Sacramento County
2003-2004 Grand Jury
Final Report

June 30, 2004

A word about the cover and sketches in the Final Report…

We owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Bob Miller of Bob Miller Designs for the original
cover design of this final report. Mr. Miller donated his services to the Grand Jury. He
also gave us permission to use the sketches you see at various intervals in the
Final Report.
Thank you for your generosity, Bob, and for a beautiful cover!

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Table of Contents
Letter from the Grand Jury Foreman

iii

2003 – 2004 Grand Jurors

v

Grand Jury Committee Assignments

vii

The Year in Review – The Grand Jury Perspective

ix

Reports and Investigations
♦ The Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education Was
Negligent in the Establishment and Oversight of the California
Administrative Services Authority

1

♦ Grant Joint Union High School District’s Inappropriate Use
of Public Funds

11

♦ Sacramento County Jail Health Inmate Psychiatric Services

15

Ten-Year Index of Final Reports

23

i

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

-- page left intentionally blank --

ii

Sacramento County
GRAND JURY

June 30, 2004
Barry T. Heilman, Foreman
Arturo Aleman
Robert Canfield, Jr.
John R. Castello
Jean Y. Chong

The Honorable Richard K. Park
Advisor Judge to the Grand Jury
Sacramento Superior Court
720 Ninth Street, Department 39
Sacramento, CA 95814

James Connick
Robert P. Estes
Richard W. Gregson
R. Joy Hills
Carrol A. Hull
Rees L. Lee
Priscilla Mauerman
John Metaxas
Philip A. Niederberger
Page K. O’Connor
John H. Peterson
Jerold A. Prod
Robert S. Willett
Norio Yamada

Dear Judge Park:
In compliance with Penal Code section 933, the Sacramento County Grand Jury is
pleased to submit to you its 2003-2004 Final Report. Thank you for giving me
this opportunity to serve as Foreman of the Grand Jury. It has been my honor and
pleasure.
This final report is the result of many hours of work by nineteen members
researching, interviewing, investigating, writing and deliberating over a number of
issues. The Grand Jurors got organized and down to business almost immediately,
not losing precious weeks in the process. Every juror accepted their duty and
obligation with enthusiasm and determination, each bringing unique attributes to
the team. As foreman, working with this Jury was stimulating, challenging and
enjoyable.
Members of the public brought many issues to our attention. Although every
complaint received consideration, many did not result in formal action, and the
Jury’s work on those issues is not reflected in this report. However, some changes
to the operation of government agencies were initiated as a result of Grand Jury
inquiries.
The Grand Jury is grateful for the sincere dedication of the public officials with
whom we spoke. The cooperation we received from department heads, directors,
public officials and staff was commendable. All who came before us were
professional, knowledgeable and generous with their time, providing needed
information in a concise and understandable manner.
We relied on the advice of County Counsel, the District Attorney’s Office and the
Attorney General’s Office. Our requests for opinions were answered in a timely
manner. The Jury expresses its sincere appreciation to all in those agencies who
gave so generously of their time.
As you told us, serving on the Grand Jury involves many hours away from home
and work. I thank all the spouses and employers for allowing the grand jurors the
time to provide a valuable service to the residents of Sacramento County.

iii

We also thank you, Judge Park, for the advice and support you gave as our advisor. You have
been at our side at every step and your advice gave us clarity and insight. Thank you for your
generous time commitment and dedication to the grand jury process in Sacramento County. It
has been an honor and a pleasure to work with you, Michelle and all the members of the Jury. It
has been a civic lesson that all residents of Sacramento County should experience.
Finally, all of us on the Jury express our heartfelt thanks to Michelle Park, Executive Secretary to
the Grand Jury. Her advice, assistance and dedication were invaluable. This report reflects her
professionalism and outstanding work.
The members of the 2003-2004 Grand Jury are honored to have served our community and hope
our efforts are a positive contribution toward better government.
Sincerely,

BARRY T. HEILMAN, Foreman
2003-2004 Sacramento County Grand Jury
BTH/mcp

iv
_________________________________________________________________________________
(Mailing Address) 720 Ninth Street Ÿ Room 611 Ÿ Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 874-7559 Ÿ FAX (916) 874-8025

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

2003-2004
Sacramento County Grand Jury
Arturo Aleman

Consultant

Sacramento

Robert Canfield, Jr..

