitoring (commonly called House Arrest) • 259 applica�ons.
• 85 par�cipated in electronic monitoring.
• 59 par�cipated in the alcohol program.

Community Corps
• Community Revitaliza�on.
• Clean Roads & Waterways.
• Recycling at County Disposal Sites.
• Graﬃ� and Weed Abatement.
• Approximately 20 par�cipants daily.
• Supervised by Inmate Labor Specialist.

Custody Emergency Response Team (CERT) (This is the jail version of a SWAT Team) • One CERT Captain.
• Two CERT Commanders/Lieutenants.
• Three CERT Team Leaders/Sergeants.
• 22 CERT Operators.

ATTACHMENT A
333

128
Escalon Police Department

The City of Escalon covers 2.4 square miles and has 7,523 residents. The City’s mission statement is “Taking pride in our community through quality service.” Of the seven ci�es in San Joaquin County, Escalon has the smallest police department with 11 sworn oﬃcers. The police department, however, is augmented by 12 reserve oﬃcers. The department will be sending its ﬁrst female candidate to the Delta College Police Academy during the summer of 2023. The Escalon Police Department has contracted with the Ripon Police Department to provide full-�me dispatch services since March 1, 2011. During September, October, and November of 2022, several oﬃcers atended ac�ve shooter training with the Sacramento County Sheriﬀ’s Department, the Ceres Police Department, and the Stockton Uniﬁed School District Department of Public Safety (SUSD DPS).

Escalon Ride-along Observa�ons
During the Grand Jury ride-along session with the Escalon Police Department, the oﬃcer responded to calls for service that included: a welfare check, a hit and run vehicle accident, a suspicious vehicle near a park, and found a wallet with money but no ID and was turned in to the police sta�on.

Lathrop Police Department

The 2010 Census reported that the popula�on of Lathrop was 18,023. By 2022, the popula�on had grown over 70% to 30,659. Formed on the 29th of June 2022, the Lathrop Police Department is the newest law enforcement agency in San Joaquin County. The San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce previously patrolled Lathrop. The mission of the Lathrop Police Department is stated as, “…commited to connec�ng and partnering with our community and making it a safe and desirable place to live, work, and visit.” The Lathrop Police Department faced a big challenge in crea�ng a new department quickly. The Department has 35 sworn oﬃcers and 12 professional staﬀ. The Department is drawing lateral oﬃcers from other agencies. Dispatch services are provided by the

ATTACHMENT A
334

129
Ripon Police Department. The Department provides Ripon Police Department funding for six dispatchers.

Community connec�ons are a strong emphasis. The Department is building its social media presence. The Department also has a community mee�ng room available. The City Council voted that the squad cars be designed with an oﬀ-white paint scheme and custom decals that will diﬀer greatly from the tradi�onal black and white vehicles that residents are used to seeing. According to the police chief the cars are reported by the public to “be seen everywhere.” Crime sta�s�cs were provided to the Grand Jury repor�ng on a period from July-October 2022.

There were 126 crimes against persons, 323 crimes against property, and 296 traﬃc incidents. The Department has worked with San Joaquin County Behavioral Health Services for training on mental health crises interven�on strategies.

Lathrop Ride-along Observa�ons
During the Grand Jury ride-along session with the Lathrop Police Department, the oﬃcer responded to calls for service that included: a suspicious vehicle, traﬃc stops, and a threat of gun violence disturbance.

Lodi Police Department

The City of Lodi is 14 square miles with a popula�on of 66,348 according to the 2020 U.S Census.

The Lodi Police Department’s mission “is to ensure the safety and security of our community by reducing crime, crea�ng strong partnerships, and inves�ng in our employees to prepare for the future.” Since 1906, when the Lodi Police Department was formed, the Department has grown to 79 alloted sworn oﬃcers. The current number of sworn oﬃcers is 74, leaving ﬁve posi�ons to be ﬁlled. As with other police departments in San Joaquin County, Lodi is facing a shortage of applicants that meet Department qualiﬁca�ons.

Lodi Police Ride-along Observa�ons
During the Grand Jury ride-along sessions with the Lodi Police Department, oﬃcers responded to 13 diﬀerent calls for service that included: a large group of unruly juveniles, welfare checks, a man down, a vehicle accident with injuries, unruly disturbance by an adult, shopli�ing, juvenile batery complaint, brandishing a gun, loitering, a silent alarm, a suspicious occupied vehicle, a man with a knife, and an internet scam involving a juvenile.

ATTACHMENT A
335

130
Lodi Jail
The Grand Jury toured the Lodi Jail on December 29, 2022, with the Lodi Police Captain. The Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce is the only other department that has a jail within the County. The Lodi Jail is described as the smallest deten�on facility in San Joaquin County. Jurors were surprised to observe a rather spacious facility and opera�on in Lodi.

People arrested in Lodi are taken to the Lodi Jail where they are processed for either release, holding, court appearance, or transport to the County Jail. Dispatch personnel are on duty three at a �me and do double duty in the jail for intake and monitoring du�es. There are 10 cells, and if needed, each cell can accommodate two people.

The Lodi jail is considered primarily a holding jail. A prisoner may be held in jail up to ten days.

Detainees are taken to the facility, interviewed by a dispatcher to determine medical issues, provided with an intake packet, and then ﬁngerprinted. Anyone requiring a body cavity search would be taken to the hospital. There is a safety padded room for those deemed to have behavioral issues, and also a drunk tank cell. There are also two rooms for juveniles who are under close observa�on. There is also an interview room, telephone access, a holding cell for the court, and a visi�ng room. The jail separates males and females.

The court in Lodi, previously served by two judges, was moved to the San Joaquin County Courthouse in Stockton in March 2023. This will require the Lodi Police Department to stretch staﬀ to move detainees to the Courthouse in Stockton. Oﬃcers appearing in court now have to travel to Stockton.

PREA: Although staﬀ indicated PREA informa�on was available to detainees, the Grand Jury members did not see such documenta�on. It needs to be more readily visible in signs and handouts. Cameras were placed in front of rooms where privacy is not an issue. The PREA coordinator was not available to the Grand Jurors on the day of the tour.

Manteca Police Department

The City of Manteca’s popula�on increased by 27.9% between the 2010 census of 67,096 and the 2021 popula�on of 85,792. The Manteca Police Department’s mission statement says, “The Manteca Police Department is commited to working together to form a partnership with the community. Through this rela�onship, we will protect the community while maintaining public trust and a commitment to those we serve. We will exemplify pride and professionalism in our ac�ons through our core values: honor, integrity, accountability, and fairness.”

ATTACHMENT A
336

131
The Police Department has 56 sworn posi�ons and six non-sworn posi�ons. The Department is staﬀed with one captain, two lieutenants, seven sergeants, 46 oﬃcers, four Community Service Oﬃcers, and two booking oﬃcers. The Department is divided into two divisions having a combined total of 109 full-�me police employees. The Opera�ons Division is led by one captain and two lieutenants and is divided into two areas—the East Area Command and the West Area Command.

The second division is the Services Department. The Opera�ons Department consists of Patrol, Traﬃc, Community Resource Oﬃcers, School Resource Oﬃcer, SWAT, K-9, and an Unmanned Aerial Unit. In 2017 the department formed the Small Unmanned Aircra� System (SUAS) unit and was equipped with three drones. Since then, the SUAS unit has increased to 11 drones. Considered a “game changer,” the drones provide the ability to get a vantage point that keeps oﬃcers safe. If a suspect is hiding, the drone pilot can locate the person. Drones are used when Special Weapons and Tac�cs (SWAT) teams may deal with a situa�on involving barricaded armed suspects. The drones can also help in the search for missing persons, they are not used for general surveillance.

Dispatch Staﬃng and Training
The Dispatch Department consists of one Public Safety Dispatch Coordinator and 12 full-�me dispatchers. The department answered 27,430 9-1-1 calls in 2021, of which 98% were answered within 10 seconds. One hundred percent of the 9-1-1 calls in 2021 were answered within 15 seconds. Dispatcher training consists of an ini�al POST Basic Dispatch course within the ﬁrst year of dispatching, and on-the-job training with a communica�ons training oﬃcer.

Manteca Police Department Challenges and Goals
The Manteca Police Chief shared with the Grand Jury challenges for the Department:
• Con�nuously changing legisla�ve mandates.
• Employee lack of wellness.
• Increasing cost of contracts, equipment, and technology. • Recruitment and reten�on.

The Manteca Police Chief also noted goals and priori�es to address the need for:
• A new police facility.
• Increased patrol staﬃng.
• Eﬀec�ve strategies for homeless issues and ongoing partnerships. • Increased community engagement.
• Ongoing training.
• Succession planning at all levels.

ATTACHMENT A
337

132
Ripon Police Department

The popula�on of Ripon was 14,297 according to the 2010 census. By 2021 the popula�on of Ripon grew to 16,440. Ripon was originally known as Stanislaus City but was renamed in 1875 for Ripon, Wisconsin. The Ripon Police Department is authorized for 24 sworn members. Oﬃcers are required to live no further than 40 miles from Ripon in an eﬀort to secure their personal interest in the community. The mission statement of the Ripon Police Department is: “We, the members of the Ripon Police Department, are commited to being responsive to our community in the delivery of quality services. Recognizing our responsibility to maintain order, while aﬀording dignity and respect to every individual, our objec�ve is to improve the quality of life through a community partnership which promotes safe secure neighborhoods.” This mission statement was validated by a Grand Juror who went on a ride-along.

In addi�on to the Ripon Police Department’s mission statement, the Department’s philosophy is:

Oﬃcers have the ability to make a diﬀerence daily through ﬁnding solu�ons to community problems, including enforcement of the law, non-enforcement contacts, and community partnerships.

The Ripon Police Department has a “guardian rather than a warrior mentality.” There were zero complaints against oﬃcers in the last two years (2020-2022). The Department’s goals include:
• Maintain or reduce response �me to calls for service. • Reduce the number of larcenies and shopli�ing by 5%.
• Reduce the number of stolen vehicles by 5%.
• Reduce the number of total assaults by 3%.
• Reduce the number of traﬃc collisions including DUI and collisions rela�ng to speed and turning movement.
• Increase staﬀ training, including core courses and professional development.

During the presenta�on to the Grand Jury, the Police Chief reviewed sta�s�cs for 2021 compared to a ﬁve-year average as described below:

ATTACHMENT A
338

133
2021 5-Year Average
Total Incidents 21,614 23,730
Calls For Service 10,338 11,359
Oﬃcer Ini�ated Ac�vity 11,276 12,371
Part 1 UCR Crimes 392 365
Mental Health Incidents
Incidents Reported 316 277
Reports/Evalua�on Holds 89 50

Ripon Ride-along Observa�ons
During the Grand Jury ride-along session with the Ripon Police Department, the oﬃcer responded to calls for service that included: a report of a boat parked on a street that had not moved for several months, two adults observed engaged in illegal ac�vity near the Stanislaus River, and traﬃc stops.

Stockton Police Department

The City of Stockton is 65 square miles with a popula�on es�mate of 322,120 according to the 2020 U.S. Census, making it the 13th largest city in California. The Stockton Police Department undertakes a regional approach, covering six geographic districts that help address crime and the quality of life in the community. Three of these districts are north of the Calaveras River and three are south. The number of calls for service are similar in both north and south Stockton. The Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce (rather than the Stockton Police Department) has responsibility over several carved-out geographic areas throughout the city, ranging in size from just several blocks to much larger areas.

The Department is led by the Chief of Police, an Assistant Chief, and two Deputy Chiefs. The Department is budgeted for 228 professional staﬀ and 485 sworn oﬃcers. At the �me of a presenta�on to the Grand Jury, there were 183 professional staﬀ and 380 sworn oﬃcers. A serious staﬃng shortage of more than 100 oﬃcers was reported in March 2023. Due to staﬃng issues, oﬃcers are called more frequently for service and face higher numbers of priority incidents.

Specialty assignments such as bicycle and public housing oﬃcers were moved to patrol to ﬁll some of the posi�ons. These oﬃcers will no longer par�cipate in Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion programs. This will have an impact on programs that support the community.

ATTACHMENT A
339

134
Collabora�ve Rela�onships Between Law Enforcement and Ci�zens Violence Reduc�on Ini�a�ve
Prior to 2012, the City of Stockton was experiencing a rise in violent crime, speciﬁcally homicides, gangs, and gun violence. To address escala�ng violence, the Stockton Police Chief proposed a “Violence Reduc�on Ini�a�ve” to the Stockton City Council in May 2012, which passed the ini�a�ve providing the following:
• Establishment of the Police Department's Community Response Teams. • Reac�va�on of a camera system already installed throughout the city and used to monitor high-crime areas and deploy appropriate resources as condi�ons changed. • Refocused gang/street outreach.
• Establishment of the Police Chief's Community Advisory Board in November 2012.

Community Response Teams
In early 2012, the Department began real-�me policing strategies that adjust staﬃng and deployment driven by intelligence gathering and trending violence data. These strategies focus on data and community input to deﬁne neighborhood problems. Department Intelligence- Communica�on and Planning (I-CAP) mee�ngs help deploy available resources in hot-spot neighborhoods in an atempt to prevent retaliatory shoo�ngs.

I-CAP evolved into the current Community Response Teams which meet with neighborhoods to develop rela�onships, deﬁne problems, and follow up with proac�ve enforcement and problem- solving.

Eﬀorts to Build Community Trust
Community Advisory Board
The Community Advisory Board intends to foster beter communica�on, trust, and collabora�on between the people of Stockton and their police. The board gathers a cross-sec�on of the Stockton community to maintain an open dialogue with the Police Chief.

Opera�on Ceaseﬁre
Opera�on Ceaseﬁre is a program adopted by many ci�es across the country as a partner-based violence reduc�on strategy using respec�ul, direct communica�on with the highest-risk youth and young adults. It is an ac�on item from the City’s Marshall Plan and oﬀers a mul�-disciplinary approach to the most at-risk violent oﬀenders.

Watch Programs
Neighborhood Watch Groups were developed to encourage ci�zen involvement to deter crime by early detec�on.

Business Watch establishes communica�on links among various businesses within a speciﬁc geographic area such as a plaza, mall, complex, or city block. Each business works with the others to keep the Police Department informed of any ac�vity that could be considered criminal in nature.

Crime Free Mul�-Housing is a partnership between the Stockton Police Department and managers/owners of mul�-unit rental proper�es working together to prevent crime and enforce

ATTACHMENT A
340

135
the penal code and civil code viola�ons. Management and residents agree to work together to keep a well-maintained property and promote good quality of life while reducing crime.

Expanded Communica�ons
The department oﬀers two-way communica�on with the community through social media such as Facebook and text-�pping, which allows anonymous �ps via email or cell phone.

Increased Law Enforcement Collabora�ons
The department reaches out and collaborates at the:
• Federal level—U.S. Marshals Task Force, ATF, DEA, and FBI partnerships. • State level—CHP assistance with Community Response Teams. • County level—Countywide Gang Task Force, Countywide Firearms Reduc�on Consor�um, and Countywide Community Correc�ons Partnership Task Force.

Expanded Outreach and Volunteer Programs
Ci�zen input has helped expand Crime Stoppers, the Police Chaplaincy, the Stockton Police Youth Ac�vi�es League, and now the Sen�nel Program, a volunteer program for adults.

Eﬀorts to Address Mental Health
The city is partnering with Community Medical Centers (CMC) on a pilot project to explore how the police can work with mental health personnel to provide services to persons who are not in immediate danger. The Care Team has one team currently available Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Within the next few years, CMC plans to have two “primary response” vans with basic medical aid and two transport vans.

Dispatching
Call Priori�za�on Ra�onale
• The Dispatch Center received 654,463 calls in 2021, of which 225,865 were through 9-1-1. • A call for service priority is determined by the call type, based on whether the crime is in progress, danger to a person or property, and the presence of a suspect. • Dispatchers have the op�on of adjus�ng the priority of each call for service based on the informa�on received from the caller (crimes in progress, weapons involved, etc. would take priority).

Dispatch Staﬃng and Training
• The Dispatch Center is a 24/7 opera�on, with the total number of dispatchers on duty ﬂuctua�ng based on historical call intake data.
• Dispatchers undergo a 12-month intensive, on-the-job training program, in addi�on to atending a mandatory three-week POST Academy.
• Budgeted for 41 full-�me posi�ons, eight of which are currently vacant. They also have six supervisor posi�ons, with one vacancy.

ATTACHMENT A
341

136
Principled Policing
Principled Policing has been integrated throughout the Department with its tenets included in departmental policies, employee evalua�ons, and special assignment requests. Stockton Police Department personnel have received intensive training in three areas:

1. Procedural Jus�ce focuses on how the characteris�cs of police interac�ons with the public shape the public’s views of the police and improve community-police rela�ons and trust.

2. Implicit Bias focuses on how subconscious psychological processes can shape an oﬃcer’s ac�ons and lead to racially disparate outcomes, even where actual prejudice is not present.

3. Trust Building focuses on reconcilia�on and facilita�ng honest conversa�ons between communi�es and police that address historical tensions, grievances, and misconcep�ons with the ul�mate goal of rese�ng rela�onships.

Crime Sta�s�cs Summary
In a comparison of 2021 crime sta�s�cs to 2020, total crime was down 8%, property crime was down 12%, and violent crime was down 8%. Dispatch handled 382,790 calls for service in 2021; the department dispatched 211,446 calls for service. There were 681 ﬁrearms booked for evidence, and a total of 1,088 ﬁrearms in 2021, represen�ng a 2% decrease from 2020.

Available crime sta�s�cs through September of 2022 compared to the same �me in 2021 showed that total crime was up 7.3%, property crime was up 11.1%, violent crime was up 0.8%, and homicides were up from 31 in 2021 to 43 in 2022.

Recrui�ng and Reten�on
Sworn Oﬃcer Hiring
• Authorized and budgeted: 485 oﬃcers.
• Current Staﬃng: 380 oﬃcers as of October 18, 2022.
• 15 Trainees in a POST academy.
• 6 Trainees in Problem-Oriented Policing (POP).
• 18 Trainees supervised by Field Training Oﬃcers (FTO). • 11 hired/30 separated.
• 18 sworn lateral transfers to other agencies.

Recrui�ng
• Recrui�ng events: 85.
• Current recruiters: 39.
• Currently in the background check process:
o 32 Oﬃcer candidates.
o 12 Professional staﬀ candidates.

ATTACHMENT A
342

137
Stockton Police Department Ride-along Observa�ons
During the Grand Jury ride-along sessions with the Stockton Police Department, officers responded to calls for service that included: a violation of a restraining order, theft, traffic hazards, a family disturbance, burglary and foot pursuit of a suspect, suspicious vehicle, suspicious persons, a man waiving a machete at a retail location, and a mental health patient waving a hammer in the roadway.

Tracy Police Department

The City of Tracy has a popula�on of approximately 93,000 according to the 2020 Census. Tracy covers approximately 21 square miles, is the second most-populated city in San Joaquin County, and is located in the southern part of the County.

The Tracy Police Chief’s philosophy promotes the values of “Service, Integrity, and Excellence” and “respec�ng the sanc�ty of human life and dignity without prejudice.” Emphasis is “how to make it beter” and “con�nuously seek to improve, grow, and enhance police commitment to protect and preserve life under an umbrella of accountability.”
The emphasis during the Police Chief ’s presenta�on was placed on community engagement and community expecta�ons. The Chief men�oned the Department had over 150 outreach events for the public. Also men�oned were promo�onal videos, website development, partnerships with businesses, schools, community organiza�ons, Neighborhood Watch Groups, and other suppor�ve community eﬀorts. The Department develops strategies to gain the public’s trust. It makes available English and Spanish speakers and coordinates with community programs focusing on juveniles such as the Juvenile Leadership Academy.

The Tracy Police Department is fully staﬀed and approved for 104 police oﬃcers. It can therefore respond to most calls in a very �mely manner. Oﬃcers have �me for proac�ve patrolling and community engagement. Oﬃcers typically range in age from 25 to 35. Most hires are lateral transfers from other departments, primarily from Stockton and Sacramento. The emphasis for recruitment is on educa�on and having a posi�ve demeanor. Word-of-mouth from oﬃcers atracts recruits, and there is a $1,000 cash bonus to a current employee who refers a candidate who is later hired.

The Department is a “full-service opera�on” including a ﬁeld patrol unit staﬀed with seven teams of police and community oﬃcers under a police sergeant. There are three bureaus: the Bureau of Field Opera�ons, the Bureau of Support Services, and the Bureau of Inves�ga�ons. The Bureau of Field

ATTACHMENT A
343

138
Opera�ons consists of the Patrol Division with 56 posi�ons and the Community Services Division with 45.5 posi�ons. The Community Services Division includes a Neighborhood Resources Unit (i.e., School Resource Oﬃcers, Crime Preven�on Specialists, and Volunteers in Police Services), Traﬃc Safety Unit, and Code Enforcement. The Bureau of Support Services includes Police Support Services, Animal Services, Dispatch, and Records. The Bureau of Inves�ga�ons includes General Inves�ga�ons, Special Inves�ga�ons, Special Enforcement, and the Crime Scene Unit.

Technology and equipment upgrades were also described as a big category of emphasis including equipment for vehicle technology, camera and license plate reading equipment, and drones.

The Community Mental Health Response Program coordinates with San Joaquin County Behavioral Health. Mental health outreach eﬀorts average two to four days a month. Mental health calls for service increased 17% from 2020 to 2021. The department has started a Familiar Faces Program to provide a homeless outreach team staﬀed by two Homeless Outreach Coordinators and one Neighborhood Resource Oﬃcer. The objec�ve is to provide shelter resources, transporta�on, medical resources, and transi�onal life coaching for the unsheltered.

All 9-1-1 calls have a predesignated priority with crimes against people having the highest priority.

All calls for service increased 17% from 2020 to 2021. The Department trains for Mass Casualty and Ac�ve Shooter Response, and in the spring of 2022 conducted a “live” training experience. The Department trains oﬃcers to immediately respond to neutralize a threat even if only one oﬃcer is on the scene. It adheres to the mutual aid model and trains with other departments.

Gangs and homelessness were not described as major problems in Tracy compared to other ci�es.

However, an encampment of homeless people at El Pescadero Park concerned ci�zens.