Deputy Sheriff, retired

Galt

John R. Castello

Administrative Law Judge

Sacramento

Jean Y. Chong

Sacramento

James Connick

Administrative Systems Analyst
Insurance Broker
Teacher, retired

Sacramento

Robert P. Estes

Teacher, retired

Carmichael

Richard W. Gregson

Carmichael

Barry T. Heilman

Chief Executive Officer
Pharmaceutical Sales
and Marketing

R. Joy Hills

Librarian/Records Manager, retired

Fair Oaks

Carrol A. Hull

Teacher, retired

Sacramento

Rees L. Lee

High School Principal, retired

Carmichael

Priscilla Mauerman

Teacher, retired

Sacramento

John Metaxas

Developer/Contractor

Folsom

Philip A. Niederberger

Cemetery Management

Rancho Murieta

Page K. O’Connor

Legislative Advocate, retired

Sacramento

John H. Peterson

Sacramento

Jerold A. Prod

Educational Consultant
State Administrative Law Judge &
Administrator, retired

Robert S. Willett

Law School Instructor

Sacramento

Norio Yamada

United States Government, retired

Sacramento

v

Folsom

Sacramento

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

-- page left intentionally blank --

vi

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Committee Assignments
Officers:
Barry T. Heilman, Foreman
Rees L. Lee, Foreperson Pro Tempore
John H. Peterson, Secretary

Robert Canfield, Jr., Sergeant-at-Arms
R. Joy Hills, Parliamentarian/Secretary
James Connick, Provisioner

Administrative & Municipal Affairs
Philip A. Niederberger, Chair
Arturo Aleman
Robert Canfield, Jr.
Jean Y. Chong
Robert P. Estes
Richard W. Gregson
John Metaxas
Page K. O’Connor
John H. Peterson
Continuity
James Connick, Chair
Carrol A. Hull
Rees L. Lee
Jerold A. Prod
Education
Robert P. Estes, Chair
John R. Castello
R. Joy Hills
Carrol A. Hull
Rees L. Lee
Priscilla Mauerman
Page K. O’Connor
John H. Peterson
Norio Yamada

Criminal and Juvenile Justice
Jerold A. Prod, Chair
Arturo Aleman
Robert Canfield, Jr.
John R. Castello
Jean Y. Chong
Robert P. Estes
R. Joy Hills
John Metaxas
Norio Yamada
Edit
Rees L. Lee, Chair
James Connick
Richard W. Gregson
Priscilla Mauerman
Page K. O’Connor
Environment, Public Works & Special Districts
Arturo Aleman, Chair
Robert Canfield, Jr.
James Connick
Richard W. Gregson
R. Joy Hills
Priscilla Mauerman
John Metaxas
Philip A. Niederberger
Robert S. Willett
Norio Yamada
Health and Human Services
Carrol A. Hull, Chair
John R. Castello
Jean Y. Chong
R. Joy Hills
Philip A. Niederberger
John H. Peterson
Jerold A. Prod
Robert S. Willett
Norio Yamada

vii

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

-- page left intentionally blank --

viii

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

-- page left intentionally blank --

ix

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

-- page left intentionally blank --

x

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

The Year in Review
The Grand Jury Perspective
This Sacramento County Grand Jury commenced on July 1, 2003, and completed
its term on June 30, 2004. We received and reviewed over 70 allegations and complaints.
We would like to share with you the state laws and codes from which the
Sacramento County Grand Jury derives its authority and reason for existence. Article I,
Section 23 of the California State Constitution states that “a grand jury shall be drawn
and summoned at least once a year in each county.” The rules governing the makeup,
organization, powers and duties of grand juries in California are found in the California
Penal Code. California grand juries are for the most part civil grand juries. Grand juries
look into the activities and procedures of county governmental agencies, cities, special
districts and school districts within the county and prepare appropriate reports. It should
be noted that while the duties of the grand jury are primarily civil in nature, the jury
might be called upon by the District Attorney to issue criminal indictments. This past
year we participated in several indictment proceedings.
This Final Report details the specific investigations leading to recommendations
for the named districts and county agencies. These investigations, however, do not
completely cover the scope of the activities this Jury pursued. This “Year in Review” is
an effort to provide a sampling of information not contained in our formal findings.
A mandated function of the Grand Jury is to tour each correctional facility within
the county. The Grand Jury toured the following facilities:
1. California State Prison, Sacramento.
2. Folsom State Prison.
3. Sacramento County Main Jail.
4. Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (RCCC).
5. Sacramento County Work Release Facility.
6. Sacramento County Juvenile Hall.
7. Warren E. Thornton Youth Center.
8. Sandra Larson Women’s Facility located at RCCC.
9. Sacramento County Boys Ranch.
10. Sacramento Assessment Center.
11. Department of the Youth Authority Northern Youth Correctional
Reception Center-Clinic.
Our tours brought up several points worthy of note including:
a) The staff of the Sacramento County Juvenile Hall has emphasized positive
activities and appropriate schooling.