Property crimes placed the highest demand on the department. The UCR Part I Crime Sta�s�cs indicated that there were 2,023 crimes in 2019 and 1,639 in 2020. Traﬃc incidents are the biggest concern for the city. Besides an increase in speeding, there was also an increase in traﬃc fatali�es in 2022. The contribu�ng factors are the conﬁgura�on of the highways surrounding Tracy, known as the “Tracy Triangle,” and traﬃc cu�ng through town.

Tracy Police Ride-along Observa�ons
During the Grand Jury ride-along sessions with the Tracy Police Department, oﬃcers responded to six diﬀerent calls for service that included: a possible break-in, a need for medical assistance, shopli�ing, welfare checks, a disturbance, and drone surveillance in the downtown area.

ATTACHMENT A
344

139
San Joaquin Delta College District Police Department

The San Joaquin Delta College prides itself as being one of the “safest” places within the City of Stockton, due in large part to the eﬀorts of the San Joaquin Delta College District Police. There are over 16,000 students atending Delta College. There are also many private and public events that bring large groups to campus such as the Delta Flea Market. The Department rarely has calls that involve serious crimes.

The San Joaquin Delta College District Police Department is current with their required ﬁling of crime sta�s�cs as required by the Clery Act. The Clery Act is a Federal requirement for higher educa�on ins�tu�ons to report to the Department of Educa�on (DOE) on 11 deﬁned crimes. Delta College District Police has assigned an oﬃcer to be a dedicated liaison for the transient or homeless popula�on that come onto campus. The liaison has lessened the need for an escalated response in calls that involve the homeless.

There are over 200 cameras across campus, as well as a callbox/camera tower. The cameras have been a signiﬁcant deterrent in crime preven�on. Police presence on campus has made a posi�ve impact in reducing parking lot break-ins and vehicle the�.

The police department has enacted de-escala�on training in conjunc�on with the Stockton Police Department as part of their oﬃcer eﬀec�veness training in resolving hos�le conﬂicts as required by California Senate Bill SB 230. The Department has had successful results u�lizing the recently acquired Virtual Reality (VR) in training for diﬃcult scenarios. Delta College has a POST Academy program on campus. The course is designed for entry-level training for students preparing for a posi�on as a Reserve Oﬃcer, Peace Oﬃce, or Deputy Sheriﬀ assigned to patrol. The Delta College District Police, therefore, is in a good posi�on to recruit new oﬃcers from the Academy.

Delta College Police Department is uniquely posi�oned to oﬀer assistance to the Stockton Police Department and may at �mes have a faster response �me due to their proximity to high proﬁle/crime loca�ons such as the malls that are across the street.

Budgetary constraints have hampered the upgrade of the en�re communica�on system. This has been brought to the aten�on of the College administra�on.

San Joaquin Delta College Ride-along Observa�ons
During a Grand Jury ride-along, the Delta College Police Chief circled the campus. There were no calls for service. The juror met several other oﬃcers and a Student Service Oﬃcer who were checking the security of a classroom door.

ATTACHMENT A
345

140
University of the Paciﬁc Department of Public Safety

University of the Paciﬁc (referred to as UOP or Paciﬁc) is one of only two private universi�es in California whose oﬃcers have full police oﬃcer authority, giving them the ability to focus on keeping the University community safe. The Department of Public Safety works under the authority of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Stockton Police Department. UOP police take training courses under Stockton Police Department, including de-escala�on techniques, ac�ve shooter training, and an�-bias training.

The Department provides protec�on, services, and educa�on to ensure a safe place for students, faculty, staﬀ, and guests to live, study, work, and visit. Through the Department’s strategic approach to campus safety and the work of its oﬃcers, Paciﬁc’s crime sta�s�cs are low.

The Department has 15 oﬃcers and six dispatchers. All the oﬃcers are POST trained.

Geographically, they are limited to a three-block radius around the University, patrolling nearby neighborhoods. There is a low number of calls.

Clery and Annual Security Reports (ASR) are prepared annually in compliance with Federal laws. The report is prepared with data and informa�on provided by the UOP Department of Public Safety, the oﬃce of the Dean of Students, Environmental Health and Safety, the Title IX Coordinator, and various law enforcement agencies that provide services to Paciﬁc proper�es within their jurisdic�ons.

Crime sta�s�cs for the years 2020 to 2022 were provided to the Grand Jury. Most oﬀenses were property crimes. In 2020-2021, burglaries were up to seven and fondling incidents up to nine. There were seven “use of force” occurrences. A typical occurrence would be a traﬃc stop and “a weapon seen,” so that an oﬃcer would need to draw a weapon. No ci�zen complaints were submited against oﬃcers. As required by California Penal Code Sec�on 832.5(a)(1) each department shall establish a procedure to inves�gate complaints. Through Stop Data, bias complaints are also tracked. A serious crime or inves�ga�on would be turned over to the Stockton Police Department per the MOU.

The Student Counseling Center assists with student mental health needs. The Center transfers students to a hospital for serious concerns. There is a homeless liaison oﬃcer who trains fellow oﬃcers on how to deal with homeless contacts. The homeless liaison oﬃcer patrols the levee of the Calaveras River looking for homeless encampments. If an oﬃcer ﬁnds an encampment, they immediately ask the people to leave. The oﬃcer provides them with a brochure containing informa�on regarding community resources.

ATTACHMENT A
346

141
Security is a priority on campus with hundreds of cameras in use. Sixty STRIPE students have du�es locking and checking on doors around campus. The STRIPE program is essen�ally students who are police cadets and who may go on to the academy. Recently, a STRIPE student did go on to the police training academy. They are trained on the use of golf carts and escort students safely home from 6 p.m. to 2 a.m.

Recruitment is a challenging issue, especially when trying to build a diverse team. The University of the Paciﬁc Department of Public Safety ﬁnds it diﬃcult to compete with the larger, higher-paying departments in the area. Typical candidates have been oﬃcers from other agencies looking for a slower pace before they re�re. The community atmosphere and close posi�ve connec�ons to students is seen as a posi�ve experience. A tui�on remission plan for employees and their children is a beneﬁt that atracts oﬃcers and is an incen�ve to stay at UOP. Because UOP does not have a degree program in Criminal Jus�ce, students interested in a career in Law Enforcement must atend school elsewhere. There are plans to develop a master’s degree in criminal jus�ce that would bring more students on campus interested in law enforcement and increase the poten�al for more recruits. A new Social Services program being developed is envisioned as being a beneﬁt to the community.

University of the Paciﬁc Public Safety Department Ride-along Observa�ons During the Grand Jury ride-along session with the UOP Police, the oﬃcer responded to a report of a person passed out in a vehicle and medical assistance for a person with breathing diﬃcul�es.

Stockton Uniﬁed School District Department of Public Safety (SUSD DPS)

The Stockton Uniﬁed School District Department of Public Safety (SUSD DPS) is one of two school districts in Northern California (12 total in the State) that maintains its own police department.

They receive their law enforcement authority through California Penal Code 830.32 and Educa�on Code 38000. The Department reports directly to the SUSD Superintendent of Schools. The SUSD DPS is accountable to the California Department of Jus�ce. The Department is budgeted for a staﬀ of 40, with 26 being sworn oﬃcers. The Department works 24/7 and serves over 40,000 students, faculty, and staﬀ at more than 60 schools in the Greater Stockton area.

A School Resource Oﬃcer (SRO) is placed at every high school and the School for Adults. The Department prides itself on the posi�ve rela�onships SRO oﬃcers develop with school personnel and students, including the School for Adults (English learners), where students coming from other countries are o�en afraid of the police. SUSD DPS oﬃcers receive specialized training through the

ATTACHMENT A
347

142
Na�onal Associa�on of School Resource Oﬃcers (NASRO), including de-escala�on, crisis interven�on, and awareness of bias issues.

The Department prepares for mass shoo�ngs and ac�ve shooter situa�ons through District Emergency Preparedness Training, Tac�cal Medicine Training, and Mul�-Agency Training with the Stockton Police Department, Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce, San Joaquin Delta College, and California State University Stanislaus Police. They par�cipate in table-top training as well as on-site drills (although scheduling those with school personnel can be diﬃcult). A recent high school drill where the campus closed down within two to three minutes was seen as a big success. The next training drill is scheduled for November 2023.

Policy 709, SUSD DPS Policy Manual Military Equipment, provides guidelines for the approval, acquisi�on, and repor�ng requirements of military equipment (Government Code Sec�ons 7070,7071, and 7072) as set forth under Assembly Bill 481 (2021). A request was made on April 4, 2023, to the SUSD Board of Trustees for the purchase of such military equipment. As noted in the policy, the decision regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used should “give strong considera�on to the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liber�es, and should be based on meaningful public input.” The request describes the speciﬁc equipment, necessary training, and the need to safeguard the public.

Following a Department of Jus�ce Agreement in 2019 to address discriminatory treatment of minority students and students with disabili�es, SUSD DPS has worked extremely hard to establish new programs. They provide school safety through restora�ve jus�ce, youth engagement, a holis�c approach, and community involvement.

A major change for the Department is the implementa�on of arrest diversion under the Deﬂec�on Program with arrests declining by 90%. Rather than ci�ng students and pu�ng them into the judicial system (“School-to-Prison Pipeline”), eﬀorts are made to provide services for any non- violent oﬀender. They receive support to mi�gate future nega�ve ac�ons. The Deﬂec�on Program includes screening and assessment, educa�on and tutorial services, vic�m awareness, substance use counseling, mental health treatment, crisis interven�on, family counseling, recrea�on, and sports programs. “Wrap around” services include access to community resources such as meals and support for shelter. These eﬀorts have made SUSD DPS a role model for other school districts, who have reached out to learn about the Deﬂec�on Program.

Programs designed to engage students with the police in posi�ve ways include the Explorer program, which provides opportuni�es for students interested in a career in law enforcement and currently has about 20 youths ages 14-21; Police Ac�vity League (PAL), which provides sports ac�vi�es; Gang Resistance Educa�on and Training (GREAT Program); Peer Leaders Uni�ng Students (PLUS); and Anger Management for Students (AMPS).

The holis�c approach to school safety addresses criminal jus�ce, socioeconomic, and environmental factors that adversely aﬀect the community. These include family and youth resource referrals, working with mental health clinicians, and also ensure the wellbeing of and support for oﬃcers.

SUSD DPS supports the community’s involvement with the homeless. The Department works in collabora�on with the San Joaquin Homeless Strike Team. Students may be referred to the Spot Youth Center located at the Women’s Center for cri�cal housing needs. The Department holds

ATTACHMENT A
348

143
annual community events to beneﬁt SUSD Families in Transi�on, including a Back-to-School Supply Drive, a Holiday Food Drive, and a Toy Drive.

These and other implemented programs have had a signiﬁcant impact on student success and a posi�ve view of SUSD DPS by the public.

Port of Stockton Police Department

At the start of a site visit in January 2023, the Director of the Port of Stockton provided the Grand Jury with a PowerPoint presenta�on and discussed the layout of the Port. A brochure, “Port of Stockton Inves�ng in Our Future, 2021 Annual Report,” and a summary sheet, “By the Numbers, Port of Stockton, California,” were provided. The Stockton Port District, more commonly known as the Port of Stockton, is a unique inland Port situated on the Delta of the San Joaquin River. As a California Special District and public en�ty, the Port oﬀers ﬂexible solu�ons for domes�c and interna�onal distribu�on by ship, rail, or truck.

Boas�ng world-class warehouse facili�es and recent infrastructure improvements, state-of-the-art cargo handling equipment upgrades, and oﬀering land approved for new development, The Port of Stockton has the capacity to meet a growing demand for eﬃcient shipping.

The Deputy Director provided a driving tour with detailed explana�ons and informa�on. The Grand Jurors viewed docked ships, new building projects and development, rail lines and roads, movement and storage of cargo from ships and trucks, products both export and import, private companies on the property, and historical naval buildings, such as the Lindley House (the historic Naval Commander’s house).

The security of the Port was of par�cular interest. There is a Police Department at the Port, but not a ﬁre department. In the event of a ﬁre, the Stockton Fire Department would respond. The Port Police Department has 16 sworn oﬃcers, two for Explosive Ordinance Detec�on with a K-9 oﬃcer, a Patrol Boat Unit, eight support technicians, and one security analyst. The Port Police Department polices 4,000 acres that are cordoned oﬀ by security gates. The main gate serves as the security point for vehicle entry into the Port. There are 90 cameras on the property. Cameras are monitored and patrols are dispatched from a single loca�on at the main gate. Some of the structures on the property are not in use due to their age or safety concerns, lessening the need for patrolling those buildings.

The police maintain order and security at the Port water access, road access, and railroad lines.

Those who do not belong are quickly escorted oﬀ the property. There is a transient homelessness

ATTACHMENT A
349

144
problem that borders the surrounding proper�es, but due to patrolling, incidences of trespassing are low. Oﬃcers monitor the homeless that are in proximity to staging areas for railcars to avoid incidents that could hinder rail movement.

The Stockton Police Department and/or the Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce would respond if an arrest were warranted. If there is a Homeland Security issue, the Coast Guard would respond. The Department is small but eﬀec�ve and will have to grow as the Port is currently star�ng to develop large tracts of land for future projects.

Juvenile Deten�on Facility

In October 2022, the Grand Jury toured the San Joaquin County Juvenile Deten�on Facility (known also or previously as the Juvenile Deten�on Center, Juvenile Hall, and Peterson Juvenile Hall). The Deputy Chief Proba�on Oﬃcer provided an overview of the facility opera�ons. The San Joaquin County Juvenile Deten�on Facility is a minimum-security juvenile deten�on facility in French Camp.

The 229-bed facility consists of the Juvenile Deten�on Hall and Camp Peterson and has been opera�onal since 1980.

At the �me of the visit, the juvenile resident popula�on was about 55. Twenty-two of the residents had been involved in murders or atempted murders, many of which were gang related. With the Juvenile Jus�ce Realignment Block SB 823 changes, at the �me of the tour six older youth (over age 18) were expected to return to the facility.

The Juvenile Deten�on Facility holds youth who 1) have been accused of viola�ng the law, 2) have pending court proceedings, or 3) have been commited by order of the court. When detainees arrive, they are evaluated to assess their risk to the community, others, or themselves. An assessment is conducted by educa�onal, medical, psychiatric, proba�on, and custody staﬀ.

Services provided to residents include Evidenced Based Programming (EBP), educational and vocational pathways, mentoring, structured activities, counseling services, and family engagement. The goal is to reunite youth with their family whenever possible or transition the offender to safe transitional housing, and sustainable employment. Good behavior allows more privileges such as video game time, television, food credits, additional phone and visiting time. Poor behavior results in restricted privileges.

Counseling Services
• Juvenile Deten�on Facility staﬀ are available to talk with residents at all �mes. • Behavioral Health or substance use counseling is available upon request. • Proba�on Oﬃcers are available Monday through Friday.

ATTACHMENT A
350

145
Programming/Ac�vi�es
• Evidence-Based Programming (EBP) and support services. • Cogni�ve Behavioral Training (CBT) Open Group Sessions. • Ac�vi�es include arts and cra�s, table games, video games, television, and access to reading materials in the library.

Educa�on
The Juvenile Deten�on Facility provides school year-round, oﬀered by the San Joaquin County Oﬃce of Educa�on (SJCOE) through one.Cruikshank, an educa�on program for the residents.

Educa�on is the focus for reducing recidivism. All residents are encouraged to earn a high school diploma or further their educa�on. The facility has ini�ated a technology and business skills training program that includes computer coding and programming, a pre-appren�ce construc�on program, and an introduc�on to building trades. Forkli� training is a new program that could lead to employment opportuni�es. The staﬀ were par�cularly proud of a new virtual reality simulator that assists students in their prepara�on for cer�ﬁca�on. Gardening is used as a learning tool to teach math and science. An on-site kitchen is used for a culinary training program.

The SJCOE provides a tutor to facilitate communica�on and assist the students. Residents who are high school graduates are encouraged to enroll in on-line classes through San Joaquin Delta College.

Students iden�ﬁed as needing an Independent Educa�onal Program (IEP) have a special program set up for them through one.Cruikshank. Students that already have an IEP from their previous school have it transferred to one.Cruikshank in one to four days. However, the Grand Jury learned the IEP may get delayed two to six weeks if students come from districts or programs outside of San Joaquin County.

Students that are ini�ally iden�ﬁed as needing an IEP program in one.Cruikshank require observa�on to understand the problem and obtain approval from a parent/guardian to develop a plan. The IEP is then developed by a team led by the school counselor and in consulta�on with the Resource Specialist Teacher or IEP specialist. Once agreed to by the parent/guardian, this plan can take up to 60 days to be ﬁnalized. The challenges are that students may not be at the Juvenile Deten�on Facility for very long, the parent/guardian may want to wait un�l the child is out of the Facility, or if the child does not want to cooperate. Although there are concerns regarding delays receiving ﬁles from students’ previous schools, and se�ng up a new program, the special educa�on staﬀ immediately respond to students’ needs and support faculty eﬀorts.

Facility Physical Improvements
Improving aesthe�cs was a major eﬀort in the last few years and included new furniture, brightly colored walls including murals created by the residents and upgraded recrea�on areas. Work is s�ll in progress for addi�onal upgrades.

Landscape Management and Construc�on Programs
SJCOE has partnered with Greater Valley Conserva�on Corps to undertake a full landscaping project to include walking paths, pa�o space, new sprinkler systems, grass, trees, ﬂower beds, and exercise space. Future plans for outdoor courtyard gardens were also described. Another program is the

ATTACHMENT A
351

146
Northern California Construc�on Training, an “out-of-custody” pre-appren�ceship program, which focuses on the building trades.

Pain�ng or Murals
A local ar�st is guiding residents in pain�ng murals in the recrea�on yards and in the main hallways of the ins�tu�on. The ar�st uses art therapy in working with the residents to conceptualize ideas for the artwork. Eight murals have been completed to date.

Housing Placement
Housing placements are based on informa�on gathered during an evalua�on of the residents. A detailed assessment is completed before placement in a unit. The evalua�on assesses mental, emo�onal, physical, sexual, age, sophis�ca�on level, safety concerns, and risk level. Classiﬁca�on is ongoing as popula�on changes are con�nuous. Units include an open area with tables to work with staﬀ, classrooms, and banks of bedrooms where residents are enclosed at night.

One unit houses females of which there were only ﬁve at the �me of the visit. One unit was designated for younger or less sophis�cated residents, and another unit was for higher risk and older residents.

Camp Peterson
Camp Peterson is a separate facility within the Juvenile Jus�ce Facility that has 45 beds for male residents. It is an open dormitory se�ng, providing bunk bed dorms, a mul�-programming area, classrooms, and living area. A basketball court and outdoor areas were available to residents.

Placement is earned through good behavior and is considered a reward.

Dream Center
The Dream Center is an incen�ve-based program providing residents fun and posi�ve ac�vi�es away from the living units. In group entertainment areas such as the Dream Center, eﬀorts are made to provide a calm and welcoming environment showcasing resident art and crea�ve works.

Residents earn incen�ve points to par�cipate in games and purchase snacks.

Programs Oﬀered
Culturally Responsive Programs are held monthly to promote residents’ understanding of cultural topics and celebra�ons. A San Joaquin Delta College class emphasizes social awareness, ethnic studies, and tolerance.

Family Engagement
Family members are encouraged to par�cipate in programs with the juvenile residents. An atrac�ve visi�ng area was evident with a place for younger siblings to play. Staﬃng to cover visits could be an issue due to overall staﬀ shortages.

Camera Security
A camera monitoring room was staﬀed by one person at a �me. The Grand Jury was told that plans for new equipment and so�ware, including mo�on-triggered cameras, were being developed.

ATTACHMENT A
352

147
Resident and Staﬀ Movement Security
Residents were dressed in diﬀerent colored shirts to iden�fy their unit. Residents were either escorted or on their own, with doors being opened and monitored by staﬀ. Staﬀ also radioed or called security to move through hallway doors and outside areas.

Medical Services
A doctor is on site once a week and a nurse is available seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. A parent can consent to COVID shots. 9-1-1 is called in an emergency. An ambulance or a staﬀ member takes residents to the San Joaquin County Hospital.

Staﬃng
The Grand Jury met a very dedicated staﬀ. They are extremely hard-working and seemed to work well together for the care of the residents. The Facility, however, was understaﬀed and has not been able to recruit or retain desired staﬀ levels due to lower salaries compared to the County Jail, and signiﬁcant restric�ons and rules regarding controlling juvenile residents. Due to the staﬀ shortage, staﬀ had long shi�s and at �mes double shi�s. The jobs were described as much more demanding than other custodial jobs in the County. Despite these issues the staﬀ promoted a posi�ve and nurturing environment.

Prison Rape Elimina�on Act (PREA)
A PREA Coordinator is assigned to ensure compliance with PREA. At the �me of the tour, PREA posters were not readily seen in all units. PREA informa�on is published in the new Youth Handbook, dated December 7, 2022, which provides instruc�ons on how to report an incident and receive assistance.

Grievance and PREA Forms
A resident may bring a grievance to the unit staﬀ or supervisor. If the grievance cannot be resolved, they may complete a writen grievance form and submit it to the Youth Advocate. They may also seek aid or advice from the Public Defender, a private atorney, the Ombudsman, or a proba�on oﬃcer. Grand Jury members did not see any forms readily available in every unit. With wri�ng instruments under control, the forms would need to be ﬁled with the assistance of a staﬀ member making any conﬁden�al grievances impossible. This is especially troubling for PREA complaints.

Special Report on the Juvenile Jus�ce System and Con�nuum of Care Reform For nearly two decades, California has enacted a series of legisla�ve and voter-approved measures designed to reduce commitments of youth to the State juvenile and adult systems by reducing reliance on incarcera�on and expanding community-based op�ons for youth. To further reach this goal, the State has transferred the responsibility of managing all youth under the jurisdic�on of the juvenile courts pursuant to Welfare and Ins�tu�ons Code Sec�on 602 to local jurisdic�ons.

The impact of the Division of Juvenile Jus�ce (DJJ) realignment and closure plan has been signiﬁcant, leading to the elimina�on of State juvenile deten�on facili�es and an increase in the number of youths compe�ng for out-of-home care or into county juvenile deten�on facili�es.

However, the plan has also faced challenges, including limited resources and funding for the

ATTACHMENT A
353

148
development of local programs and facili�es, as well as concerns over the quality of care and services provided to youth in these programs.

Realignment transfers responsibility for managing all youthful oﬀenders from the State to local jurisdic�ons. Under SB 823, new commitments of juvenile oﬀenders ceased a�er June 30, 2021.

Youth adjudicated but not delivered to DJJ prior to July 1, 2021, will s�ll be accepted. Limited excep�ons apply per SB 823.

Under SB 823, chapter 337 (statutes of 2020), juvenile oﬀenders cannot be commited to DJJ a�er July 1, 2021, unless a youth who is otherwise eligible to be commited under exis�ng law and in whose case a mo�on to transfer the minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdic�on was ﬁled. If an eligible youth is commited a�er July 1, 2021, DJJ will process acceptance through current procedures. Youth adjudicated on or before June 30, 2021, will s�ll be accepted and will be subject to the county fee in eﬀect on the date of adjudica�on.

SB 92 sets a deﬁned closure date of June 30, 2023, for all DJJ facili�es. This builds on the State’s commitment to provide more treatment and rehabilita�ve services for youth closer to home.

SB 823 has repealed previous legisla�on, moving the DJJ into the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHS) as the Oﬃce of Youth and Community Restora�on (OYCR). DJJ implemented the phased closure of its facili�es. The decision to close certain housing units or en�re facili�es was driven by the desire to eliminate incarcera�ons.

Although Juvenile Jus�ce Reform and Foster Care Reform took divergent paths, both are rooted in the belief that youth are best served and have the best outcome when they remain in the community in family-based care. Unintended consequences of Juvenile Jus�ce Reform added diﬃcul�es in placing youth in foster care. It could, however, be mi�gated by greater eﬀorts commited to youth programs. As part of CCR, group homes were replaced with Short-Term Residen�al Therapeu�c Programs (STRTP) intended to serve children and youth whose challenging behaviors and signiﬁcant emo�onal and developmental needs created barriers to placement in family-based care. This new STRTP license category required providers to obtain na�onal accredita�on, meet Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) mental health standards, procure a contract with a County Mental Health Plan (MHP), and implement trauma-informed care. STRTPs were quickly overwhelmed by a licensing and compliance focus and a glaring lack of coordina�on between the coun�es throughout California and the Department of Social Services (DSS) and DHCS—the two State Departments entrusted to oversee the implementa�on of this level of care.

According to the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, this uncoordinated approach has resulted in:
• Regula�ons that are redundant, conﬂic�ng, and in some cases superﬂuous. • Regula�on and funding methods that compartmentalize the mental health and “care and supervision” components of integrated 24/7 treatment.
• Minimal direc�on to placing agencies (coun�es) regarding the type and intensity of mental health services indicated for youth in STRTP.
• Failure to conform to the mental health contrac�ng condi�ons that diﬀer signiﬁcantly across coun�es.

ATTACHMENT A
354

149
• Flawed assump�ons about occupancy rates and mental health revenue, resul�ng in ﬁnancially under-resourced STRTP.
• Lack of considera�on for the cri�cal role of educa�on in a short-term residen�al treatment se�ng.
• Complete disregard of ﬁnancial resources and regulatory direc�on to fund and facilitate a�ercare and transi�ons as a cri�cal component of STRTPs.

ATTACHMENT A
355

150
Appendix: Bibliography or Sources Reviewed
Materials Reviewed
• By the Numbers, Port of Stockton, California. Summary sheet. • Leathley, Aaron. Another Op�on: Stockton care team on the streets full-�me to help with crises. Stockton Record, February 19, 2023, p. 1.
• Port of Stockton Investing in Our Future, 2021 Annual Report. • PowerPoint Presenta�ons from the San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce, Escalon PD, Lathrop PD, Lodi PD, Manteca PD, Ripon PD, Stockton PD, Tracy PD, San Joaquin County Juvenile Deten�on, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Department of Public Safety, and The Port of Stockton.
• San Joaquin County, Juvenile Deten�on Facility, Youth Handbook, rev. 12/07/2022. • Stockton Uniﬁed School District. 2022 Annual Report AB48a, Military Equipment Use Report, March 2023.
• Stockton Uniﬁed School District. Department of Public Safety. Stockton USD PD Policy Manual. Policy 709 Military Equipment. Draft c Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/08. • Tracy Police Department: Handout documents given to the Grand Jury during the presenta�on dated October 27, 2022, describing the overview and response to topics and Tracy UCR Part I Crime index 2020 and 2019 Comparison sta�s�cs.

Websites Visited
• California Department of Justice, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Enter into Agreement to Address Discriminatory Treatment of Minority Students and Students with Disabilities. htps://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/california-department-jus�ce-stockton-uniﬁed- school-district-enter-agreement. Accessed March 30, 2023. • California Legislative Information. Bill Text - SB-823 Juvenile jus�ce realignment: Oﬃce of Youth and Community Restora�on. (ca.gov). Accessed March 7, 2023. • California Legisla�ve Informa�on. Juvenile Jus�ce 2020-2022. Senate Bill No. 92. htps://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB92.

Accessed March 9, 2022.
• Escalon Police Department
htps://escalon.hosted.civiclive.com/government/departments/police. Accessed February 27, 2023
• ‘A Game Changer’ Drones take oﬀ at Manteca Police Department. tps://www.abc10.com/ar�cle/news/a-game-changer-drones-take-oﬀ-at-manteca-pd/103- 0e9b9df6-1d98-475b-bb26-967da127b55e. Accessed March 5, 2023. • Leathley, Aaron. Bike oﬃcers, others reassigned amid Stockton Police staﬀ shortages, union says. htps://www.recordnet.com/story/news/local/2023/03/30/stockton-police- department-facing-staﬃng-woesunion-says/70042359007/. Accessed April 2, 2023. • Manteca Police Department. htps://www.manteca.gov/departments/police-department.

Accessed February 27, 2023.

ATTACHMENT A
356

151
• Manteca Police Department Mission Statement.
htp://connect2agencies.com/agency/manteca-police-department. Accessed February 28, 2023.
• Port of Stockton. htps://www.portofstockton.com/. Accessed January 28, 2022 • POST Training academies. htps://post.ca.gov/basic-training-academies. Accessed February 25, 2023.
• Ripon Police Department. htps://ripond.org. Accessed February 28, 2023. • San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce. htps://sjsheriﬀ.org/ Website viewed February 17, 2023. • San Joaquin County Jail. htps://sjsheriﬀ.org/. Accessed February 17, 2023. • Stockton Police Department. htp://ww1.stocktonca.gov/Departments/Police. Accessed February 16, 2023.
• Stockton Police Department. Strategic Plan. 2020-2022. • SPD-Strategic-Plan-2020_2022-Final-Dra�.pdf (stocktonca.gov). Accessed March 25, 2023. • SUSD Board of Trustees. April 4, 2023, Regular Board Meeting. htp://go.board.docs.com/ca/susd/Board.nsf/vpublic?open. Accessed April 10, 2023. • SUSD Department of Public Safety. htps://www.stocktonusd.net/Page/333. Accessed March 30, 2023.
• Tracy Police Department. htps//www.cityo�racy.org/our-city/departments/police- department Accessed November 11, 2022.
• University of the Paciﬁc Public Safety htps://www.paciﬁc.edu/student-life/safety- wellness/public-safety. Accessed November 12, 2022.
• U. S. Department of Jus�ce. Open Government/Open Data. htps://www.jus�ce.gov/open/open-data. Accessed March 13, 2023.

ATTACHMENT A
357

152

ATTACHMENT A
358
153

SECTION 4:

FOLLOW-UP
Illegal Dumping: Talking Trash
Case #0519 .................................................... Page 155 San Joaquin County:

A F
ragmented COVID-19 Response
Case #0120 .................................................... Page 161 Independent Special Districts:

Transparency “Not Found”
Case #0220 .................................................... Page 167 Stockton Uniﬁed School District:

A Failing Grade in Public Trust
Case #0121 .................................................... Page 175 San Joaquin County and Its Seven Ci�es:

Cybersecurity: Local Defense Against a
Global Threat
Case #0321 .................................................... Page 195 Lathrop-Manteca Fire District:

A Work in Progress: From Turmoil to Healing
Case #0721 .................................................... Page 213

ATTACHMENT A
359
154

ATTACHMENT A
360

155
Follow-up Report to the
2019-2020 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury

218)

Illegal Dumping: Talking Trash
Case #0519

Preface
This report contains a continuation of the responses to the 2019-2020 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding illegal dumping in San Joaquin County. The 2022-2023 Grand Jury reviewed the agency responses to the 2021-2022 Grand Jury follow-up recommendations.

Conclusions are presented after the agency responses, which are presented verbatim in this report.

Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2022-2023 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black.

Complete copies of the original report and the agency’s responses are found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/.

Summary
The 2019-2020 Grand Jury investigated the complex issue of illegal dumping in San Joaquin County.

The investigation produced multiple findings and recommendations, requiring responses from the County Board of Supervisors and the City of Stockton. The City of Stockton responded with their willingness to participate in all the recommendations. Their participation, however, depended upon San Joaquin County developing and mobilizing an illegal dumping task force. It is possible that the outbreak of the COVID pandemic had a direct impact on the ability of the County to fulfill the recommendations of the Grand Jury.

ATTACHMENT A
361

156
The 2020-2021 Grand Jury made multiple attempts to obtain verification of the task force formation, as well as resolution of the recommendations. Only the recommendation of the assignment of an Administrative Hearing Officer for code enforcement was fulfilled. All other recommendations remained unsatisfied.

The 2021-2022 Grand Jury verified that the task force was created and held several meetings to discuss the issue of illegal dumping in the County. Other recommendations were also fulfilled, but several remained unresolved.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined that recommendations R1, R2, and R3 from the 2021-2022 Grand Jury follow-up report have either been sufficiently implemented or are nearly complete in the implementation plan for monitoring cameras and codifying enforcement.

Method of Follow-Up Investigation
The 2022-2023 Grand Jury reviewed the original 2019-2020 report and the follow-up responses to report #0519, Illegal Dumping: Talking Trash. The Grand Jury interviewed a member of the Board of Supervisors and reviewed the responses to the findings and recommendations to determine:
• if the agency’s responses were complete and comprehensible; • if the agency would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and • if confirmation was necessary. Confirmation could include written documentation, interviews, or site inspections.

Glossary
• CDD: Community Development Department
• County: San Joaquin County
• GORequest: San Joaquin County website to report service requests • Rec #: Recommenda�on number
• 3 E’s Plan: Comprehensive plan to address illegal dumping • CRU: Community Revitaliza�on Unit
• CCU: Community Car Unit
Summary of Responses and 2022-2023 Grand Jury Conclusions.

Respondent 2021-2022
Rec # Response 2022-2023 Grand Jury Conclusion
Rec # Due Date Conclusion
SJC Board of
Supervisors R1 Will be
implemented R1 September 30, 2022 No further ac�on
SJC Board of
Supervisors R2 Will be
implemented R2 September 30, 2022 No further ac�on
SJC Board of
Supervisors R3 Will be
implemented R3 September 30, 2022 No further ac�on

ATTACHMENT A
362

157
2021-2022 Findings, Recommendations, and Agency Responses Board of Supervisors
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1: Because the County has not created a strong, enforceable ordinance, illegal dumping continues without consequences.

Agency Response: Agree.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R1: By September 30, 2022, the Board of Supervisors adopts an enforceable ordinance to deter illegal dumping. This ordinance will include a mechanism for collecting fines, an appeals process, and a way to recoup the cost of administration from the illegal dumpers.

Agency Response: Will be implemented. A draft ordinance will be agendized for introduction to the Board of Supervisors on August 23, 2022, and for adoption on September 13, 2022. If adopted the ordinance will become effective 30 days after adoption.

The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to protect public and private property from illegal dumping, to hold any person that takes actions that substantially contribute to illegal dumping accountable, to deter illegal dumping and to mitigate the harms that the County has found are caused by illegal dumping. Ordinance provisions prohibit all illegal dumping and, among other things, make vehicle or trailer owners liable if their vehicle or trailer is used for illegal dumping with the express or implied permission of the owner. For example, if the County Sheriff’s Office gets video of an identifiable vehicle or trailer, even if they cannot identify the driver, they can take action against the vehicle/trailer owner. Th is is to address situations in which residents obtained video of vehicles dumping waste, but authorities could not take enforcement action because they could not identify the driver. Further, the proposed o rdinance is going to the Board of Supervisors as part of an illegal dumping mitigation plan called the “3 E’s P lan” to address Illegal Dumping. The Plan will be carried out by the County’s Illegal Dumping Task Force, which will report back to the Bo ard of Su pervisors on the effe ctiveness of the Plan, including the ordinance if it is adopted, in one-year.

A draft ordinance is complete and will be part of an illegal dumping mitigation package proposed for approval to the Board of Supervisors by early summer of 2022.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F2: San Joaquin County still lacks the capability to monitor dumping hotspots and to prosecute illegal dumpers.

Agency Response: Partially disagree. The County disagrees that it still lacks t he capability to m onitor dumping hotspots; however, agrees that the County still lacks the capability to prosecute illegal dumpers.

ATTACHMENT A
363

158
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R2: By September 30, 2022, approves a plan to effectively monitor the surveillance camera.

Agency Response: Will be implemented. On August 23, 2022, the County Board of Supervisors will consider the “3 E’s Plan” to address Illegal Dumping, which includes the posting and monitoring of surveillance cameras. The Plan proposed to be carried out by the County’s Illegal Dumping Task Force, includes action items relating to education, enforcement, and er adication. As pa rt of t he plan to implement ro bust enforcement, including the adoption of a new ordinance prohibiting illegal dumping, the County’s Sheriff’s Office, with assistance and funding to the Public Works Department, will be as follows:

A. Vi deo surveillance using cellular fed cameras equipped with a notification system, will be used to m onitor du mping h ot spots, and s end notifications w hen mov ement is detected. Data will be stored in the system’s cloud database and accessible to download and memorialize for investigational purposes.

B. The Sheriff’s O ffi ce Community Revitalization Unit (CRU) and the Community Car Unit (CCU) will proactively identify and investigate illegal dumping issues with the County. i. CRU consists of ei ght specially tr ained Deputies to address the quality-of-life issues surrounding illegal dumping and homelessness.
ii. C CU designates a Deputy to be assigned to a s maller area within t he County to establish close relationship and address issues within the community.

C. Sheriff’s Office will provide tr aining to all sworn Deputies to educate them on how to effectively enforce the ordinance from a call-for-service model.

D. T he Strateg ic In telligence Unit w ill collect data on r eports of illegal dumping, issued citations, deployment of Sheriff’s Office resources, and other relevant data to evaluate the effectiveness of the illegal dumping ordinance.

E. T he Sheriff’ s Office and other County departments, including but not limited to Public Works, Community Dev elopment, Environmental Health, and County Administrator’s Office, will conduct continuous evaluation and review of the effectiveness of the Sheriff’s Office response and deployment strategy to modify enforcement strategies as needed.
2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F3: Regional limitations prevent each jurisdiction from sharing the specific costs of cleanup outside of its respective boundaries. These limitations make a coordinated response difficult.

Agency Response: Agree.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R3: By September 30, 2022, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors develop and adopt a plan to equitably share costs for illegal dumping removal throughout the County.

ATTACHMENT A
364

159
Agency Response: Will be implemented. Illegal dumping and its negative effects do not stop at City borders, but no single jurisdiction has the funding to tack le it. Further, there are legal limitations on the use of certain funds across jurisdictional boundaries. Accordingly, on August 23, 2022, the County Board of Supervisors will consider the “3 E’s Plan” to address Illegal Dumping, which includes specific direction to staff to work cooperatively with t he 7 cities w ithin t he C ounty to propose development of consistent regulatory frameworks and joint education, eradication, and enforcement measures.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

Disclaimer
Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911, 924.1(a), and 929).

Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929).

ATTACHMENT A
365

160

ATTACHMENT A
366

161
Follow-up Report to the
2020-2021 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury

San Joaquin County:

A Fragmented COVID-19 Response
Case #0120
se #0120Fragmented COVID-19 Response
Preface
This report contains the responses to the 2020-2021 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report, “A Fragmented COVID-19 Response.” This follow-up report focuses on the 2020-2021 Grand Jury findings and recommendations and the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors’ responses, which are presented verbatim in this report.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agency’s responses to each recommendation.

Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2022-2023 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black.

Complete copies of the original report and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/ Summary
The 2020-2021 Grand Jury investigated the County’s overall capabilities, preparedness, and response to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The investigation was initiated following a presentation by County staff outlining their capabilities and response to this health crisis. Findings and recommendations were made regarding:
• the County’s Public Health Service organizational structure; • the development, testing, and implementation of plans and procedures to address future public health emergencies;

ATTACHMENT A
367

162
• written clarification of policies for placement and utilization of personnel designated as disaster service workers; and
• the development and implementation of written policies with definitive procedures requiring all County employees who may be called upon to perform disaster service work to be trained annually on the County’s Emergency Operation Plan.

Method of Follow-Up Investigation
The current Grand Jury reviewed the original 2020-2021 report Case #0120, “A Fragmented COVID- 19 Response,” and the follow-up report of the 2021-2022 Grand Jury.

The mandatory responses from the Board of Supervisors to the findings and recommendations were reviewed to determine the following:
• if the agency’s responses were complete and comprehensible; • if the agency would implement the recommenda�ons within the stated deadlines; and • if conﬁrma�on was necessary. Conﬁrma�on could include writen documenta�on, interviews, or site inspec�ons.

Glossary
• BOS: Board of Supervisors
• CAO: Administrator’s Office
• COVID-19: Coronavirus disease
• EMSA: Emergency Medical Services Agency
• EOC: Emergency Operation Center
• EOP: Emergency Operations Plan
• OES: Office of Emergency Services
• Tabletop Exercise: Discussion-based sessions where team members meet in an informal classroom setting to discuss their roles during an emergency and their responses to a particular emergency. A facilitator guides participants through a discussion of one or more scenarios.

Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results

1.0 Overall Lack of Coordination & Collaboration
2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F1.3: When Public Health Services took over management of the COVID-19 response, communication and coordination between departments failed, which delayed the process of curtailing the spread of the COVID-19 Virus.

Agency Response: Partially Agree. Due to COVID-19 gathering protocols, all in person meetings were eliminated and many government staff teleworked. This created another

ATTACHMENT A
368

163
unprecedented issue for the EOC. While some methods were in place for webinars and conference calls, not all agencies or staff had access or experience in this method. This required additional modifications to the EOC operations, where key leadership EOC positions were filled virtually, creating coordination issues as well.

The various phases of the pandemic caused new direction and communication constantly, sometimes every few days, by way of the State and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The dynamic of this pandemic and information changing rapidly would seem like information was not received timely or coordinated. The majority of the time this was out of the County's control, and methods for communicating would be altered to meet the needs of the current situation.
2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.3: By June 1, 2022, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors approve the Office of Emergency Services written policy with procedures and practical application exercises, requiring annual testing of the overall coordination, effectiveness, and application of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Operations Plan, including its Emergency Support Function Annexes.

Agency Response: Will be implemented. A written policy with procedures will be developed, however may not be approved by the Board of Supervisors before June 1, 2022. It should be noted here that the County Disaster Council, as chaired by the Director of Emergency Services is empowered by County Ordinance (Title 4, Division 3, Chapter 1, 4-3003 & 4-3007) to review and approve emergency and mutual aid plans developed by the Director of Emergency Operations in cooperation with the Chiefs of Emergency Services. Once the policy and procedures are approved, the Office of Emergency Services will ensure the Grand Jury receives a copy.

The Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan (MYTEP) and Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) were completed and updated in October 2021. The EOP was approved by the Disaster Council, department heads, and the Board of Supervisors in January 2022 (R-22-15). The MYTEP transitioned to the Integrated Preparedness Plan in late 2022.

The training and exercise program outlined in this plan will assist the County and stakeholders in developing and meeting training and exercise objectives. This plan is supported by County Policy 1911 – Emergency Operations Training adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 24, 2023 (B-23-31).

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.4: By October 1, 2022, Oﬃce of Emergency Services conduct the ﬁrst assessment of the overall coordina�on, eﬀec�veness, and applica�on of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Opera�ons Plan, and its Emergency Support Func�on Annexes using prac�cal applica�on exercises and report their ﬁndings and recommenda�ons to the Board of Supervisors.

Agency Response: Will be implemented. The recommendation will be implemented but potentially not before October 1, 2022. While workshops, drills, tabletops, functional and

ATTACHMENT A
369

164
full-scale exercises are typically the method for assessing the coordination and effectiveness of emergency plans, an After-Action Report and Improvement Plan (AAR/IP) is the final requirement for any exercise. The EOP identifies this requirement consistent with the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program, which provides tools to develop, conduct, and evaluate such exercises. The AAR/IP is a collaboration of all participants and identifies actions taken, necessary modifications to plans and procedures, training needs, and recovery activities to date. The EOP outlines that the completed AAR/IP will be distributed to County leadership and Department Heads within 90 days of the end of the event.

The MYTEP outlines the plan of action, and the AAR/IP documents strengths and weaknesses of the exercises.

The Emergency Operations Plan was approved by the Disaster Council, department heads, and the Board of Supervisors in January 2022 (R-22-15). A functional full- scale regional flood exercise was conducted in August 2022, and an Improvement Plan was developed. On December 13, 2022, the Board of Supervisors accepted and approved the COVID-19 Emergency After-Action Report and Improvement Plan.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

4.0 Inadequate Public Health Emergency Response Capabili�es 2020-2021 Grand Jury Finding F4.1: The lack of understanding of San Joaquin County’s Emergency Opera�ons Plan delayed a collabora�ve and coordinated response necessary to meet the requirements outlined in the Public Health Emergency Preparedness agreement.

Agency Response: Partially agree. The County partially agrees with this ﬁnding, which identiﬁes opportunities for improving leadership, collaboration, and coordination in responding to public health emergencies.
2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R4.1: By March 1, 2022, Health Care Services complete an opera�onal audit to aﬃrm that the requirements outlined within the Public Health Emergency Preparedness agreement are being met.

Agency Response: Requires further analysis. This recommendation will not be implemented before March 1, 2022, and will be an item in the scope of the countywide review of the emergency response to be performed after the cessation of the current public health emergency.