xi

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

b) The Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (RCCC) has worked effectively with
the Elk Grove Unified School District in developing an educational program
for the inmates.
c) The Main Jail has included a Spousal Abuse Prevention Program for
prisoners.
d) The Sacramento County Work Release Facility operated by the Sheriff’s
Department is based on the concept that meaningful work, rather than jail
time, can be a corrective force. In addition, the facility, in conjunction with
the Grant Joint Union High School District, has developed a curriculum that is
appropriate to the students.
e) The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department – Internal Affairs Division
cooperated with the Grand Jury exhibiting professionalism and courtesy.
In addition to our mandated tours, we received presentations from:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Sacramento County Public Health Officer.
Sacramento County Director of Correctional Health Services.
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District #1.
City of Sacramento Public Works, Solid Waste Division.
Sacramento County Child Protective Services.
Sacramento County Office of the District Attorney.
Sacramento County Counsel.
Sacramento City Planning Department.
Sacramento County Planning Department.

All presentations were helpful to the Grand Jury but several comments would be
appropriate including:
a) The Sacramento County Office of Public Health has been monitoring the
incidence of tuberculosis and the agency has a serious commitment to testing
and treatment.
b) The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District #1 of the Public Works
Agency assisted the Grand Jury with full information and documentation
regarding service boundaries, fees, rates and facility needs for the future.
c) The Sacramento City Solid Waste Division provided us with a clear and
helpful presentation of its policies and procedures.
Finally, two events of great interest to the Grand Jury took place. The Sacramento
County Department of Voter Registration and Elections conducted the recall election of
October 7, 2003, and the primary election of March 2, 2004. The Jury monitored the
procedures and ballot counting, sampling a percentage of precincts. The Grand Jury

xii

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

believes the elections were well run. The Grand Jury also participated in the Senate
hearing on “Integrity and Accountability Exploring Special Districts’ Governance”
presented by the California Senate Committee on Local Government, chaired by Senator
Tom Torlakson.
The past year has been busy as we reviewed the functioning of our county, cities and
special districts and are pleased to report meeting many dedicated public employees.
They work hard and well. They deserve our sincere appreciation for their service.
If you are interested in additional information on the Grand Jury, you may access our
web site at www.sacgrandjury.org. Information on the site includes:
•
•
•

A history of the Grand Jury.
Grand Jury Final Reports and the affected agencies’ responses.
Forms for filing a complaint.
The telephone number is (916) 874-7559.

xiii

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

-- page left intentionally blank --

xiv

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

The Sacramento City Unified School District
Board of Education Was Negligent in the
Establishment and Oversight of the
California Administrative Services Authority
Issue
The Sacramento County Grand Jury received a complaint asking for an investigation of the
Sacramento City Unified School District and the propriety of creating a joint powers
agreement (JPA) between the California Administrative Services Authority (CASA) and the
Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD) to establish an alternative retirement
program for a select group of employees. Among the allegations were possible misuse of
public funds, conflicts of interest, and an inappropriate relationship between SCUSD
employees and CASA.
The Grand Jury was primarily interested in how and why this alternative retirement program,
which benefited a select group of SCUSD employees, and required them to leave the
employment of the school district for that of a contracting agency, could be approved by the
Board of Trustees. The Jury was also concerned about the ethics and process utilized by the
school board in the establishment and operation of CASA.

Method of Investigation
Review of Documents:
•
•
•
•
•

“Preliminary Investigative Report on the California Administrative Services
Authority” by the Sacramento Leadership Coalition on Public Education,
July 9, 2003.
“Final Report Review of the California Administrative Services Authority
Program” by MGT of America, December 16, 2003.
California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) memorandum dated
March 5, 2004, entitled, “Summary: California Administrative Services
Authority.”
“California Administrative Services Authority Employee Handbook” of
September 2000 and revisions of September 2002.
Agendas and minutes of meetings of the Sacramento City Unified School District
Board of Education.