The COVID-19 After-Action Report (AAR) was presented to the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2022. The scope of this review satisfies the recommendation for an operational audit and Countywide review. The County is following up on the various findings and recommendations included in the AAR and will implement the resulting improvement plan.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

ATTACHMENT A
370

165
2020-2021 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R4.2: By April 30, 2022, Health Care Services present their ﬁndings to the Board of Supervisors.

Agency Response: Requires further analysis. This recommendation will not be implemented before April 30, 2022, and will be an item in the scope of the countywide review of the emergency response to be performed after the cessation of the current public health emergency.

The COVID-19 AAR was presented to the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2022. The scope of this review satisfies the recommendation for an operational audit and Countywide review. The County is following up on the various findings and recommendations included in the AAR and will implement the resulting improvement plan.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929).

ATTACHMENT A
371

166

ATTACHMENT A
372

167
Follow-up Report to the
2020-2021 San Joaquin County Grand Jury

Independent Special Districts:

Transparency “Not Found”
Case #0220
Preface
This report contains the responses to the 2021-2022 San Joaquin County Grand Jury follow-up report regarding Independent Special Districts (ISD), the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the County of San Joaquin and its Auditor-Controller’s Office and Information Systems Division. This report focuses on the 2021-2022 Grand Jury findings and recommendations and the responses, which are presented verbatim in this report.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agency’s response to each recommendation.

Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2022-2023 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black.

Complete copies of the original report and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/.

Summary
The 2020-2021 Grand Jury investigated San Joaquin County’s 102 Independent Special Districts and related County agencies in response to the lack of public access to dependable, complete, and transparent information on these districts. Beginning in January 2020, SB 929 required all ISDs in California to have websites containing specific information, including agendas, financial statements, and links to the State Controller’s Office. Districts are able to claim an exemption if they believe

ATTACHMENT A
373

168
that developing a compatible website would be a hardship. Findings and recommendations were made in several areas:
• independent special district website content and development, • compliance with California legislation, including SB 929 and SB 272, • enhancement of County websites to collect and share information on all ISDs, and • establishment of a prototype website for districts unable to develop their own sites.

Method of Follow-Up Investigation
The 2022-2023 Grand Jury reviewed the responses to the 2020-2021 Grand Jury report, Case #0220 Independent Special Districts: Transparency “Not Found,” conducted interviews, issued requests for compliance, performed research, and documented the mandatory responses to the findings.

These responses were then reviewed to determine:
• if the agency or elected official’s responses were complete and comprehensible; • if the agency or elected official would implement the recommendations within the stated deadlines; and
• if confirmation, including written documentation and interviews, was necessary.

Glossary
• ACO: Auditor-Controller’s Oﬃce.
• County: San Joaquin County.
• District: San Joaquin County Independent Special District. • ISD: Independent Special District, a local government granted by State statutes to serve a community of people by delivering specialized services not provided by city or county. • LAFCO: Local Agency Forma�on Commission, “an independent regulatory commission created by the California Legislature to control the boundaries of ci�es and special districts.” (It’s Time to Draw the Line: A Citizens Guide to LAFCO, 6). All 58 coun�es have a LAFCO. • SB 272: California State Senate Bill 272: Public Records Act: Enterprise System Catalog. • SB 929: California State Senate Bill 929: Special districts: Internet Web sites. • State: State of California.

Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results

1.0 All Independent Special Districts
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: The District lacks a public website which limits transparency and makes it difficult for constituents to review agendas, financials and other pertinent documents.

ATTACHMENT A
374

169
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: By November 30, 2022, the District develop and launch a website that is compliant with all State guidelines, including SB 929 and SB 272, or provide proof of exemption.

The 14 remaining independent special districts from the 2021-2022 follow-up report that had not met the 2020-2021 recommendations now fall into five categories:

Website created, working on the website, exempt, dissolved or no contact information available.

Website Created:

Reclamation Districts 2062, 2074, 2094, and 2114
Sanitation District: Country Club
Websites Under Construction:

Fire Protection Districts: Eastside Rural and Lincoln Rural Exempt:

Reclamation Districts 38, 524, and 2096
Dissolved:

California Irrigation District
Dos Reis Storm Water District
No Contact Information/Status Unknown:

Boggs Tract Fire Department
Tuxedo-Country Club Rural Fire Department
The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

2.0 LAFCO
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: The local Agency Formation Commission website contains limited information of San Joaquin County’s independent special districts which has not been updated since July 2020. The absence of a centralized and detailed database with links to district information makes it difficult for constituents to access information specific to their respective districts.

Agency Response: No response received.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: By December 31, 2022, LAFCO work with the San Joaquin County Information Systems Division to create a webpage on the LAFCO website that lists all independent special districts within San Joaquin County and contains links to a summary page for each district that includes the district’s boundary maps, municipal service reviews and most recent sphere of influence study.

Working with a website development company, LAFCO designed and implemented a new website, sjlafco.org, which went live on May 17, 2023. LAFCO staff are currently working to upload all pertinent information to the website. Upon review, the website looks like a good starting point, although it is apparent that information needs to be updated to ensure dependable, complete, and transparent information.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

ATTACHMENT A
375

170
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.2: By December 31, 2022, LAFCO, in conjunction with the San Joaquin County Information Systems Division, County Auditor-Controller, Registrar of Voters, and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, add links to additional district information, including audits, election information and special district board member appointments, to each district’s summary page.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury endeavored to confirm the implementation and adherence to the recommendations of the 2021-2022 Follow-Up Report #0220, Independent Special Districts: Transparency “Not Found.” While conducting this work, it was discovered that Boggs Tract Fire District had no known contact information or board members. According to LAFCO, an Independent Special District must have a board, with 3, 5, or 7 members who are either appointed by the SJC Board of Supervisors or elected by the community in which the district is located.

On LAFCO’s new website, Boggs Tract information states that there are three board members who are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, and two must live within the fire district. The following statement is also made: “There are currently no Board members (2022).”
The 2022-2023 Grand Jury found that the longstanding problem with public access to information regarding independent special districts continues. LAFCO’s new website is a step in the right direction; however, it is missing the individual ISD website addresses and contains outdated, incorrect contact information. An irrigation district that dissolved in 2018 is listed as active.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: The Boggs Tract Fire District has no Board of Directors, thereby leaving the 284 property owners within the district with absolutely no accountability or transparency for how their taxpayer dollars are allocated.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: Outdated and incorrect contact information hinders the public’s right to transparency.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: By November 1, 2023, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) work with the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors to ensure that board members are appointed and alert the newly appointed board members of SB 929, which requires the formation of a website for public transparency and accountability.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: By November 1, 2023, LAFCO communicate annually with all Independent Special Districts, requiring they verify contact information for board members and representatives, including phone numbers and addresses, and provide their ISD website address to LAFCO.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.3: By November 1, 2023, LAFCO verify the dissolution of the California Irrigation District, and if dissolved, remove it from the LAFCO website.

ATTACHMENT A
376

171

3.0 San Joaquin Board of Supervisors
The 2022-2023 Grand Jury endeavored to confirm the implementation and adherence to the recommendations of the 2021-2022 Follow-Up Report #0220, Independent Special Districts: Transparency “Not Found.” While conducting this work, it was discovered that Boggs Tract Fire District had no known contact information or board members. According to LAFCO, an independent special district must have a board, with 3, 5, or 7 members which are either appointed by the Board of Supervisors or elected by the community in which the district is located.

On LAFCO’s new website, Boggs Tract information states that there are three board members who are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, and two must live within the fire district. The following statement is also made: “There are currently no Board members (2022).”
The 2022-2023 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: The Boggs Tract Fire District has no board of directors, thereby leaving the 284 property owners within the district with absolutely no accountability or transparency for how their taxpayer dollars are allocated.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: By November 1, 2023, the Board of Supervisors appoint three board members to the Boggs Tract Fire District following the guidelines that two of the three must live within the fire district.

4.0 San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller’s Office
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F3.1: San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller’s Office receives detailed audits from independent special districts but does not make these audits available to the public via the Auditor-Controller’s website, denying constituents convenient access to this information.

Agency Response: The Auditor-Controller’s Office disagrees with the finding.

Effective October 1, 2021, the Auditor-Controller’s Office implemented the Grand Jury’s original recommendation F4.2…” By December 31, 2021, make all electronic independent special district audits going forward available on the Auditor-Controller’s website”. All independent special district audit reports received are available through a link located at the following page of the Auditor-Controller’s public website:
www.sjgov.org/department/aud/program-services.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1: By October 31, 2022, The San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller post all electronic independent special districts’ audits on the Auditor- Controller’s website.

Agency Response: Please see the Response to Finding 3.1 above.

ATTACHMENT A
377

172
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.2: By December 31, 2022, the Auditor-Controller’s Office provide the most recent independent special district audit links to LAFCO for their independent special district summary webpages.

Agency Response: The ACO concurs with the recommendation.

The ACO will work with the County’s Information Systems Division and LAFCO to provide the most recent independent special district audit links to LAFCO for their new independent special district summary webpages.

LAFCO created a website in May 2023 and is working to populate the site with current information. The link to financial reports does not connect directly to records for that district, only to the Auditor-Controller’s home page. The Grand Jury is hopeful that the Auditor-Controller’s Office will continue to work with the Local Agency Formation Commission on this endeavor to bring full, dependable, and complete transparent information to the public regarding San Joaquin County’s Independent Special Districts.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

Disclaimer
Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the tes�mony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon speciﬁc approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sec�ons 911, 924.1(a), and 929).

Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the iden�ty of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly deﬁned purposes (Penal Code Sec�ons 924.2 and 929).

ATTACHMENT A
378

173
Response Requirements
California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report unless otherwise noted.

The San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission is required to respond to: Findings F1.1, F1.2, and Recommendations R1.1, R1.2, and R1.3.

The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors is required to respond to:

Findings F2.1 and Recommendation R2.1.

Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to:

Honorable Michael D. Coughlan, Presiding Judge
San Joaquin County Superior Court
180 E. Weber Ave., Suite 1306J
Stockton, California 95202
Also, please email a copy of the response to Mr. Irving Jimenez, Judicial Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected].

ATTACHMENT A
379

174

ATTACHMENT A
380

175
Follow-up Report to the
2021-2022 San Joaquin County Grand Jury

Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Educa�on:

A Failing Grade in Public Trust
Case #0121
Preface
This report contains the responses to the 2021-2022 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding Stockton Uniﬁed School District. This follow-up report focuses on the 2021-2022 Grand Jury ﬁndings and recommenda�ons and the Stockton Uniﬁed School District responses, which are presented verba�m in this report.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury reviewed the agency responses to those recommenda�ons. The Grand Jury’s follow-up conclusions are presented a�er the agency responses.

Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2022-2023 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black.

Complete copies of the original report and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at htps//www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/.

Summary
Over the past two years, the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury has conducted two separate investigations of Stockton Unified School District (SUSD) spanning topics from Superintendent turnover to fiscal mismanagement. While many circumstances have changed over the past two

ATTACHMENT A
381

176
years, one thing has remained the same: the SUSD Board of Trustees. The November 2022 election has changed the current majority of the Board, nonetheless, the 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury maintained a keen eye on Stockton Unified School District, especially with respect to SUSD’s response to Case #0121 – A Failing Grade in Public Trust.

The San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury is constitutionally established as a branch of the California Superior Court. The rules and regulations for the Grand Jury proceedings and for those who must reply to recommendations are long established by statutory law. These regulations are mainly found in the California Penal Code. In reply to the 2021-2022 Grand Jury report issued in July 2022, the SUSD Trustees either inadvertently or deliberately failed to follow the law in some responses.

The supplemental responses are listed after the initial agency response in this follow-up report.

Method of Follow-up Inves�ga�on
The 2022-2023 Grand Jury:
• attended SUSD Board meetings,
• conducted follow-up interviews,
• requested documents that were germane to Case #0121,
• reviewed Board agendas, and
• reviewed Board videos.

Materials Reviewed
• Board meetings.
• Board minutes.
• Document requests.
• Interviews.
• Media reports.

Findings, Recommenda�ons, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Conclusions

1.0 Finance
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.1.1 Stockton Uniﬁed School District does not u�lize ﬁnancial so�ware that aligns with the San Joaquin County Oﬃce of Educa�on so�ware, making analysis and review by the San Joaquin County Oﬃce of Educa�on diﬃcult.

Agency Response: The District recognizes the importance of its financial software and of its compatibility with the software utilized by the San Joaquin County Office of Education.

ATTACHMENT A
382

177
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.1.2 Stockton Uniﬁed School District Business Services staﬀ lacks necessary training and guidance to execute complex District business needs, resul�ng in the need to hire outside consultants at an increased cost to the District.

Agency Response: The District disagrees with this ﬁnding. There are many excellent administrators and staﬀ in the District’s Business Services Department, and these employees undergo regular and consistent training. Nevertheless, it has been necessary to retain the services of outside consultants to augment these services, particularly in light of recent personnel vacancies and shortages, but the Board disagrees that doing so reﬂects a lack of staﬀ training.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.1.3 The current Chief Business Oﬃcer was hired without following Board Policy 4211, crea�ng an appearance of par�ality and crea�ng diminished internal and external conﬁdence.

Agency Response: In hiring its prior Chief Business Oﬃcer, although the District engaged in an expedited process in order to ﬁll the vacancy as soon as possible, the District complied with the basic principles set forth in Board Policy 4211, including that “there will be no unlawful discrimination in selection.”
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.1.1 By January 1, 2023, the Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees direct the Superintendent to assess the current ﬁnancial so�ware to be compa�ble with the San Joaquin County Oﬃce of Educa�on so�ware.

Agency Response: On August 9, 2022, the Board of Trustees complied with this Recommendation.

Besides being an insufficient response to Recommendation 1.1.1 according to Penal Code 933.05(a)(2), the 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury heard testimony Stockton Unified School District (SUSD) has not adopted software compatible with the San Joaquin County Office of Education (SJCOE). Furthermore, in June of 2022, SJCOE reached out to SUSD due to data files that were found to be “unusable.” Additionally, in October of 2022, SJCOE once again reached out to SUSD due to “lack of going concern.”
2022-2023 Grand Jury Finding 1.1: As evidenced by the lack of an adequate and legal response per Penal Code 933.2, and due to continued lack of software integration and compatibility, the Grand Jury gives the District response a failing grade in transparency and accountability.
2022-2023 Grand Jury Recommendation 1.1: By October 1, 2023, Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees align financial record keeping with San Joaquin County Office of Education through software upgrades and demonstrate compliance to the 2023-2024 Grand Jury.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.1.2 By December 1, 2022, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees, in conjunc�on with the Business Services Department, develop, adopt

ATTACHMENT A
383

178
and implement training policies with protocols consistent with California Associa�on of School Business Oﬃcers best prac�ces.

Agency Response: The District already has an extensive system of policies and procedures regarding training and staﬀ development such as is set forth in Board Policy/Administrative Regulation 4131, 4231, and 4331. These trainings include those oﬀered through the California Association of School Business Oﬃcials (“CASBO”) and other organizations.

Nevertheless, by February 14, 2023 will have complied with this Recommendation.

According to interviews, the current Superintendent has ordered the creation of “playbooks” to assist replacement staff with departmental policies and procedures.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.1.3 By December 1, 2022, the Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees publicly commit through a Board resolu�on to adhere to Board Policy 4211.2 in recruitment eﬀorts, candidate screenings and interview processes for all open posi�ons.

Agency Response: On August 9, 2022, the Board of Trustees complied with this Recommendation.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

1.2 Change Orders
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.2.1 Not all change orders are brought to the Board of Trustees for approval or ra�ﬁca�on, leaving the Board and senior management unaware of overruns and total cost of projects and causing possible cost overages and budget deﬁcits.

Agency Response: The District regrets to report that not all change orders have been brought to the Board for approval or ratiﬁcation, but the District will take steps to remedy this problem, to the extent that it exists.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.2.1 By August 30, 2022, the Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees develop, adopt and implement a policy with procedures for tracking adjustments to contracts.

Agency Response: The Board will comply with this Recommendation no later than December 13, 2022.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.2.2 By August 30, 2022, the Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees develop, adopt and implement a policy to require the Facili�es and Planning Department to submit all construc�on change orders to the Board for review, approval and ra�ﬁca�on under one standard agenda heading.

ATTACHMENT A
384

179
Agency Response: The Board will not implement this recommendation because it is neither warranted nor reasonable. The Board, however, agrees that construction change orders must be approved by the Board in order to be enforceable. But there is no legal basis for all construction change orders to be submitted “under one standard agenda heading,” and indeed, there are good reasons to do otherwise.

As the Stockton Record reported on January 28, 2023, “According to Public Contract Code §21152, a contractor is required to submit all change orders to the board.” Additionally, the February 2023 Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) noted, “The district failed to provide complete documentation for all vendor transactions selected for review, which resulted in FCMAT having limited documentary support for these items.”
The SUSD Board Agenda dated March 20, 2023, lists Board Agenda Item (BAI) 14.4, “Approval of Two (2) Change Order Requests…” indicating that recently SUSD has started listing change orders for Board review and approval, although the District response was they “will not implement this recommendation.” The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.2.3 By August 30, 2022, the Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees direct the Director of Facili�es and Planning to designate an individual to monitor and update change orders monthly and to ensure other employees in the department are cross trained in this process.

Agency Response: The Board will implement this recommendation by September 27, 2022.

On October 25, 2022, BAI 14.13 – Information on Business Services Office Training, was presented with timelines ensuring proper training by Dannis, Wolliver, and Kelley (DWK).

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

1.3 Grants
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.3.1 The elimina�on of the Stockton Uniﬁed School District Grant Development Oﬃce in a February 2021 District reorganiza�on resulted in grants no longer being monitored by a speciﬁc department or individual, risking addi�onal and unnecessary spending from the General Fund.

Agency Response: The District will re-establish the Grant Development Department, and it is actively recruiting for a Grant Development and Compliance Specialist who will report directly to the Superintendent.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.3.2 Stockton Uniﬁed School District does not iden�fy and pursue all grant opportuni�es due to a lack of coordinated leadership, poten�ally resul�ng in unnecessary spending from the General Fund, contribu�ng to a budget shor�all and missing opportuni�es for addi�onal funding for the beneﬁt of the students.

ATTACHMENT A
385

180
Agency Response: The District regularly identiﬁes and pursues available grant opportunities, and the District will plan to increase its eﬀorts in this regard. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.3.1 By December 30, 2022, the Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees reinstate the Grant Development Oﬃce to iden�fy grant opportuni�es and apply for and monitor all grant applica�ons. Reinstatement of the Grant Development Oﬃce will facilitate project and cost management.

According to media reports and Board meeting agendas, SUSD on July 26, 2022, passed BAI 13.3 reinstating the Grant Development Office and has started recruiting a new director and staff for the Grant Development Office.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.3.2 By December 30, 2022, the Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees approve the reinstatement of a grant writer posi�on within the Grant Development Oﬃce to explore grant opportuni�es for programs, facili�es and services to assist in minimizing the risk of a Stockton Uniﬁed School District budget deﬁcit.

Agency Response: At the regular Board meeting on July 26, 2022, the Board reinstated the Grant Development and Compliance Specialist position.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

1.4 Purchasing Inconsistencies
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.4.1 Stockton Uniﬁed School District’s purchasing policies and procedures are not clearly deﬁned, allowing for devia�on from California Associa�on of School Business Oﬃcers best prac�ces by the Business Services Department.

Agency Response: The District’s general purchasing policies and procedures are set forth in Board Policy/Administrative Regulation 3310, 3311, and 3311.1, and in addition, the District maintains certain manuals and guides for its Purchasing Department including the Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual; the School Bid Guidelines and Exceptions, updated October 26, 2021; and the Districtwide Purchasing Guidelines, updated February 1, 2022. These manuals/guides are intended to summarize, in a user-friendly format, the applicable Board Policies, Administrative Regulations, statutes, and case law. The District will review this material to enhance clarity and consistency. The Board disagrees, though, that CASBO provides deﬁnitive “best practices” against which the District’s policies and procedures can or should be judged, although the District may consult CASBO resources to the extent that they may be helpful. Finally, the Board responds to the concerns raised in the Report regarding the District not utilizing an RFQ process to retain Total School Solutions;

ATTACHMENT A
386

181
TSS provided professional consulting services, and because this was a “special service” under Government Code Section 53060, no bidding or Request for Qualiﬁcations was required. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.4.2 Stockton Uniﬁed School District’s purchasing policies and procedures are not clearly deﬁned, causing inaccurate evalua�ons of actual cost and delivery of products and services.

Agency Response: The Board disagrees that its purchasing policies or procedures have caused incorrect evaluations of the actual cost and delivery of products and services. And the Board incorporates by this reference its response to Finding 1.4.1 above. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.4.3 Stockton Uniﬁed School District is inconsistent in use of Invita�on for Bid, Request for Qualiﬁca�ons and Request for Proposal, resul�ng in providers not being strategically veted and thereby allowing opportunity for misuse of funds and/or malfeasance.

Agency Response: The District disagrees with this Finding. Purported inconsistencies identiﬁed in the Report are attributable to an exemption for special services, as explained above, and moreover, the Board is unaware of any evidence of misuse of funds or malfeasance. Nevertheless, the District will be implementing new policies and procedures pertaining to purchasing and procurement.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.4.4 Stockton Uniﬁed School District inconsistently uses a Request for Proposal for legal services as required by Board Bylaw 9124, poten�ally resul�ng in greater costs for legal services.

Agency Response: The District points out that the awarding of contracts for professional services, like legal services, is not entirely based on pricing, but rather, is based largely on the quality of services provided. Moreover, as a matter of law, school districts are not required to use a Request for Proposal or public bidding process when retaining legal services. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.4.5 The Board of Trustees rou�nely disregards Stockton Uniﬁed School District staﬀ recommenda�on and analysis of Request for Proposals, poten�ally causing the hiring of lesser qualiﬁed and/or more costly vendors.

Agency Response: The District disagrees with this Finding. The Board does not routinely disregards staﬀ recommendations and analyses on Requests for Proposals. In fact, only on rare occasions does the Board not support the staﬀ recommendation. Moreover, if the Board were to decline a staﬀ recommendation, that does not mean that the Board has disregarded or not considered the staﬀ recommendation. The Board values and thoroughly considers staﬀ recommendations in awarding contracts.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.4.1 By September 30, 2022, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees develop, adopt, and implement a revised Board Purchasing Policy 3310 to include clear policies and procedures for use of Invita�on for Bid, Request for Qualiﬁca�ons and Request for Proposal.

Agency Response: The District will comply with this Recommendation by November 8, 2022.

ATTACHMENT A
387

182
Stockton Unified School District Board Policy 3310 was rewritten and approved by the Board on November 14, 2022, BAI 9.3(A).

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.4.2 By November 1, 2022, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees develop, adopt, and implement a training program and training schedule for administra�on, department heads and purchasing staﬀ on the use of Invita�on for Bid, Request for Qualiﬁca�ons and Request for Proposal.

Agency Response: District staﬀ already are engaged in such training. By November 8, 2022, the District will publicize the trainings in which staﬀ has been engaged.

On October 25, 2022, BAI 14.13 – Information on Business Services Office Training, was presented, with timelines, ensuring proper training pertaining to bids by Dannis, Wolliver, and Kelley (DWK).

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.4.3 By September 30, 2022, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees publicly agree through a Board resolu�on to adhere to Board Bylaw 9124 by requiring a Request for Proposal for all legal services.

Agency Response: The District will not comply with this Recommendation as such as Board Resolution is unnecessary. As matter of law, school districts are not required to use a Request for Proposal or public bidding process when retaining legal services.

While school districts do not have to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for temporary legal services, a cursory review of other school districts in California indicates that an RFP for legal services is a normal process and best practice to request bids by law firms as a tool of transparency and to ensure no conflict of interest is perceived or occurs when hiring legal services. FCMAT further illustrates in the February 2023 AB139 report presented to the Board that, “It is of concern that the board set a policy (Board Bylaw 9124) and then ignored it. Even more irregular and of equal concern is that the board would contract for services from a legal firm that would not advise their prospective client to follow their own policies.”
On January 6, 2023, BAI 2.2 terminated the questionable legal contract on a Board vote of 4-3.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.4.4 By September 30, 2022, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees publicly agree, through a Board resolu�on, to require and consider staﬀ recommenda�ons and scoring matrixes prior to vo�ng on any Request for Proposal.

ATTACHMENT A
388

183
Agency Response: The Board will not comply with this Recommendation because such as Board Resolution is unwarranted and unnecessary. The Board routinely considers staﬀ recommendations and scoring prior to voting on vendors’ proposals. Nevertheless, during this calendar year, the District will be implementing new policies and procedures pertaining to purchasing and procurement.

While the 2022-2023 Grand Jury understands a Board Resolution is nonbinding and merely a gesture of Board support, the Grand Jury is disappointed that the Board will not comply with such a recommendation in order to show support for SUSD staff’s hard work and dedication while also demonstrating a check on actual or perceived conflict of interests.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.4.5 By September 30, 2022, The Board of Trustees pass a resolu�on aﬃrming Board Policy 3310, SUSD Districtwide Purchasing Guidelines, and Administra�ve Regula�on 3310 and direct the Superintendent to follow these Policies, Guidelines and Regula�ons.

Agency Response: The Board does not believe that such a Board Resolution is necessary, but the Board will comply with this Recommendation by November 8, 2022.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

1.5 Legal Services Billing
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.5.1 Lack of detailed billing and incomplete invoices for Board review creates risks of paying for services not received.

Initial Agency Response: The Board disagrees that this is an uncontrolled risk at the District.

The Grand Jury does not find all of the Stockton Unified School District responses in compliance. The Grand Jury does not create new compliance guidelines itself but follows the law that directs what compliance means:

California Penal Code section 933.05:
(a) For purposes of subdivision of Section 933.05, as to each grand jury finding the responding persons or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.

ATTACHMENT A
389

184
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933.05, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented actions.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. The time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

As a result, an insufficient response to the 2021-2022 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury, Stockton Unified School District was directed by the Court to comply with the above Penal Code. Stockton Unified School District’s supplemental response is listed below.

Supplemental Agency Response: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05(a)(2), the Board disagrees wholly with this Finding. As was set forth in the District’s response to Recommendation #R1.5.1, all law ﬁrms retained by the District submit proper detailed invoices.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.5.1 By October 1, 2022, the Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees develop, adopt and implement a policy that requires legal ﬁrms to provide detailed billing informa�on as prescribed by the American Bar Associa�on.

Agency Response: All law ﬁrms retained by the District submit proper detailed invoices. The District points out, though, that the legal services invoices that were submitted to the Grand Jury by the District were redacted to prevent disclosure of attorney -client privileged information.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

1.6 Consul�ng Services
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.6.1 Consultant forms are accepted and forwarded to the Board without all sec�ons completed and/or answered appropriately, impairing the Board’s ability to make informed decisions.

ATTACHMENT A
390

185
Agency Response: The District will take steps to remedy this problem, to the extent that it exists.
2021-2022Grand Jury Finding F1.6.2 Stockton Uniﬁed School District paid at least one consultant for services not delivered, resul�ng in a misuse of public funds.

Agency Response: The District regrets to report that it has conﬁrmed that in at least one instance, the District paid a consultant for services not delivered, and the Board appreciates that the Grand Jury has brought this situation to its attention. The District will take steps to remedy this problem, to the extent that it exists.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.6.1 By October 1, 2022, the Board of Trustees direct the Superintendent to adhere to Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board Policy E 3600 and require all Consultant Forms be complete and accurate prior to presenta�on to the Board.

Agency Response: The Superintendent is hereby directed to adhere to this Recommendation.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

1.7 District Deﬁcit and Risk of Insolvency
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.7.1 Stockton Uniﬁed School District current budget projec�ons indicate there will be a budget deﬁcit of more than $30 million in ﬁscal year 2024-2025, a deﬁcit which could cause layoﬀs and elimina�on or reduc�on of student programs.

Agency Response: The District is in the process of resolving its budgetary issues. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.7.2 Stockton Uniﬁed School District has no plan in place to deal with deﬁcit spending, pu�ng Stockton Uniﬁed School District at risk of ﬁscal insolvency.

Initial Agency Response: The District disagrees with this Finding.

ATTACHMENT A
391

186
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented actions.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. The time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

Supplemental Agency Response: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05(a)(2), the District disagrees wholly with this Finding. The District has speciﬁc plans of action to avoid deﬁcit spending such as by updating the District budget to accurately reﬂect unaudited actuals within the ending balances, by aligning the budget to correspond with student needs, and by continuing to reduce expenditures in various areas.

The FCMAT February 2023 AB139 report and the SJCOE October 2022 letter of Lack of Going Concern state multiple areas of accounting and management deficiencies that are indicators of fiscal insolvency and eventual State receivership. 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Finding 1.2: While Stockton Unified School District “disagrees wholly” with the 2021-2022 Grand Jury finding concerning fiscal insolvency, two other independent evaluations support the 2021-2022 Grand Jury finding.
2022-2023 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Recommendation 1.2: To safeguard against fiscal insolvency and possible State takeover of Stockton Unified School District, the San Joaquin County Office of Education by December 1, 2023, contract with the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team, to conduct a Fiscal Health Analysis of Stockton Unified School District and present the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team findings and recommendations to Stockton Unified School District during a public Board meeting.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.7.3 Stockton Uniﬁed School District Departments do not have clear opera�onal budgets, decreasing the eﬀec�veness of planning and implementa�on of student- focused decision making.

ATTACHMENT A
392

187
Initial Agency Response: The District disagrees with this Finding.

Supplemental Agency Response: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05(a)(2), the District disagrees wholly with this Finding. The District has clear and detailed operational budgets for its various school sites and departments which are all set up within Business Plus, the District’s accounting system. For the 2022-23 ﬁscal year, each school site and department throughout the District has been assigned a business analyst from the District’s Business Department to help assist with respect to the alignment and expenditure reporting within their respective operational budgets.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.7.4 Stockton Unified School District has no defined and documented plan to pay for essential and on-going costs once one-time funds are depleted or unavailable, increasing the risk of General Fund depletion.

Initial Agency Response: The District disagrees with this Finding Supplemental Agency Response: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05(a)(2), the District disagrees wholly with this Finding. Pursuant to its overall ﬁscal plan, the District continues to adjust its budget to move expenditures away from one-time funding, and additionally, the District continues to reduce expenditures that are deemed unnecessary while maintaining the District’s primary focus on supporting the students. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.7.5 Stockton Unified School District has no Multi-Year Financial Projection to monitor the one-time fund expenditures as Stockton Unified School District moves into 2022-2023, potentially causing the projected deficit to occur earlier.

Initial Agency Response: The District disagrees with this Finding.

Supplemental Agency Response: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05(a)(2), the District disagrees wholly with this Finding. For re-adoption of the budget, the District has expressly adjusted its multi-year ﬁnancial projections with speciﬁc plans to move expenditures away from one-time funding for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 ﬁscal years, and additionally, the District continues to reduce expenditures that are deemed unnecessary while maintain the District’s primary focus on supporting the students.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.7.1 By December 1, 2022, the Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees, in conjunc�on with the Superintendent, develop, adopt and implement opera�onal budgets that address projected deﬁcit spending for the District and all departments.

Agency Response: The District already is complying with this Recommendation.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.7.2 By October 1, 2022, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees develop, adopt and implement a documented plan to iden�fy the essen�al ongoing costs that are being funded by one-�me money and revise the budget to reﬂect the impact to the General Fund.

ATTACHMENT A
393

188
Agency Response: By November 23, 2022, the Board will adopt a plan to identify the essential ongoing costs that are being funded by one-time money, and will revise the District’s budget if necessary.

On January 24, 2023, SUSD conducted a special Board meeting to address the budgeting of Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I, II, and III) monies. While the 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury appreciates the efforts and hopes there will be more such meetings in the future, the Chief Business Officer was not able to answer Trustee questions about specifics. As mentioned by the Superintendent at the time, in the future there will be more presentations concerning one-time monies.
2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

2.0 Duty of Care

2.1 Conﬂict of Interest
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F2.1 The Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees has shown disregard for Board Bylaw 9270, Conﬂict of Interest, contribu�ng to an appearance of impropriety that may diminish the integrity of the District.

Initial Agency Response: The District disagrees with this Finding.

Supplemental Agency Response: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05(a)(2), the District disagrees wholly with this Finding. The Board of Trustees, individually and collectively, understands the importance of avoiding conﬂicts of interests and even the appearance of impropriety. In this regard, by approving this Supplemental Response to the Report from the San Joaquin County Grand Jury in Case #0121, the Board hereby reaﬃrms its commitment to comply with Board Bylaw 9270 (“Conﬂict of Interest”).
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F2.2 Not all Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustee members have completed the California School Board Association Master in Governance training program, leaving them inadequately trained in Board duties and responsibilities.

Agency Response: The Board of Trustees will work on resolving these issues. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R2.1 By October 1, 2022, all members of the Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees complete all ﬁve of the California School Board Associa�on Masters in Governance training courses.

Agency Response: The District will comply with this Recommendation by June 30, 2023.

ATTACHMENT A
394

189
On March 1, 2023, SUSD responded to SJCOE, with their Notice of Proposed Actions:

AB 139 Audit, which states:
“Board’s Proposed Actions:

The Board agrees that it shall at least biennially be trained in the following areas:
a. Governance training (with an emphasis on the role of the board vs. staff), such as California School Boards Association Masters in Governance training b. Conflict of interest training
c. Brown Act training (with emphasis on how to avoid illegal board meetings) d. Ethics training for boards (required every two years per AB 2158) The Board intends that it shall undertake the first such training pursuant to this recommendation, in each of the above areas, no later than July 31, 2023." The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R2.2 By October 1, 2022, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees provide Board members’ California School Board Associa�on cer�ﬁca�ons of comple�on of Masters in Governance training to the public in accordance with the Freedom of Informa�on Act.

Agency Response: By June 30, 2023, the District will comply with this Recommendation, consistent with the California Public Records Act.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R2.3 By October 1, 2022, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees post Board members’ California School Board Associa�on cer�ﬁca�ons of comple�on of Masters in Governance training on the District website.

Agency Response: By June 30, 2023, the District will comply with this Recommendation.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

3.0 Lack of Transparency
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F3.1 Lack of Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustee mee�ng minutes posted publicly and/or �mely per Board Bylaw 9324, Minutes and Recordings, and Ed Code §35145a creates diminished public awareness of the ac�ons of the Board of Trustees.

Agency Response: The District has discovered that there had been some lapses in Board approval of Minutes, but on a going-forward basis, this issue has been resolved. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F3.2 The absence of general discussion in Board minutes diminishes Board accountability and public transparency, leaving District cons�tuents ill-informed of District issues that could have adverse eﬀects on the students.

ATTACHMENT A
395

190
Agency Response: The District disagrees with this Finding. The audio and Zoom recordings of Board of Trustees meetings are available to the public, and except for Closed Session, all Board discussions are open to the public so there is full transparency. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F3.3 Board agenda packets are o�en missing important informa�on, a viola�on of Board Bylaw 9324, Agenda/Mee�ng Materials, contribu�ng to ill-informed decision making which could adversely impact students and cons�tuents.

Agency Response: The District disagrees with this Finding. Board agenda packets are in full compliance with law and with Board Bylaw 9324.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F3.4 Lack of public discussion on Board agenda items creates an appearance of business being conducted “behind closed doors” and fosters mistrust among District staﬀ and cons�tuents.

Agency Response: The District disagrees with this Finding. The audio and Zoom recordings of Board of Trustees meetings are available to the public, and except for Closed Session, all Board discussions are open to the public so there is full transparency. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F3.5 Lack of cer�ﬁed translators for Board mee�ngs causes inaccurate and nontransparent transla�ons of public mee�ngs.

Agency Response: The District disagrees with this Finding. There are trained and experienced translators available at every Board meeting. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R3.1 By September 1, 2022, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees agendize and approve Board minutes at the following Board mee�ng to op�mize public informa�on and transparency in accordance with Board Bylaw 9324.

Agency Response: The District has discovered that there had been some lapses in Board approval of Minutes, but this issue has been resolved on a going-forward basis. It is a goal of the District to have Board Meeting Minutes agendized and approved at the following Board meeting.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R3.2 By September 1, 2022, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees amend Board Bylaw 9324 Minutes and Recordings, to require pos�ng Board minutes on the Stockton Uniﬁed School District website within 30 days of Board mee�ngs to op�mize transparency.

Agency Response: The District has discovered that there had been some lapses in Board approval of Minutes, but this issue has been resolved on an ongoing basis. It is a goal of the District to have Board Meeting Minutes agendized and approved at the following Board meeting.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

ATTACHMENT A
396

191
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R3.3 By August 15, 2022, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees follow Board Bylaw 9324.2 by including a summary of Board discussion in mee�ng minutes.

Agency Response: The audio and Zoom recordings of Board of Trustees meetings are available to the public, and except for Closed Session, all Board discussions are open to the public so there is full transparency. On August 9, 2022, the Board of Trustees approved clarifying revisions to Board Bylaws 9324.

The 2021-2022 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury recommendation was specific to Board minutes, and not accessibility of meetings. As noted by a member of the public at the January 24, 2023 Board meeting, vote totals are not transparent to the discussion and reasoning behind Board decisions, disenfranchising the voting public.

As the 2021-2022 Civil Grand Jury Case #0121 states, “A comparison of Board minutes from the other 13 school districts in San Joaquin County to those of SUSD shows the SUSD Board minutes are not as comprehensive as all other County school districts. SUSD minutes include no general discussion regarding Trustee activity while all other districts’ minutes do.”
Although the District response to Finding 3.2 was “disagree,” SUSD has begun including public discussion and trustee comments on Board minutes, further increasing information and transparency to the general public as well as meeting the recommendation of the 2021-2022 Civil Grand Jury.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R3.4 By August 15, 2022, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees adhere to Board Bylaw BB 9322 Agendas/Mee�ng Materials and direct the Superintendent to ensure all Board agenda packets have completed forms, with no blank spaces or incomplete details and informa�on.

Agency Response: The District already complies with this Recommendation.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R3.5 By October 1, 2022, Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees u�lize professional services of a cer�ﬁed Spanish translator for all Board mee�ngs to insure accurate transla�on of all public mee�ngs. This will ensure transparency.

Agency Response: Although its translators are not necessarily certiﬁed, such as through the American Translators Association, the District retains the services of dedicated, competent, and professional translators to work at Board meetings.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

ATTACHMENT A
397

192
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R3.6 By November 1, 2022, the Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees, during a public mee�ng, discuss each ﬁnding and recommenda�on of this full Grand Jury report as a separate Board agenda discussion item.

Agency Response: On August 4, 2022, the District hosted a Town Hall meeting for the purpose of hearing from the public regarding the Grand Jury Report. Additionally, at the Board’s regular meeting on August 23, 2022, the District’s draft Response to the Grand Jury Report was agendized, and the public and members of the Board of Trustees had a full opportunity to express their views on each Finding and Recommendation in the Grand Jury Report prior to the Board approving this response to the Report.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines Town Hall as “an event at which a politician or public official answers questions from members of the public.” The 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury attended the “Town Hall” and witnessed silence insofar as the public officials were concerned, an attempt to end the “Town Hall” after only four speakers. The Board members that were present made no effort to answer the public’s questions concerning the Grand Jury report and demonstrated a lack of interest in public input.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2022-2023 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury Conclusion As the 2020-2021 Grand Jury Case #0620 – Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees:

Dissention, Dismay, and Disarray concludes, “To paraphrase the former student representa�ve, the Grand Jury wishes all members of the Stockton Uniﬁed community the best of luck in their endeavors to make SUSD the district that it deserves to be.” Disclaimer
Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the tes�mony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon speciﬁc approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sec�on 911, 924.1(a), and 929).

Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the iden�ty of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly deﬁned purposes (Penal Code Sec�ons 924.2 and 929).

This report was issued by the Grand Jury with the excep�on of one juror who, due to a poten�al conﬂict of interest recused themselves from all parts of the inves�ga�on, including interviews, delibera�ons, and the wri�ng and approval of the report.

ATTACHMENT A
398

193
Response Requirements
California Penal Code Sec�ons 933 and 933.05 require that speciﬁc responses to all ﬁndings and recommenda�ons contained in this report be submited to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report.

Note: If the responder is an elected oﬃcial, the response must be sent within 60 days of receipt.

San Joaquin County Oﬃce of Educa�on Board of Trustees respond to Finding and Recommenda�on

1.2. Stockton Uniﬁed School District Board of Trustees respond to Finding and Recommenda�on 1.1 and

1.3. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to:

Honorable Michael D. Coughlan, Presiding Judge
San Joaquin County Superior Court
180 E Weber Ave, Suite 1306J
Stockton, California 95202
Also, please email a copy of the response to Mr. Irving Jimenez, Staﬀ Secretary to the Grand Jury, at [email protected].

ATTACHMENT A
399

194
Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
180 E. Weber Avenue, Ste 1306]
Stockton, CA 95202
Telephone: (209) 992-5695
October 3, 2022
Cecelia Mendez, Board President
Stockton Uniﬁed School Board of Educa�on
56 S. Lincoln St.

Stockton, CA 95203
Re: Response to 2021-2022 Grand Jury Report #0121
Dear President Mendez:

At the direc�on of Hon. Michael D. Coughlan, Presiding Judge of Superior Court, I am the Judge assigned to supervise the grand juries in San Joaquin County.

The court has received Stockton Uniﬁed School Board of Educa�on's formal Response, dated August 24, 2022 to the 2021-2022 San Joaquin County Grand Jury's Report #0121.

The Response notes that it is submited pursuant to California Penal Code sec�ons 933 and 933.05.

Upon review, it appears that the responses to the following Grand Jury Findings do not meet the requirements of California Penal code sec�on Fl .5; Fl .7.2•, Fl .7.3; .7.4; .7.5; and F2.1. Penal Code sec�on 933.05(a) states:
"For purposes of subdivision (b) of Sec�on 933, as to each grand jury ﬁnding, the responding person or en�ty shall indicate one of the following:
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or par�ally with the ﬁnding, in which case the response shall specify the por�on of the ﬁnding that is disputed and shall include an explana�on of the reasons therefor." Please submit the Board's response, in compliance with California Penal Code sec�on 933.05(a)(2), within forty-ﬁve (45) days of receipt of this communica�on. If addi�onal �me is needed, it will be provided.

Sincerely,

/ Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court and
Supervising Judge to the San Joaquin County Grand Juries

ATTACHMENT A
400

195
Follow-up Report to the
2021-2022 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury

the Past, Securing the Future (2018-2019 Case No. 0218) San Joaquin County and Its Seven Cities:

Cybersecurity: Local Defense Against a Global Threat
Case #0321

Preface
This report contains the responses to the 2021-2022 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report titled Cybersecurity: Local Defense Against a Global Threat. This follow-up report focuses on the 2021-2022 Grand Jury findings and recommendations, and the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors’ responses which are presented verbatim in this report.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agency’s responses to each recommendation.

Discussions, findings, and recommendations from the 2022-2023 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black.

Complete copies of the original report and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/.

Summary
San Joaquin County’s ci�es, County agencies, and school districts have fallen vic�m to ransomware and cybersecurity atacks in recent years. Due to the complexity of Informa�on Technology (IT) infrastructure and the rise in cybercrime, the 2021-2022 Grand Jury inves�gated the IT departments

ATTACHMENT A
401

196
of San Joaquin County’s seven ci�es and the County Informa�on Services Department (ISD) to ensure that the security and disaster preparedness of IT services were in place.

The 2021-2022 Grand Jury recommended that the County and the seven ci�es:
• develop, adopt, and implement an IT Disaster Preparedness Plan; • develop, adopt, and implement a Business Con�nuity Plan; and • remedy speciﬁc cybersecurity risks as they pertain to each en�ty.

As a leader in best-prac�ce policies, San Joaquin County is quickly becoming a front-runner in informa�on technology and cybersecurity.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury has determined that ﬁve of the seven ci�es and the County have met the recommenda�ons of the 2021-2022 Grand Jury inves�ga�ve report.

Method of Follow-Up Investigation
The 2022-2023 Grand Jury reviewed the original 2021-2022 report #0321, Cybersecurity: Local Defense Against a Global Threat, and conducted an interview. The 2021-2022 Grand Jury interviewed Directors of the Information Technology Departments. The mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations were reviewed to determine:
• if the agency’s responses were complete and comprehensible; • if the agency would implement the recommenda�ons within the stated deadlines; and • if conﬁrma�on was necessary it could include writen documenta�on, interviews, or site inspec�ons.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined that recommenda�ons have either been implemented or are nearly complete in the implementa�on process for the seven ci�es and the County.