1

Sacramento County Grand Jury

•
•
•
•

June 30, 2004

Video tape of March 6, 2000, Sacramento Unified School District Board of
Education meeting.
News articles in The Sacramento Bee.
CASA documents, including bylaws and operating agreements.
Relevant district correspondence and memoranda.

Interviewed:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

SCUSD current Board Members serving since 2000.
SCUSD former Board Member serving in 2000.
SCUSD current Superintendent.
SCUSD former Deputy Superintendent, Chief Financial Officer and
unpaid Chief Executive Officer of CASA – retired CASA member.
SCUSD current Chief Financial Officer – CASA member.
SCUSD current Chief Personnel Officer – CASA member.
SCUSD retired Chief Personnel Officer – retired CASA member.
SCUSD current Internal Auditor – former CASA member,
current CalPERS member.
SCUSD current Director, Employee Relations – CASA member.
SCUSD current Analyst, Personnel & Employee Compensation – CASA member.
SCUSD former Analyst, Personnel & Employee Compensation – prior
CASA member.
Executive Director, Service Employees International Union, Local 790.
President, Sacramento City Teachers Association.
Executive Director, Sacramento City Teachers Association.
Chairman, Sacramento Leadership Coalition on Public Education.
Division Chief, Actuarial and Employee Services, California Public Employees
Retirement System.
Staff Counsel, California Public Employees Retirement System.
Complainant.

Attendance at SCUSD Board Meetings

Background and Facts
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD)
had been beset by serious educational, fiscal and governance problems. Student
achievement was declining. There was frequent turnover in the superintendency, and
unrest and dissatisfaction among employees. A split board of education provided little
leadership or planning on how to address the situation. Sacramento’s then Mayor
spearheaded the election of a new board. A new superintendent and a new chief financial
officer (CFO) were hired to bring educational direction and financial stability to the
struggling district.

2

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Sacramento City Unified School District made educational and financial progress under
this new administration. The Superintendent provided the educational leadership that had
been lacking and test scores improved under his educational reforms. The CFO brought
stability and financial soundness to the District and gained the trust and confidence of the
Superintendent and the Board of Education. According to those interviewed, her
decisions and recommendations were rarely questioned by the Superintendent or the
Board. However, her managerial style was described as intimidating and controlling.
The CFO also assumed additional responsibilities by becoming the head of personnel, as
well as maintaining her position as financial officer. This resulted in the centralization of
significant administrative power in the hands of one person. For example, the District’s
internal auditor, budget manager and personnel manager all reported directly to the CFO.
The CFO became the conduit of information to the Superintendent and the Board. As a
consequence, there was a lack of checks and balances within the administrative units she
supervised.
Late in 1999, the CFO, on her own initiative, presented an alternative retirement program
to the Superintendent to cover the three contract positions—the Superintendent, the CFO
and the District’s Legal Counsel. This plan also included approximately 100 nonrepresented (non-union) confidential and classified workers.
Implementing the plan required the establishment of a joint powers agreement (JPA),
which required two or more public agencies to participate. Joint powers agreements are
common in education, created to combine the resources of various agencies to provide
services such as busing, insurance, purchasing, etc. This JPA would be unusual in that its
sole purpose was to set up a retirement system. Only Long Beach Unified School District
had established a similar program.
On March 6, 2000, the CFO proposed the formation of the JPA to the Board of
Education. As presented to the Board, the rationale of the proposal was twofold: to
develop a retirement program that would both encourage top administrators to stay with
the district; and to enhance recruitment. The CFO strongly stated to the Board that the
plan was “cost neutral.” The presentation was made by outside consultants selected by
the CFO. There was no consideration or discussion given to possible negative
consequences. Unbeknownst to the Board but known to the CFO, there was pending
legislation which could have jeopardized the cost neutrality of the JPA.
Two weeks later, the Board authorized the establishment of the new JPA, which was
designated as the California Administrative Services Authority (CASA). The formation
of CASA required the SCUSD Board of Education to appoint two representatives to the
three-person CASA Board of Directors. The School Board, by resolution, delegated the
responsibility to the Superintendent. This was in variance to the customary procedure
followed in other district JPA appointments. The Superintendent allowed the CFO, who
was also the Executive Director of CASA, to select the appointees. Neither of these
appointees was affiliated with the District.