Glossary
• Access: The ability and means to communicate with or otherwise interact with a system; to use system resources to manage informa�on; to gain knowledge of the informa�on the system contains; to control system components and func�ons. • Atack: An inten�onal atempt to gain unauthorized access to system services, resources, or informa�on; an atempt to compromise system integrity.
• Authen�ca�on: The process of verifying the iden�ty or other atributes of an en�ty (user, process, or device).
• Authoriza�on: A process of determining, by evalua�ng applicable access control informa�on, whether a subject is allowed to have the speciﬁed types of access to a par�cular resource.
• BCP: Business Con�nuity Plan. A document that sets forth procedures for the con�nued performance of core capabili�es, cri�cal opera�ons, and user services during any disrup�on or poten�al disrup�on.

ATTACHMENT A
402

197
• CIO: Chief Informa�on Oﬃcer.
• Computer-Aided Dispatch Systems: Used by dispatchers, call-takers, and 911 operators to priori�ze and record incident calls, iden�fy the status and loca�ons of responders in the ﬁeld, and eﬀec�vely dispatch responders.
• Conﬁden�ality: A property of informa�on that is not disclosed to users, processes, or devices unless they have been authorized to access the informa�on. • Cyber event or incident: An occurrence that actually or poten�ally results in adverse consequences to an informa�on system or the informa�on that the system processes, stores, or transmits and that may require a response ac�on to mi�gate the consequences.

An occurrence that cons�tutes a viola�on or imminent threat of viola�on of security policies, security procedures, or acceptable use policies. • Cybersecurity: The ac�vity, process, ability, capability, or state whereby informa�on and communica�ons systems and the informa�on contained therein are protected from and/or defended against damage, unauthorized use, modiﬁca�on, or exploita�on. • Data integrity: The property that data is complete, intact, and trusted and has not been modiﬁed or destroyed in an unauthorized or accidental manner. • Data security policy: A rule or set of rules that governs the acceptable use of an organiza�on's informa�on and services to a level of acceptable risk and the means for protec�ng the organiza�on's informa�on assets.
• Encryp�on: The process of conver�ng data into a form that cannot be easily understood by unauthorized people or agents.
• Firewall: A capability to limit network traﬃc between networks and/or informa�on systems.

A hardware/so�ware device, or a so�ware program, that limits network traﬃc according to a set of rules of what access is and is not allowed or authorized. • Hacker: An unauthorized user who atempts to or gains access to an informa�on system. • ISD: Informa�on Systems Department.
• IT: Informa�on Technology.
• KnowB4: A proprietary security awareness training pla�orm. KnowB4 is used by agencies for simulated phishing ac�vi�es and other email compromise tests, as well as for other IT security training needs.
• Malware: So�ware that compromises the opera�on of a system by performing an unauthorized func�on or process.
• Mobile device management tool: A security so�ware tool designed to help organiza�ons secure, manage and monitor mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets. • Mul�-factor authen�ca�on: An electronic authen�ca�on mechanism in which a user is granted access to an applica�on only a�er presen�ng two or more pieces of evidence (factors or keys only the authen�c user knows or possesses). • Mul�-layer security access: Mul�-layer security refers to a system that uses numerous components to shield the IT infrastructure. It is a defense mechanism that mi�gates, delays or prevents threats.
• Network or cyber infrastructure: The informa�on and communica�on systems and services composed of all hardware and so�ware that process, store, and communicate informa�on; any combina�on of all these elements.

ATTACHMENT A
403

198
• Next-genera�on systems: Security systems consis�ng of both ﬁrewall and intrusion preven�on systems built in, rather than as add-ons, along with the features of basic ﬁrewalls.
• Phishing: A digital form of social engineering to deceive individuals into providing sensi�ve informa�on.
• Ransomware: A type of malicious so�ware designed to block access to a computer system un�l a sum of money is paid.
• Ransomware atack response plan: A set of predetermined and documented procedures to detect and respond to a cyber incident involving demand for ransom for recovery and restora�on of data or systems.
• Records Management System: The management of records for an organiza�on throughout the records’ life cycle.
• Redundancy: Addi�onal or alterna�ve systems, sub-systems, assets, or processes that maintain a degree of overall func�onality in case of loss or failure of another system, sub- system, asset or process. Typically applied to power supplies and data backup systems. • Vulnerability: A characteris�c or speciﬁc weakness that renders an organiza�on or asset (such as informa�on or an informa�on system) open to exploita�on by a given threat or suscep�ble to a given hazard.
• Wi-Fi network: A family of wireless network protocols used for local area networking of devices and internet access, allowing nearby digital devices to exchange data by radio waves.

ATTACHMENT A
404

199
Summary of Responses and Grand Jury Conclusions

Respondent
2021-
2022
Rec # Response
2022-2023 Grand Jury Conclusion
Due Date Conclusion
San Joaquin
County Board
of Supervisors
R1.1
Implemented
November 1, 2022
November 1, 2022 No further ac�on
City of Escalon
R2.1
Implemented
January 1, 2023
January 1, 2023 No further ac�on
City of Lathrop
R3.1
Implemented
June 1, 2022
November 1, 2022 No further ac�on

R3.2
Disagrees November 1, 2022 No further ac�on

R3.3
Implemented
January 1, 2023
January 1, 2023 No further ac�on

R3.4
Implemented
January 1, 2023
November 1, 2022 No further ac�on

R3.5
Implemented
January 1, 2023
January 1, 2023 No further ac�on
City of Lodi
R4.1
Will be
implemented by
July 1, 2023
July 1, 2023 Will be implemented
July 1, 2023
City of Manteca
R5.1
Will be
implemented by
January 1, 2023
October 1, 2023 The requested
conﬁrma�on of
compliance was not
received (see R1.0)

R5.2
Will be
implemented by
March 1, 2023
October 1, 2023 The requested
conﬁrma�on of
compliance was not
received (see R1.1)

R5.3
Will be
implemented by
March 1, 2023
October 1, 2023 The requested
conﬁrma�on of
compliance was not
received (R1.2)

ATTACHMENT A
405

200
Respondent
2021-
2022
Rec # Response
2022-2023 Grand Jury Conclusion
Due Date Conclusion
City of Ripon
R6.1
Implemented
December 13,
2022
January 1, 2023 No further ac�on

R6.2
Implemented
December 13,
2022
January 1, 2023 No further ac�on

R6.3
Implemented
December 13,
2022
January 1, 2023 No further ac�on

R6.4
Implemented
December 13,
2022
January 1, 2023 No further ac�on

R6.5
Implemented
December 13,
2022
January 1, 2023 No further ac�on

R6.6
Implemented
December 13,
2022
January 1, 2023 No further ac�on
City of Stockton
R7.1
Implemented
November 1, 2022
November 1, 2022 No further ac�on
City of Tracy
R8.1
Implemented 1st
quarter of 2023
April 1, 2023 No further ac�on

R8.2
Implemented 1st
quarter of 2023
April 1, 2023 No further ac�on

R8.3
Implemented 1st
quarter of 2023
April 1, 2023 No further ac�on

ATTACHMENT A
406

201
Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results

1.0 San Joaquin County
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: San Joaquin County does not have a formal internal policy concerning payments or procedures in ransomware attacks. This absence of policy could cause confusion, delay and greater loss of security in the event of such an attack.

Agency Response: Agree. Information Systems Division (ISD) concurs with the Grand Jury’s finding.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: San Joaquin County has an exemplary profile regarding cybersecurity and should serve as a model for other government agencies within San Joaquin County.

Agency Response: Agree. ISD concurs with the Grand Jury’s finding. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: By November 1, 2022, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with San Joaquin County ISD, develop, adopt and implement a formal internal policy and procedure for response to a ransomware attack.

Agency Response: Will be implemented. San Joaquin County ISD will develop, adopt, and implement a formal internal policy and procedures for the County’s response to a ransomware attack. This process has already begun, but may extend beyond November 1, 2022. ISD will coordinate with County Counsel, as well as other agencies with robust ransomware policies and procedures, to develop and implement a plan that represents current industry best practices.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

2.0 City of Escalon
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: The City of Escalon does not have a documented Business Continuity Plan, leaving the City relatively unprepared to restore essential services in a disruptive event.

Agency Response: The City of Escalon acknowledges Finding F2.1 and will develop, adopt and implement a Business Continuity Plan by January 1, 2023. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R2.1: By January 1, 2023, the Escalon City Council, in conjunction with Mid Valley IT, develop, adopt, and implement a Business Continuity Plan.

Agency Response: The City of Escalon acknowledges Finding F2.1 and will develop, adopt and implement a Business Continuity Plan by January 1, 2023.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

ATTACHMENT A
407

202

3.0 City of Lathrop
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F3.1: The City of Lathrop does not employ multi-factor authentication universally, leaving City systems more vulnerable to the activities of bad actors.

Agency Response: The City of Lathrop City Council agrees with Grand Jury Finding F3.1 and Recommendation R3.1 and multi-factor authentication security has been implemented and in effect since June of 2022.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.1: By November 1, 2022, the Lathrop City Council, in conjunction with the City’s IT department, develop, adopt, and implement a procedure for universal multi-factor authentication for access to City data.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F3.2: The City of Lathrop provides an unsecured public Wi-Fi network. Misuse of this unsecured network could expose the City to liability risks. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.2: By November 1, 2022, the Lathrop City Council, in conjunction with the City’s IT department, provide a secure public Wi-Fi network.

Agency Response: The City of Lathrop disagrees with Grand Jury Finding F3.2 and Recommendation R3.2 because by definition, publicly available Wi-Fi is inherently “unsecured”, although this designation is a misnomer because it eludes to an idea that publicly available Wi-Fi can either be secured or unsecured, and that unsecured is less “safe” or more “risky” than secured. Neither are the case. An “unsecured network” only means that such Wi-Fi is publicly available for anyone to use. Wi-Fi networks, either secured or unsecured, cannot merge end-users between those networks. Secured and unsecured networks, and the end-users utilizing either, remain completely isolated from one another; it would be unfeasible for someone with access to only an unsecured Wi-Fi network to also have the ability to gain access to a separate, secured Wi-Fi network.

The commonly perpetuated idea of “risk” associated with the use of an unsecured Wi-Fi network incorrectly shapes such “risk” as something that happens upon an end-user regardless of their use of the unsecured Wi-Fi network, when in reality, risk can develop and potentially increases the more limited and end-user’s understanding of how their digital presence on the internet affects their vulnerability and security. End-users should be encouraged to utilize personal checks and balances to verify the Wi-Fi networks they choose to connect to are verifiable and reputable, that their presence on the internet is not made easily available to be tracked by others, and that they are visiting legitimate websites, in order to further maintain security of their personal data and information.

Publicly available Wi-Fi is a critical asset to cities around the country. Publicly available Wi- Fi provides the public the opportunity to connect to critical and important information equitably

ATTACHMENT A
408

203
and provides a consistent source of access to such information, promoting economic inclusion within the community. The City of Lathrop currently hosts and unsecured public Wi-Fi network entitled “City of Lathrop Guest Cloud 1” and end-users who connect to this network to access the internet must agree to the terms and conditions of its use, and which the public is only able to remain connected to for time increments of thirty (30) minutes, between 7am and 7pm, seven (7) days per week.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F3.3: The City of Lathrop does not have an approved Business Continuity Plan, rendering the City relatively unprepared to restore essential services in a disruptive event.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.3: By January 1, 2023, the Lathrop City Council, in conjunction with the City’s IT department, develop, adopt, and implement a Business Continuity Plan.

Agency Response: The City of Lathrop has an unwritten Business Continuity Plan but not a written one. The City of Lathrop City Council agrees with Grand Jury Finding F3.3 and Recommendation R3.3 and documentation is anticipated to be complete by January 2023.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F3.4: The City of Lathrop does not have a formal internal policy or procedure to address ransomware attacks. This absence of policy could cause confusion, delay and greater loss of security in the event of such an attack. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.4: By November 1, 2022, the Lathrop City Council, in conjunction with the City’s IT department, develop, adopt, and implement a formal internal policy and procedure for a ransomware attack.

Agency Response: The City of Lathrop has an unwritten, internal procedure to address ransomware attacks and, in addition to such, has hired a consultant whom will assist the City in development and implementation of a formal written policy for procedures to address ransomware attacks. The City of Lathrop City Council agrees with Grand Jury Finding F3.4 and Recommendation R3.4 and anticipates documentation will be complete by January 2023.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F3.5: The City of Lathrop does not have an insurance policy covering financial losses from a cyberattack, possibly exposing City financial resources. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R3.5: By January 1, 2023, the Lathrop City Council, in conjunction with the City’s IT department, obtain an insurance policy to mitigate fiscal impact resulting from cyberattack or other critical information system loss.

ATTACHMENT A
409

204
Agency Response: The City of Lathrop City Council partially agrees with Grand Jury Finding F3.5 and Recommendation R3.5 and would like to further clarify that staff confirmed that the city of Lathrop does in fact have cybersecurity insurance coverage, and is currently in discussions with Risk Management to enhance said coverage.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

4.0 City of Lodi
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F4.1: The City of Lodi does not have an approved Business Continuity Plan, rendering the City relatively unprepared to restore essential services in a disruptive event.

Agency Response: Lodi agrees with this finding. However, Lodi was already on track to complete a BCP before this investigation began and will have one in place by the end of June 2023.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F4.2: The City of Lodi has implemented an excellent cyber awareness training program for all employees minimizing risk to damage from cyberattack.

Agency Response: Lodi agrees with this finding.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R4.1: By January 1, 2023, the Lodi City Council, in conjunction with the City’s IT division, develop, adopt and implement a Business Continuity Plan.

Agency Response: Lodi will adopt a Business Continuity plan by the recommended date.

The City of Lodi agrees to comply by July 1, 2023.

5.0 City of Manteca
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F5.1: The City of Manteca has an Information Technology Security Policy which has not been updated since 2010, leaving the City relatively unprepared for a cyber event.

Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding in part; while the City’s policy has not been updated since 2010, the City has undertaken other security measures and trainings to stave off a cyber-event.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F5.2: The City of Manteca lacks a policy and procedure for ransomware attacks. This absence of policy could cause confusion, delay, and greater loss of security in the event of such an attack.

Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding in part; though the City does not have a formal policy, IT staff is trained and capable to deal with a cyber-event. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F5.3: The City of Manteca has a significant number of security devices with single power supplies. This lack of redundant power presents vulnerability in major or prolonged power outages.

ATTACHMENT A
410

205
Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.1: By January 1, 2023, the Manteca City Council, in conjunction with the City’s ISD, develop, approve, and implement an updated Information Technology Security Policy.

Agency Response: This recommendation will be completed by January 1, 2023. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F5.1: The City of Manteca has an information technology security policy that has not been updated since 2010, leaving the City relatively unprepared for a cyber event.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury’s request for confirmation of action taken has not been answered.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury Recommendation 1.0: By October 1, 2023, the Manteca City Council, in conjunction with the City’s ISD, develop, approve, and implement an updated Information Technology Security Policy and forward the approved policy to the 2023-2024 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.2: By January 1, 2023, the Manteca City Council, in conjunction with the City’s ISD, develop, approve, and implement a confidential policy and procedure for response to a ransomware attack.

Agency Response: The City will implement this recommendation on or before March 1, 2023.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F5.2: The City of Manteca lacks a policy and procedure for ransomware attacks. This absence of policy could cause confusion, delay, and greater loss of security in the event of such an attack.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury’s request for confirmation of action taken has not been answered.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.1: By October 1, 2023, the Manteca City Council, in conjunction with the City’s ISD, develop, approve, and implement a confidential policy and procedure for responding to a ransomware attack and forward the approved policy to the 2023-2024 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R5.3: By March 1, 2023, the Manteca City Council, in conjunction with the City’s ISD, develop, approve and adopt an updated timeline to replace single- powered units with dual-powered or redundant-powered units in their network architecture.

Agency Response: All critical network architecture have been updated with redundant- powered units.

ATTACHMENT A
411

206
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F5.3: The City of Manteca has a significant number of security devices with single power supplies. This lack of redundant power presents vulnerability in major or prolonged power outages.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury’s request for confirmation of action taken has not been answered.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury Recommendation R1.2: By October 1, 2023, the Manteca City Council, in conjunction with the City’s ISD, to provide confirmation of the completion of the replacement of single-powered units with dual-powered or redundant-powered units in their network architecture and forward the confirmation to the 2023-2024 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury.

6.0 City of Ripon
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F6.1: It is unclear in the City of Ripon’s Organization Chart where responsibilities for IT and IT security lie, creating confusion over who is responsible to act in a disruptive event.

Agency Response: The City of Ripon respectfully disagrees with this finding for the reasons set forth below.

The IT Department is organized into Information Technology Technician level I and II, with the tier II technician reporting directly to the Lieutenant of the Ripon Police Department.

The Police Department’s organizational chart (sic) depicts the relationship between the two IT positions and the Lieutenant. In a disruptive event it is clear that the technicians within the IT Department, as well as all identified vendors and contractors, respond to, preserve and reinstate functions as the City of Ripon, under the supervision of the Lieutenant.

At this time, both Information Technology Technician positions are filled and both employees have been fully briefed as to the organizational structure. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F6.2 The City of Ripon has a rudimentary network diagram outlining the City’s router and firewall relationship with networks used, but the diagram lacks detail, leaving uncertainty about data security.

Agency Response: The City of Ripon respectfully disagrees with the finding. The City of Ripon has contracted with Waypoint Network Solutions for the last 15 years to assist in creating very detailed diagrams of network structure including documentation on router and firewall settings. Both of the City’s Information Technology technicians understand these diagrams and work with Waypoint Network Solutions as updates are periodically needed when improvements are made to increase the security of the City’s network. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F6.3: Although the City of Ripon met expectations in the areas of data confidentiality and security, lack of IT staff and leadership leaves these areas vulnerable to cyberattack.

Agency Response: The City of Ripon has addressed this Finding as to staffing following the information-gathering phase of the Report. The City of Ripon has created a second full time

ATTACHMENT A
412

207
position as part of the Fiscal year 2022-2023 budget. The City has filled both full-time positions since the completion of the information-gathering phase.

The City of Ripon respectfully disagrees with the finding regarding lack of leadership. The IT team leader reports directly to the Lieutenant of the Ripon Police Department for status updates and administrative decisions.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F6.4: The City of Ripon lacks a Business Continuity Plan, rendering the City relatively unprepared to restore essential services in a disruptive event.

Agency Response: The City of Ripon has addressed this finding following the information- gathering phase of this Report. The City of Ripon has drafted a formal plan for business continuity as part of the City’s Network Security Plan (sic) that was approved by the City Council on December 13, 2022.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F6.5: The City of Ripon does not have a Disaster Preparedness Plan, leaving the City at risk for significant delay and cost to restore IT systems in the event of a disaster.

Agency Response: The City of Ripon has addressed this finding following the information- gathering phase of this Report. Many of the disaster response measures were already in place prior to the information-gathering phase. To avoid the confusion of utilizing multiple plans in the event of a ransomware attack, the City of Ripon has drafted the elements of the of the disaster preparedness plan as part of the City’s Network Security Plan. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F6.6: The City of Ripon does not have a formal policy or procedure to address ransomware attacks. This absence of policy could cause confusion, delay and greater loss of security in the event of an attack.

Agency Response: The City of Ripon has addressed this finding following the information- gathering phase of this Report. Many of the measures to address a ransomware attack were already in place prior to the information-gathering phase. To avoid the confusion of utilizing multiple plans in the event of a ransomware attack, the City of Ripon has incorporated the elements of the ransomware attack response as part of the Network Security Plan.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R6.1: By January 1, 2023, the Ripon City Council develop and make public an updated City Organizational chart showing details of the City’s IT functions, including all IT positions.

Agency Response: The City of Ripon has updated its organizational chart to show the changes made to our current staff positions (sic).

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R6.2: By January 1, 2023, the Ripon City Council develop and adopt a detailed Network Diagram to decrease security vulnerabilities.

Agency Response: The City of Ripon already has developed and adopted highly detailed networks diagrams that are kept confidential and secure internally. The City of Ripon

ATTACHMENT A
413

208
recognizes the importance of maintaining network documentation and will continually maintain its network documentation consistent with the Grand Jury’s recommendation.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R6.3: By January 1, 2023, the Ripon City Council obtain a third-party security review of the City’s IT department assets, positions, and policies and an evaluation of data confidentiality, security systems and protocols.

Agency Response: The City of Ripon has obtained the third-party firm “Resolute Guard” to perform an independent review of the City’s IT department assets, which has been completed. The City of Ripon’s IT department has incorporated the recommendations of this third-party review into the operations of the IT department, consistent with the Grand Jury’s findings.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R6.4: By January 1, 2023, the Ripon City Council develop, adopt and implement a formal Business Continuity Plan.

Agency Response: The City of Ripon has conducted an internal review of its network and developed the elements of the business continuity plan as part of the City’s Network Security Plan that is accessible to the IT department and relevant Response Team Members. This plan was adopted by the City Council on December 13, 2022 and will be continually reviewed and updated to stay current and effective with evolving technologies.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R6.5: By January 1, 2023, the Ripon City Council develop, adopt and implement a formal Disaster Preparedness Plan for IT functions.

Agency Response: The City of Ripon has conducted an internal review of its network and incorporated the elements of the Disaster Preparedness Plan as part of the City’s Network Security Plan previously described.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R6.6: By January 1, 2023, the Ripon City Council develop, adopt, and implement a formal internal policy and procedure for response to a ransomware attack.

Agency Response: The City of Ripon has conducted an internal review of its network and incorporated the elements of responding to a ransomware attack as part of the City’s Network Security Plan previously described.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

ATTACHMENT A
414

209

7.0 City of Stockton
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F7.1: The City of Stockton does not have a formal internal policy concerning payments or procedures in ransomware attacks. This absence of policy could cause confusion, delay, and greater loss of security in the event of an attack.

Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F7.2: The City of Stockton has a large IT Department which places cybersecurity and disaster preparedness at a high priority, minimizing risk to the City’s information and service systems.

Agency Response: The City agrees with this finding.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R7.1: By November 1, 2022, the Stockton City Council, in conjunction with the City’s IT department, develop, adopt, and implement a formal internal policy and procedure for response to a ransomware attack.

Agency Response: A formal internal policy and procedure for response to a ransomware attack was approved by the City Manager on September 1, 2022, and presented to the City Council at its September 13, 2022 public meeting (sic).

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

8.0 City of Tracy
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F8.1: Lacking a requirement for encryption of thumb drives used on City devices exposes the City of Tracy to potential data theft and contamination. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R8.1: By November 1, 2022, the Tracy City Council, in conjunction with the IT division, develop, adopt, and implement a policy requiring encryption of thumb drives used on City devices.

Agency Response: IT has developed a draft policy to require encrypted thumb drives which will be routed through HR for official adoption. For the implementation of administrative policies such as the one for the encryption of thumb drives, the City of Tracy's procedures require that these draft policies be routed to the various bargaining units for approval. The draft IT policy is currently being circulated to these units and should be ready for adoption shortly. While we strive to remove technological barriers that encourage removable storage use, we recognize special situations exist that require it. Once the new policy is rolled out all thumb drives used for City data or on City-owned devices will be required by the policy to be encrypted.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F8.2: The City of Tracy lacks a completed Business Continuity Plan, rendering Tracy relatively unprepared to restore essential services in a disruptive event.

ATTACHMENT A
415

210
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R8.2: By January 1, 2023, the Tracy City Council, in conjunction with the IT division, develop, adopt and implement a formal Business Continuity Plan.

Agency Response: Human Resources coordinated with a consultant and management from each department to draft a Business Continuity Plan to be finalized as an Annex to the City of Tracy Emergency Management Plan. The South San Joaquin County Fire Authority has contracted services to prepare the draft Emergency Management Plan which is anticipated to be finalized in the fall of 2022. The IT Manager had several meetings with the consultant to summarize the business continuity plan for the information technology needs of the organization. The IT department is aware of the lack of an IT-specific Disaster Recovery/ Business continuity plan as it relates to a Cyber incident. The IT department will be crafting an RFP to include a disaster preparedness plan and necessary infrastructure additions as well as IT-specific Business Continuity. In addition, we plan to add a dedicated information security position this fiscal year in line with the Grand Jury recommendation. It is generally recognized practice for the Security Officer in an organization to maintain a Disaster Preparedness and Business Continuity Plan. Due to the nature of this policy adoption, as part of the Tracy Emergency Management Plan, City Council approval is required. The City is striving to adopt this Business Continuity Plan by the first quarter of 2023.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommendation R8.3: By January 1, 2023, the Tracy City Council provide the Grand Jury with an updated formal Disaster Preparedness Plan.

Agency Response: We view the business continuity, and the disaster preparedness plans as two sides of the same coin that work hand in hand and should be addressed holistically. Any large- sc
ale Cyber business continuity event should be treated in a similar way as a disaster. Most equipment will be unavailable for extended periods of time due to the necessary forensics. We plan on addressing this in conjunction with the IT-specific business continuity plan as outlined in the response to Finding 8.2. Due to the nature of this policy, as an annexation to the City of Tracy Emergency Management Plan, City Council approval is required. The City is striving to adopt the Disaster Preparedness Plan by the first quarter of 2023.

The
2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

ATTACHMENT A
416

211
Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929).

The City of Lodi and the City of Manteca shall respond to all the findings and recommendations specific to their city.

Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to:

ATTACHMENT A
417

212

ATTACHMENT A
418

213
Follow-up Report to the
2021-2022 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury

: Honoring the Past, Securing the Future (2018-2019 Case No.8)

Lathrop-Manteca Fire District:

A Work in Progress: From Turmoil to Healing
Case #0721
Preface
This report contains the responses to the 2021-2022 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report regarding the Lathrop-Manteca Fire District (LMFD). This follow-up report focuses on the 2021- 2022 Grand Jury findings and recommendations and the LMFD Board of Directors (BOD) responses, which are presented verbatim in this report.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury follow-up determinations are presented after the agency’s responses to each recommendation.

Discussions, findings, recommendations, and conclusions from the 2022-2023 Grand Jury are in text boxes framed in black.

Complete copies of the original report and the agency’s responses may be found on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury website at: https://www.sjcourts.org/grandjury/.

Summary
The Lathrop Manteca Fire District Board of Directors responded to the 2021-2022 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury and while wholly or partially disagreeing with many findings, LMFD has either implemented, partially implemented, or planned to implement most of the Grand Jury’s recommendations.

ATTACHMENT A
419

214
Method of Follow-Up Investigation
The current Grand Jury reviewed the 2021-2022 report #0721, Lathrop-Manteca Fire District: A Work in Progress: From Turmoil to Healing. The Grand Jury conducted an interview with a representative from the LMFD Board of Directors and the mandatory responses to the findings and recommendations were reviewed to determine:
• if the agency’s responses were complete and comprehensible; • if the agency would implement the recommenda�ons within the stated deadlines; and • if conﬁrma�on was necessary, it could include writen documenta�on, interviews, or site inspec�ons.

Glossary
• AB1234 Ethics Training: Assembly bill for ethics training required for all elected government oﬃcials. Training includes promo�ng public trust, respect, fairness, and responsibility. • BOD: Board of Directors.
• Brown Act: The Ralph M. Brown Act “requires local government business to be conducted at open and public mee�ngs, except in certain limited situa�ons. The Brown Act is based upon state policy that the people must be informed so they can keep control over their government.” California Government Code beginning at Sec�on 54950.
• Cal Card: Referred to as District Credit Card, one of the State of California's commercial card services programs available to State and publicly funded local agencies. • Cal-JAC: The California Fireﬁghters Joint Appren�ceship Commitee is a standards-based appren�ceship program.
• California Public Records Act: Provides the public access to public records in the State of California.
• FLSA: The Fair Labor Standards Act establishes minimum wage, over�me pay, recordkeeping and employment standards aﬀec�ng employees in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments. “Covered nonexempt employees must receive over�me pay for hours worked over 40 per workweek (any ﬁxed and regularly recurring period of 168 hours – seven consecu�ve 24-hour periods) at a rate not less than one and one-half �mes the regular rate of pay. There is no limit on the number of hours employees 16 years or older may work in any workweek. The FLSA does not require over�me pay for work on weekends, holidays, or regular days of rest, unless over�me is worked on such days.” And “Hours worked ordinarily include all the �me during which an employee is required to be on the employer’s premises, on duty, or at a prescribed workplace.”
• LMFD: Lathrop-Manteca Fire District.
• MOU: Memorandum of Understanding. A type of agreement between two or more par�es. • Merit Increase: Financial reward for good performance. • NDA: Non-Disclosure Agreement. A legally binding contract that establishes a conﬁden�al rela�onship.
• Step Increase: This is a periodic increase in an employee's rate of basic pay from one step of the grade of his or her posi�on to the next higher step of that grade.

ATTACHMENT A
420

215
Summary of Responses and Grand Jury Conclusions
Respondent 2021-2022
Rec #
Response 2022-2023 Grand Jury Conclusion
Rec # Due Date Conclusion
LMFD BOD R1.1 Will not be
implemented
R1.1 October 2022 The Board made key
modiﬁca�ons to
Ordinance No. 1.

No further ac�on
LMFD BOD R1.2 Implemented R1.2 October 2022 No further ac�on LMFD BOD R1.3 Implemented R1.3 October 2022 No further ac�on LMFD BOD R1.4 Will be
implemented
R1.4 November 2022 District Policy 0.19
amended and
approved.

No further ac�on
LMFD BOD R1.5 Will be
implemented
R1.5 November 2022 District Policy 0.14
amended and
approved.

No further ac�on
LMFD BOD R1.6 Implemented R1.6 October 2022 A Cal-JAC Commitee was established.

No further ac�on
LMFD BOD R1.7 Will not be
implemented
R1.7 November 2022 No further ac�on
LMFD BOD R1.2.1 Implemented R1.2.1 October 2022 No further ac�on LMFD BOD R1.2.2 Will not be
Implemented
R1.2.2 October 2022 The Board policy
ensures compliance.

No further ac�on
LMFD BOD R2.1 Will be
implemented
R2.1 December 2022 District Policy 7.03
developed and
approved.

No further ac�on
LMFD BOD R2.2 Not yet
implemented
R2.2 January 2023 No further ac�on

ATTACHMENT A
421

216
Respondent 2021-2022
Rec #
Response 2022-2023 Grand Jury Conclusion
Rec # Due Date Conclusion
LMFD BOD R2.3 Implemented R2.3 October 2022 No further action LMFD BOD R2.4 Implemented R2.4 October 2022 No further action LMFD BOD R2.5 Will be
Implemented
R2.5 January 2023 District Policy 1.12
developed and
approved.

No further action
Findings, Recommendations, Agency Responses, and Grand Jury Results

2.0 Financial Matters and Board Training

1.1 Financial Matters
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.1: Ordinance 1 and District rules and regula�ons enable the Fire Chief to control most ﬁnancial opera�ons of the District with limited or no Board oversight, thus providing an opportunity for ﬁnancial malfeasance.

Agency Response: The District disagrees wholly with this ﬁnding. The District's Board adopts a budget each year in accordance with California law. The District's budget establishes expenditure limits for concerns identiﬁed in the budget. The District's Policy 0.35 further establishes purchasing procedures required for District procurements. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.2: Ordinance 1 and current policies allow the Fire Chief, as Chief Execu�ve Oﬃcer, to alter or disregard District policies without approval by the Board, causing confusion and discord within the District.

Agency Response: The District Board disagrees wholly with this ﬁnding. Ordinance 1 provides that the Chief shall be held accountable to the Directors only, and shall make written and verbal reports thereto as the Directors may require. The District maintains current District Board adopted policies to manage the aﬀairs of the District, which the Fire Chief administers and enforces.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.3: The Board of Directors failed to enforce the District’s Credit Card Policy providing an opportunity for ﬁnancial malfeasance.

ATTACHMENT A
422

217
Agency Response: The District Board disagrees wholly with this ﬁnding. The District's Fire Chief enforces the District's Policies as part of the Fire Chief's duty to enforce the District's comprehensive set of rules and regulations concerning discipline, training, and operation of the Fire Department.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.4: Requiring non-exempt administra�ve employees to atend a retreat that created over�me hours without compensa�on was in viola�on of the current Memorandum of Understanding and the Fair Labor Standards Act, opening the District to poten�al liability.

Agency Response: The District Board disagrees wholly with this ﬁnding. The District cannot agree with a legal conclusion based on the cursory information provided by the Grand Jury. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.5: Funds generated for the use of the District through the Cal-JAC program were allocated to purchases, services and events, uses that were not in compliance with District’s purchasing and credit card policies. These expenditures could be construed as misuse of funds.

Agency Response: The District Board disagrees partially with this ﬁnding. The funds generated for use of the District through the Cal-JAC program were applied toward certain allowable items and activities and not expressly prohibited according to Cal-JAC policy, however the use of District credit card(s) to purchase alcoholic beverages were in direct violation with the District's purchasing and credit card policies (Policy 0.15 District Credit Card Policy).
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.6: Beginning in 2019 the District’s ﬁreworks booth was operated by the 501(c)(3) nonproﬁt Behind the Fire LMFD, overseen by a member of the Chief’s family. This occurred with no oversight by the Board, who held the license for the booth, a situa�on that could expose the District and its Board to allega�ons of misconduct and malfeasance.

Agency Response: The District Board partially disagrees with this ﬁnding. While it is true that the ﬁreworks booth was operated by a 501(c)(3) nonproﬁt group, there is no information presented indicating misconduct or malfeasance. Therefore, the District cannot agree with the Grand Jury's ﬁnding regarding possible exposure to allegations of misconduct or malfeasance, as doing so would
be pure speculation.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.1: By November 1, 2022, the Board of Directors replace Ordinance 1 in its en�rety by developing, adop�ng and implemen�ng policies and procedures that clearly deﬁne the authority, and limita�ons thereon, of the Fire Chief and provide greater Board oversight of the opera�ons of the District.

Agency Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because Ordinance No. 1 includes additional provisions governing various aspects of the Fire District. Although Ordinance No. 1 was not "replaced in its entirety", revisions and amendments to the

ATTACHMENT A
423

218
ordinance have been implemented to provide greater Board oversight of the operations of the District.

On June 16, 2022, the Lathrop-Manteca Board of Directors introduced the ﬁrst reading of the amended Ordinance No. 1 for the Organization and Rules for the Manteca- Lathrop Rural County Fire Protection District. This amendment incorporated new language to ensure the Fire Chief is administering ﬁnancial operations of the District in accordance with the adopted budget. Those changes include the following:

Section 1. Oﬃcers, Article 1 - "The Fire District shall consist of a Fire Chief and as many other personnel as may be necessary for the eﬀective operation of the department as determined by the Fire Chief and authorized by the Fire Board as part of the District's annual budgeting process.”
Section 2. Duties of the Chief, Article 2. "The Fire Chief shall be responsible for developing a comprehensive annual budget and provide said budget to the Board for review and adoption in compliance with local, State, and Federal Laws, as well as District policy.”
Section 3. Membership, Article 1 - "The Personnel of the District shall consist of such persons as may be identiﬁed and appointed by the Chief. Personnel shall be approved by the Directors based on adoption of the District’s annual budget and amendments in compliance with State and Local Laws.”
The amended Ordinance No. 1 was posted in the Manteca Bulletin on July 16, 2022, and the second reading was conducted at the Regular Meeting of the Fire Board on July 21, 2022. The Board of Directors passed and adopted the amended Ordinance No. 1 on July 21, 2022. The amended Ordinance No. 1 became eﬀective 30-days later on August 20, 2022.

To provide additional Board oversight of District ﬁnancial matters, at their February 17, 2022 regular meeting, the Board established a standing “Finance Committee” and appointed two Board members to work directly with the Fire Chief. This standing committee operates under established bylaws, and keeps agendas and minutes of meeting content/discussion.

While Ordinance No. 1 was not replaced in its entirety, several key components of the ordinance were rewritten, and the Board established a standing Finance Committee that meets regularly to review District financial matters.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.2: By November 1, 2022, the Board of Directors develop, adopt and implement a policy to require Board approval for any altera�ons or devia�ons from established policies and procedures.

Agency Response: This recommendation was implemented through the approval of Policy

0.01 - Policy Manual at the regular meeting of the Board on February 17, 2022.

ATTACHMENT A
424

219
Section 0.01.7 Revisions to Policies states:
“Policy manual revisions. The Fire Chief shall have the authority to create, edit, or delete any policy regarding Emergency Operations, Training, Equipment and Technology, Fire Prevention, Safety, Personnel, Facilities, or other areas within the Scope of the Fire Chief's purview. The Fire Board will be notiﬁed of any changes to policies at the next scheduled regular board meeting.

Any policy or procedure aﬀecting the Fire Board, organization of the District, Finances, Inter-Governmental relationships, or other areas within the scope of the Fire Board's purview shall be reviewed and adopted by the Fire Board at their discretion.” The Board approved Policy 0.01 requiring Board approval for any alterations or deviations from established policies or procedures.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.3: By November 1, 2022, The Board of Directors develop, adopt and implement a policy and procedure for ﬁnancial oversight by the Board that includes a system of checks and balances.

Agency Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The Board addressed this recommendation at their February 17, 2022 board meeting. To provide additional Board oversight of District ﬁnancial matters, at their February 17, 2022 regular meeting, the Board established a standing “Finance Committee” and appointed two Board members to work directly with the Fire Chief. This standing committee operates under established bylaws, and keeps agendas and minutes of meeting content/discussion.

To further address ﬁnancial oversight, at the regular board meeting held April 21, 2022, the Board adopted the following ﬁnancial policies:

1. Policy 0.22 Finance Committee Bylaws

2. Policy 0.23 Financial Oversight and the Finance Committee

3. Policy 0.24 Preliminary Budget Approval Policy
The Board provided additional oversight with three policies addressing financial oversight in 2022.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.4: By November 1, 2022, the Board of Directors develop, adopt and implement updated travel and educa�on policies compliant with the District Memorandum of Understanding for Execu�ve Staﬀ and Fair Labor Standards Act.

Agency Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. A draft Travel Policy has been written and reviewed by the new Fire Chief. The policy is scheduled to be brought before the Board of Directors for approval at their regular meeting on October 21, 2022.

ATTACHMENT A
425

220
The Board discussed and approved their amended District Travel and Reimbursement Policy 0.19 at the Board meeting of November 17, 2022.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.5: By November 1, 2022, the Board of Directors develop, adopt and implement a policy with detailed procedures for the use of earned Cal-JAC program funds that is in accordance with the District’s purchasing and credit card policies.

Agency Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. District staﬀ has developed a draft Cal-JAC policy which is scheduled to be brought before the Board of Directors for approval at their regular meeting on October 21, 2022. Staﬀ presented a draft of the policy to the Board in November of 2021. Additionally, staﬀ has communicated with Cal-JAC personnel in development of the draft policy and is already operating under the intent of the draft policy.

The District amended their Purchasing Policy and Procedures for the California Joint Apprenticeship Committee (Cal-JAC), Policy 0.14, and the Board approved the policy on November 17, 2022.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.6: By November 1, 2022, the Board of Directors appoint a commitee of no less than three to pre-approve Cal-JAC expenditures.

Agency Response: This recommendation has yet to be implemented. The draft Cal-JAC policy scheduled for approval by the Board at their regular meeting in October 2022, includes provisions for the District's Cal-JAC committee to approve of Cal-JAC expenditures. In advance of the pending approval of the policy, the committee is already operating comprised of 8 total members (4 members of the District's management team, and 4 members of the ﬁreﬁghter's labor organization).

The LMFD established a Cal-JAC committee that meets regularly.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.7: By January 1, 2023, the Board of Directors develop, adopt and implement a policy and procedure for the opera�on of the ﬁreworks booth raﬄe and for the opera�on of the District booth.

Agency Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The provisions regulating the sale of safe and sane ﬁreworks are explicitly detailed in section 8.13.090 “Safe and sane ﬁreworks - Prerequisite for issuance of permit” of the City of Lathrop Municipal Code.

ATTACHMENT A
426

221
The nonproﬁt “Behind the Fire LMFD” and the former Fire Chief in question are no longer associated directly with the Lathrop-Manteca Fire District. A review of the charity research tool on the State of California Department of Justice website shows the entity is “not registered” with a letter dated December 23, 2019 recommending the revocation of the organization's tax exempt status. Further, a recent search of the California Secretary of State website lists the entity as “Suspended”.

According to the City of Lathrop Municipal Code 8.13.090(b) both the City of Lathrop and the Lathrop-Manteca Fire District have the right to receive a permit annually to sell safe and sane ﬁreworks. In 2022, the District allocated its permit to the non-proﬁt lottery system in accordance with the provisions of the municipal code.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

1.2 Board Training
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F1.2.1: Board members’ AB1234 Ethics Training Cer�ﬁcates posted are expired or missing, indica�ng that some Board members may not be in full compliance with AB1234 regula�ons.

Agency Response: The District Board disagrees partially with this ﬁnding. The Board agrees that at the time of review, there were Board members with expired or missing AB1234 Ethics Training Certiﬁcates posted on the District's website. Although the certiﬁcates posted on the website indicated they were expired and/or missing, the District had current records indicating that all Board Members were in full compliance with AB1234 regulations. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.2.1: By November 1, 2022, the Board of Directors complete required AB1234 training and make the Ethics Training Cer�ﬁcates available upon request per the California Public Records Act.

Agency Response: This recommendation has been implemented. All current Board Members have completed the required AB1234 Ethics Training. Not only has the District made the training certiﬁcates available upon a California Public Records Act request, but the certiﬁcates are posted prominently on the District's oﬃcial website. at the following link Fire Board of Directors I Lathrop Manteca Fire District (lmﬁre.org).

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R1.2.2: By January 1, 2023, the Board of Directors develop, adopt and implement a policy requiring all incoming elected, or appointed, Board members complete AB1234 training within 60 days of taking oﬃce.

Agency Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Board has been compliant and remains in compliance with the requirements of AB1234 Ethics Training. Newly elected or appointed Board members typically take the

ATTACHMENT A
427

222
training within the ﬁrst 30 days of taking oﬃce. Further, the Board adopted by-laws that include an identiﬁed Code of Ethics.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

3.0 Harassment and Intimidation: Board Oversight
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F2.1: The Board of Directors was not aware of issues that District employees had with the Chief. Ordinance 1 general conduct rule blocked employee accessibility to the Board. This situa�on contributed to a hos�le work environment.

Agency Response: The District Board disagrees partially with this ﬁnding. The Board acknowledges that it was not made aware of various concerns involving the former Fire Chief. The District's Rules and Regulations do in fact prohibit (provision has since been omitted) individual employees from contacting Board Members directly with two exceptions:
1) as an authorized representative of the employee group, or 2) as a resident of the Fire District.

The existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the District and the Lathrop - Manteca Fireﬁghters Association, International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 4317, did include and presently includes a formalized grievance procedure which includes provisions for complaints, and subsequent disciplinary appeal or arbitration consistent with state labor laws. The MOU for the Members of the Executive Staﬀ, do not currently include such provisions.
2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F2.2: The District does not have a formal employee sa�sfac�on survey or engagement process to allow employees to share work environment concerns with the Board and Management. The District is unable to implement warranted improvements for issues and concerns if they are not brought to light by employees.

Agency Response: The District disagrees wholly with this ﬁnding. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F2.3: Requiring non-exempt administra�ve employees to atend a retreat that created over�me hours without compensa�on was in viola�on of the current Memorandum of Understanding and the Fair Labor Standards Act. This ac�on could expose the District to poten�al liability including ﬁnancial penal�es.

Agency Response: The District Board disagrees wholly with this ﬁnding. The District cannot agree with a legal conclusion based on the cursory information provided by the Grand Jury. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F2.4: Allega�ons were made that merit or step pay increases were withheld pending the signing of a non-disclosure agreement which violates the District’s Memorandum of Understanding for Execu�ve Staﬀ. If proven to be true, and not corrected, the District could be subject to legal ac�on brought by aﬀected employees.

ATTACHMENT A
428

223
Agency Response: The District Board wholly disagrees with this ﬁnding. The District cannot agree with a legal conclusion based on the cursory information provided by the Grand Jury. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F2.5: Pending li�ga�on ﬁled against the Fire District by employees for harassment and in�mida�on could expose the District to expenses for ﬁnancial setlements and legal fees.

Agency Response: The District Board disagrees partially with this ﬁnding. The District cannot speculate as to exposure for ﬁnancial settlements while litigation is pending. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Finding F2.6: The District does not have a nepo�sm and cronyism policy that prohibits the direct supervision of family members and/or individuals with whom the supervising manager has a roman�c or other close personal, ﬁnancial, business or poli�cal rela�onship. Not having a clear policy for nepo�sm and cronyism has created discord within the District.

Agency Response: The District Board agrees with this ﬁnding. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R2.1: By December 1, 2022, the Board of Directors develop, adopt and implement a formal employee complaint policy with procedures for ﬁling complaints, repor�ng back to complainants, ﬁling appeals and providing accessibility to the Board while adhering to all laws and rules regarding conﬁden�ality.

Agency Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. More time is necessary to develop and implement a formal employee complaint policy. The Board will work with staﬀ to develop a policy and will strive to present to the Board for approval in November 2022.

In an eﬀort to increase communication between employees and the Board, the Board has established (2) two-person ad hoc committees (one committee each for the two employee groups) to maintain regular dialogue with employees. In the absence of the recommended complaint policy, the ability to use the grievance process for L4317 remains. Executive staﬀ can bring complaints to the Board's ad hoc committee.

The District developed Policy 7.03 - Unlawful Harassment and Complaint Procedure and the Board approved the policy on November 17, 2022.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R2.2: By January 1, 2023, the Board of Directors develop, adopt and implement an annual employee sa�sfac�on survey and employee engagement process to review survey results to ensure that new management and updated policies are providing a posi�ve eﬀect on the District’s work environment.

Agency Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Fire Chief, in cooperation with District staﬀ, will discuss the feasibility and eﬃcacy of implementing an

ATTACHMENT A
429

224
annual survey with the Board. If it is determined a survey is value added, it will be implemented by January 1, 2023.

The District has taken steps to engage employees and ensure employee satisfaction through the establishment and approval of the amended complaint policy and with regularly scheduled meetings between new management and employees.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R2.3: By November 1, 2022, the Board of Directors complete an inves�ga�on into the allega�ons that non-exempt employees did not receive mileage payments and were not paid for over�me hours while atending the Napa retreat and, if the allega�ons are found to be true, take correc�ve ac�on to ensure payments are made to the aﬀected employees within 30 days therea�er.

Agency Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future within a reasonable timeframe.

The Board investigation was not conclusive, nevertheless the District did pay overtime and reimbursement for mileage for affected employees.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R2.4: By November 1, 2022, the Board of Directors complete an inves�ga�on into allega�ons that merit and/or step increase payments were withheld from employees pending the signing of a non-disclosure agreement and, if the allega�ons are found to be true, take correc�ve ac�on to ensure payments, including applicable retroac�ve pay, are made within 30 days therea�er.

Agency Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future within a reasonable timeframe.

The Board investigation was not conclusive, nevertheless affected employees were paid their earned merit and/or step increases.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action. 2021-2022 Grand Jury Recommenda�on R2.5: By December 1, 2022, the Board of Directors develop, adopt and implement an updated policy addressing nepo�sm and cronyism in the District.

Agency Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented. The District has existing policy 1.05 - “Personal Relationships in the Workplace” which does not explicitly prohibit direct supervision of family members and/or individuals with whom the supervisors have romantic, personal, ﬁnancial, business or political relationship. In short, the existing policy only states that the District will monitor situations and take “prompt action” when

ATTACHMENT A
430

225
problematic. This policy will be updated and presented to the Board for approval prior to December 1, 2022.

The District developed Policy 1.12 - Hiring Relatives/Nepotism and the Board approved the policy on December 21, 2022.

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury determined to take no further action.

2022-2023 Grand Jury Conclusion
While the Lathrop-Manteca Fire District (LMFD) wholly or partially disagreed with many of the 2021-2022 Grand Jury findings, the District implemented the recommendations for all but two. Recommendation R1.7 regarding the LMFD Fireworks booth was not implemented because those findings and recommendations were resolved with the dissolution of the Behind the Fire 501(c)(3), and the District’s subsequent adherence to the City of Lathrop fireworks booth policies and procedures. Recommendation R2.2 for developing and administering an employee engagement survey will not be implemented at this time. However, the District addressed employee satisfaction and engagement with several other policies previously noted in this follow-up report.

All other 2021-2022 Grand Jury recommendations were either directly or indirectly implemented with the establishment of District policies that were also approved by the Board and being implemented by District Management.

Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929).

ATTACHMENT A
431

226

ATTACHMENT A
432
227

SECTION 5:

PRESENTATIONS AND
TOURS
Presenta�ons................................................. Page 229

Tours .............................................................. Page 230

ATTACHMENT A
433
228

ATTACHMENT A
434
229

The 2022-2023 Grand Jury atended the following presenta�ons and toured the following facili�es:

Presenta�ons
San Joaquin County Departments, Divisions, Agencies, and Commissions:

Behavioral Health Services
District Atorney’s Oﬃce
Health Care Services Agency
Human Services Agency-Children’s Services
Informa�on Systems Division
Local Agency Forma�on Commission
Port of Stockton
Proba�on Department
Registrar of Voters
Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce

City Departments and Agencies:

Escalon Police Department
Lathrop Police Department
Lodi Police Department
Manteca Police Department
Ripon Police Department
San Joaquin County Delta College District Police Department Stockton Police Department
Stockton Uniﬁed School District Department of Safety
Tracy Police Department
University of the Paciﬁc Police Department

Other Presenta�ons:

California Associa�on of Local Agency Forma�on Commissions

ATTACHMENT A
435
230

Tours and Patrol Observa�ons
Tours:

Banta Elementary School
California Health Care Facility
Children’s Home of Stockton
City of Lodi Jail
Hazelton Elementary School
Lodi High School
Mary Graham Children’s Home
Mountain House High School
New Hope Elementary School
New Jerusalem Elementary School
Oak View Elementary School
one.Charter Academy of Visual and Performing Arts
Port of Stockton
Ripon High School
San Joaquin County Jail
San Joaquin County Juvenile Deten�on Facility
Tom Hawkins Elementary School
Tully C. Knoles School
Veritas Elementary School
Vista High School
Waterloo Middle School
Williams Middle School

ATTACHMENT A
436
231

Patrol Observa�ons:

Escalon Police Department
Lathrop Police Department
Lodi Police Department
Manteca Police Department
Ripon Police Department
San Joaquin County Delta College District Police Department San Joaquin County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce
Stockton Police Department
Tracy Police Department
University of the Paciﬁc Police Department

ATTACHMENT A
437
232

ATTACHMENT A
438
233

SECTION 6:

GRAND JURY PROCESS
About the Grand Jury .................................... Page 235

How the Grand Jury is Organized .................. Page 235

Desirable Atributes of a Grand Juror ............ Page 236

Beneﬁts of Being a Grand Juror ..................... Page 236

Qualiﬁca�ons................................................. Page 236

Ci�zen Complaints ......................................... Page 237

To Learn More ............................................... Page 237

ATTACHMENT A
439
234

ATTACHMENT A
440
235

About the Grand Jury
The San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury’s duty is to address citizens’ concerns regarding the operation of local government entities.

The Civil Grand Jury is comprised of 19 citizens who are empaneled annually for a one-year term. The Grand Jury has a separate and different function than that of a trial jury and does not hear cases in a courtroom. Instead, grand jurors examine and investigate local governmental activities within San Joaquin County.

The responsibilities of the civil Grand Jury encompass the examination of all aspects of County government, including school and special assessment districts, to ensure that the County is being governed lawfully, efficiently and that public monies are being handled appropriately.

The Grand Jury may conduct investigations of public agencies and the administration and affairs of any city within the County.

The Grand Jury is authorized by law to:
• inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the County; • investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of city and County offices, departments, and their functions;
• inquire into the allegations of willful or corrupt misconduct of public officials; • investigate into the activities of all school and special assessment districts within the County; and
• submit a final report of its findings and recommendations to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

How the Grand Jury is Organized
The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court empanels 19 Grand Jurors to serve for one year, fulfilling the duties as outlined under state law. The judge appoints a foreperson who presides over the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury elects other officers and organizes itself. The jurors meet in a weekly general session. Smaller investigative committees meet throughout the week.

In addition, jurors meet with County and city officials, visit County detention facilities, and conduct independent reviews on matters of interest or concern. Each of the working committees report to the full Grand Jury. Conclusions are reached after study and thorough discussion of the issues and they may appear as part of the Grand Jury’s final report.

ATTACHMENT A
441
236

Desirable Attributes of a Grand Juror
Grand Jury service is a volunteer position with modest monthly compensation for meetings and mileage. Members receive a wealth of experience and provide a vital service to their community.
• Good health.
• Open-mindedness.
• Knowledge of and interest in local government and community affairs. • Skill in working productively with others in a group setting where respect and patience are essential.
• Skill and experience in fact-finding, investigative techniques and report writing.

Benefits of Being a Grand Juror
The benefits of being a Grand Juror are many:
• You will enjoy the satisfaction and pride of doing an important job. • There is the experience of being a member of a respected panel. • You will become part of a body of people with the unique authority to see local government workings not available to most County citizens. • As a Grand Juror, you have an opportunity to make a difference for your community.

Qualifications
To be considered for nomination, you must meet the following legal requirements:
• Be a U.S. citizen.
• Be at least 18 years old.
• Be a resident of San Joaquin County for at least one year immediately prior to the beginning of your service.
• Possess intelligence, sound judgment, and good character. • Have sufficient knowledge of the English language to communicate orally and in writing.

You cannot be considered:
• If you are serving as a trial juror in any court in California. • If you have served as a Grand Juror in any California court within the previous year. • If you have been convicted of malfeasance in office or any other high crime. • If you are serving as an elected public officer.

ATTACHMENT A
442
237

Citizen Complaints
The Grand Jury receives complaints regarding all levels of local government. They may include, but are not limited to, allegations of misconduct by public officials or employees and inefficiencies in local government. Any citizen may submit a complaint by completing a complaint form.

Complaints are treated as confidential. This allows a complainant to come forward without intimidation. Generally, the Grand Jury provides to the complainant written acknowledgement of receipt of a complaint. However, with so many possible investigations, it is necessary for the Grand Jury to make hard decisions about what investigations to undertake during their term.

The complaint form should be submitted only after all attempts to correct an issue have been explored.

The Civil Grand Jury complaint form can be found at:
https://www.sjcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/GrandJuryComplaintForm2.pdf Send your completed form to:

San Joaquin County Superior Court
Attn: Irving Jimenez, Judicial Secretary
180 E. Weber Avenue, Suite 1114
Stockton, CA 95202

Forms also can be obtained by visiting or writing to the address above. The Grand Jury does not accept complaints via e-mail.

To Learn More
For more information about the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury, visit:
http://sjcourts.org/general-info/civil-grand-jury.

ATTACHMENT A
443
238

ATTACHMENT A
444

ATTACHMENT A
445

ATTACHMENT B
446

ATTACHMENT B
447
POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS BUILDING
22 East Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202
www.stocktonca.gov
(209) 937-8247
1 | Page
Date
School Superintendents and Safety Officers

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SCHOOL SAFETY TRAINING
Wh
ile reviewing the 2022-2023 Civil G rand Jury report on school safety , recommendations have been made for greater collaboration between the sc hool district and the police department in the development of Comprehensive School Safety Plans and training. The Stockton P olice Department is offering the following resources, training, and recommendations to help accomplish our shared mission of school safety. · Resources: Partnering in the r eview of all law enforcement specific sections in the Comprehensive School Safety Plans (CSSP’s). CSSP’s can be sent to Lieutenant Ryan Taiariol at [email protected] for review. · Tr
aining: With the San Joaquin County Office of Education facilitating, the SPD will conduct 2 -hour Emergency Preparedness Trainings focusing on option- based training (Run, Hide, Fight), identifying Incident Command System roles and empowering staff to make decisions.
· Recommendation: Knox Boxes provide immediate access for first responders to facilities. The Stockton Police Department has reviewed and determined that most Knox boxes at area schools are in locations not accessible to police officers without the assistance of a ladder. The SPD recommends all Knox boxes be placed between 4 – 6 feet off the ground and within 20 feet of the main entrance.

Additionally, the recommended contents of the Knox box should include a master key/electronic key card and a map of the facility to immediately aid first responders in during critical incidents.

ATTACHMENT B
448

POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS BUILDING
22 East Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202
www.stocktonca.gov
(209) 937-8247
2 | Page

School safety has always been and will cont inue to be a top priority for the Stockton Police Department.

// SAMPLE //

STANLEY MCFADDEN

CHIEF OF POLICE

// SAMPLE //

CLIFF HOFFMAN

SERGEANT

SIGNER’S INITIALS IN ALL CAPS: typist’s initials in lowercase

Enclosure(s) if applicable

cc: Mayor and City Council

emc: City Manager
City Attorney

ATTACHMENT B
449
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 23-0894, Version: 1

ADOPT RESOLUTION TO AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT AND

APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE DOWNTOWN EAST-WEST CONNECTION PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to:

1. Award a Professional Services Contract to Siegfried Engineering, Inc. of Stockton, CA, in the amount of $258,500, for design of the Downtown East-West Connection, Project No.

WT22050/ATPL-5008(199).

2. Approve findings pursuant to Stockton Municipal Code section 3.68.070 in support of an exception to the competitive bidding process.

3. Appropriate funds in the amount of $20,000 from the Public Facilities Fee Air Quality Fund Balance to the Downtown East-West Connection, Project No. WT22050/ATPL-5008(199).

It is recommended that the City Manager be authorized to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of this resolution.

Summary
The Downtown East-West Connection, Project No. WT22050/ATPL-5008(199) is funded through the Active Transportation Program (ATP) and is located along Fremont Street, Oak Street, and Park Street between Pershing Avenue and Wilson Way in downtown Stockton (Attachment A - Vicinity Map). The project will upgrade sidewalk corners to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, install speed cushions, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), crosswalks, signal timing improvements, and new signage. The project was included in the 2021-26 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

On July 26, 2023, the City advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) for design of the Downtown East-West Connection, Project No. WT22050/ATPL-5008(199). On August 23, 2023, one firm submitted a proposal for this project. The Selection Committee evaluated the proposal and found Siegfried Engineering, Inc. of Stockton, CA, to be qualified to perform the scope of work.

Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $258,500 to Siegfried Engineering, Inc. for design services. Staff also recommends that Council adopt a resolution approving findings and appropriation of funds for the project. It is anticipated that the design will be completed by September 2024. The project will then be advertised for construction bids, with overall project completion anticipated by December 2025.

City of Stockton Printed on 11/30/2023Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
450
File #: 23-0894, Version: 1

DISCUSSION
Background
Federal and State ATP funds are available for projects that encourage increased use of active modes of transportation such as walking and bicycling. In 2020, Public Works submitted the Downtown East- West Connection grant application for the ATP Cycle 5 program. The project was awarded $1,799,460 in Regional ATP funds. Measure K funds will be used for the required local match. The project was identified in the Greater Downtown Stockton ATP, Project No. PW1601, and was included in the 2021-26 Five-Year CIP.

The project will construct bicycle facilities and pedestrian improvements on Fremont Street, Oak Street, and Park Street between Pershing Avenue and Wilson Way in downtown Stockton (Attachment A - Vicinity Map). The project will restripe the roadway to add bicycle facilities, upgrade sidewalk corners to ADA standards, install speed cushions, RRFB, crosswalks, signal timing improvements, and new signage.

The ATP grant program requires the project to obtain National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) clearance prior to starting final design. On February 9, 2023, the NEPA Categorical Exclusion was approved by Caltrans’ staff. On February 7, 2023, by Resolution No. 2023-02-07-1216, Council approved the filing of Notice of Exemption No. NOE40-22 under CEQA for the Downtown East-West Connection, Project No. WT22050/ATPL-5008(199).

Present Situation
On July 26, 2023, the City advertised an RFP for design of the Downtown East-West Connection, Project No. WT22050/ATPL-5008(199). On August 23, 2023, one proposal was received from Siegfried Engineering, Inc. of Stockton, CA.

The Selection Committee, comprised of Public Works’ staff evaluated the proposal based on the firm’s understanding of work, experience with similar kinds of work, staff qualifications, technical ability, and project approach.

Staff determined Siegfried Engineering, Inc., a local firm, to be qualified for this project. Staff negotiated a fee of $258,500 with Siegfried Engineering, Inc. for design services. The fee is approximately 17 percent of the estimated construction cost, which is reasonable for a project of this size and complexity.

It is anticipated that the design will be completed by September 2024. The project will then be advertised for construction bids, with overall project completion anticipated by December 2025.

Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $258,500 to Siegfried Engineering, Inc. for design services of the Downtown East-West Connection, Project No. WT22050/ATPL-5008(199). Staff also recommends that Council adopt a resolution approving findings and appropriation of funds for the project.

City of Stockton Printed on 11/30/2023Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
451
File #: 23-0894, Version: 1
Findings
Pursuant to Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) section 3.68.070, Council may approve findings which support an exception to the competitive bidding process. These findings include:

1. The City does not have sufficient staff available to design this project for bidding and construction in 2025.

2. Use of the RFP process is appropriate for this Professional Services Contract because it relies on the evaluation of professional qualifications and performance as the basis for selection of a vendor. Use of the criteria helps ensure selection of a vendor that will provide the highest quality professional service, which is in the public interest.

3. The City negotiated a contract following solicitation of competitive proposals in accordance with SMC section 3.68.070.A.3.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Appropriate $20,000 from the Public Facilities Fee Air Quality Fund Balance to the Downtown East- West Connection, Project No. WT22050/ATPL-5008(199), Account No. 4510-000-800007-300-000- 30-45-000-000. The resolution will sufficiently fund all costs to successfully complete the design, including City staff costs and design contingency.

There is no impact to the City’s General Fund or any other unrestricted fund as a result of taking the recommended actions.

Attachment A - Vicinity Map
City of Stockton Printed on 11/30/2023Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
452
453

Resolution No.

STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION A WARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT AND

APPROPRIATING FUNDING FOR THE DOWNTOWN EAST -WEST CONNECTION , PROJECT NO. WT22050/ATPL-5008(199)

On July 26, 2023, the City advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) for design of the Downtown East -West Connection, Project No. WT22050/ATPL -5008(199). One proposal was received; and

The Downtown East-West Connection project will construct bicycle facilities and pedestrian improvements on Fremont Street, Oak Street, and Park Street between Pershing Avenue and Wilson Way in downtown Stockton. The project will restripe the roadway to add bicycle facilities, upgrade sidewalk corners to Americans with Disabilities Act standards, install speed cushions, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, crosswalks, signal timing improvements, and new signage; and

After review of the proposal, it was determined that Siegfried Engineering, Inc. has the necessary knowledge, experience, and staff to perform the required work. Staff negotiated a fee of $258,500 with Siegfried Engineering, Inc. for design services; and

Appropriation of funds is needed to fund all remaining costs to complete the Downtown East-West Connection project and staff costs; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City Council awards a Professional Services Contract between the City of Stockton and Siegfried Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $ 258,500, and the City Manager is authorized and directed to execute same, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by this reference.

2. The City Council approves findings pursuant to Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) section 3.68.070 in support of an exception to the competitive bidding process.

These findings include:

A. The City does not have sufficient staff available to design this project for bidding and construction in 2025.

B. Use of the RFP process is appropriate for this Professional Services Contract because it relies on the evaluation of professional qualifications and performance as the basis for selection of a vendor. Use of the criteria 454

helps ensure selection of a vendor that will provide the highest quality professional service, which is in the public interest.

C. The City negotiated a contract following solicitation of competitive proposals in accordance with SMC section 3.68.070.A.3.

3. The City Council approves the appropriation of funds in the amount of $20,000 from the Public Facilities Fee Air Quality F und Balance to the Downtown East- West Connection, Project No. WT22050/ATPL-5008(199).

4. The City Manager is hereby authorized to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED December 5, 2023 .

KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:

ELIZA R. GARZA, CMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton
455
Professional Services Contract – SIEGFRIED ENGINEERING, INC. –PROJECT NO. WT22050/ATPL- 5008(199)
(Updated 04/24/23)

PROFESSI

ONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
THIS CONTRACT is entered into this day of 2023, between the CITY OF STOCKTON, a municipal corporation (“City”), and SIEGFRIED ENGINEERING, INC. whose address is 3428 BROOKSIDE ROAD, STOCKTON, CA 95219 (“Consultant”) for the DOWNTOWN EAST-WEST CO NNECTION (PROJECT NO.

WT22050/ATPL-5008(199)), hereinafter referred to as "Project".

RECITALS
A. Consultant represents that it is licensed in the State of California and is qualified to provide the services proposed in the SCOPE OF WORK section of this Contract.

B. City finds it necessary and advisable to use the services of the Consultant for the purposes provided in this Contract.

NOW THEREFORE , in consideration of the mu tual promises, covenants, and conditions in this Contract, City and Consultant agree as follows:

1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Contract, Consultant shall undertake and complete the services described in Exhibit A. Consultant shall provide said services at the time, place, and in the manner specified in Exhibit A and compatible with the standards of the profession. Consultant agrees that it shall produce a fully complete project that is acceptable to the City.

2. COMPENSATION. City shall pay Consultant for services outlined in Exhibit A according to the fee not to exceed the schedule detailed in Exhibit B, which is attached to this Contract and incorporated by this refer ence. Consultant agrees this fee is for full remuneration for performing all services and furnishing all staffing and materials called for in the scope of services. The payments shall be made on a monthly basis upon receipt and approval of Consultant’s invoice. Total compensation for services and reimbursement for costs shall not exceed $258,500.00 or as otherwise mutually agreed to in a Contract Amendment.

3. INSURANCE. During the term of this Contract, Consultant shall maintain in full force and effect at its own cost and expens e the insurance coverage as set forth in the attached Exhibit D and shall otherwise comply with the other provisions of Exhibit D.

4. INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS. With the exception that this section shall in no event be construed to require indemnification by Consultant to a greater extent than permitted under the public policy of the State of California, Consultant shall

Page 1 of 34 ends

City Council and Concurrent AuthoritiesDecember 5, 2023

City Council and Concurrent Authorities
December 5, 2023