3

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

In June, the Yolo County Office of Education joined with SCUSD as a partner to form the
JPA. The retirement program was implemented July 1, 2000.
Prior to implementation, the CFO went to the Board of Education on June 19, 2000,
requesting new contracts for the top administration (Superintendent, Chief Financial
Officer, and the District Legal Counsel). These contracts would convert expense money
and travel allowances to salary and add ten additional years of service credit to retirement
through the newly formed JPA. The Board viewed this action as a way to reward these
employees for past services without a cost to the District. The Board unanimously
approved these three new contracts.
The CASA retirement program is complex, but as described by the CFO, it offered
enhanced retirement benefits to members of the new JPA. It involved increasing the
computational CalPERS factor from 2.5 to 3 percent. For example, retirement benefits
based on 2.5 percent of final compensation per year of service, with 30 years of service
and a final annual compensation of $150,000, yields a pension of $112,500 a year for life.
If the percentage-per year multiplier is raised from 2.5 percent to 3 percent with no other
changes, the pension rises from $112,500 to $135,000. This is a 20 percent increase in
retirement pay per year for life.
Approximately one hundred SCUSD employees who had joined CASA would leave the
California Public Employees Retirement System and become members of CASA. They
would be employees of CASA and their services would be contracted back to the District.
The employees would hold the same positions, perform the same duties and receive the
same salaries as they did with the District. They also retained all district benefits and all
seniority rights. The CFO of Sacramento City Unified School District assumed the
responsibility of unpaid executive director of CASA. In these positions, she oversaw the
transfer of funds between the District and CASA and directed the retirement system, of
which she was a member.
In order to make the retirement program work, approval by CalPERS and the Social
Security Administration was necessary. CalPERS granted reciprocity to the CASA
system, thereby allowing its members to leave the state public retirement system. Social
Security officials also authorized withdrawal from its program.
In November 2001, approximately a year and a half after the founding of CASA, the CFO
requested the Board of Education approve a pension obligation bond valued at $6.5
million dollars. The CFO stressed the low financial risk of the bond. The Board
approved the bond with little discussion. In a memo to the Board, the CFO stated, that
without the bond the CASA retirement plan is still actuarially sound, but “the bonding
provides extra actuarial strength and security for participants in the new retirement plan.”
According to the MGT report, the cost to issue the bond was $420,709.
In June 2003, the Sacramento Leadership Coalition on Public Education, comprised of
local education organizations and community members, gave to the President of the
4

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

School Board, a document entitled, “Preliminary Investigative Report on the California
Administrative Services Authority.” He referred it to the Superintendent. The report
questioned CASA’s operations and activities and the relationship between CASA and the
District. In response to the report, the Superintendent sent a letter to the coalition, which
was critical and dismissive.
On July 9, 2003, the coalition held a press conference challenging the legality and
propriety of CASA’s establishment and made its investigative report public. In response
to the press conference and to the report, the SCUSD School Board added a discussion of
CASA to the District’s workshop agenda of September 15, 2003. At that time the Interim
Superintendent, appointed in July 2003, recommended an independent, outside fiscal and
programmatic audit be performed immediately, and a separate review of all legal issues
by an independent, outside attorney. The School Board approved a $40,000 contract for a
230-hour/two-month management audit by the national consulting firm of MGT of
America. In addition, the Interim Superintendent engaged the services of Lozano Smith
for the legal review.
On December 8, 2003, MGT of America presented its findings and recommendations to
the District and the School Board. The MGT report was highly critical of both the
establishment and operation of CASA. The report cast serious doubt that the alternative
retirement system was “cost neutral.” A key question was, who was the actual employer
of the classified employees—SCUSD or CASA? The report concluded that, if it was
determined that the District was indeed the employer, the District could be responsible for
significant financial obligations to CalPERS, the State Department of Education and
Social Security accruing from July 1, 2000.
The report also concluded that once CASA was authorized, neither the Superintendent
nor the Board provided appropriate oversight. The Board did not require periodic reports
or yearly audits of CASA. The Board delegated to the Superintendent its authority to
appoint two SCUSD representatives to the CASA Board. The Superintendent accepted
the CFO’s recommendations for these positions of individuals who had no affiliation with
the District. The MGT of America report stated, “By doing so, the District board and the
former superintendent failed to ensure the district’s representatives on the CASA board
understood the District’s direction and priorities, and were committed to protecting the
best interests of the District.” The report also stated that the only communication
between the CASA Board and the SCUSD Board was through the CFO. This situation
permitted actions, such as allowing CASA to receive advances, charge indirect fees and
change its bylaws without authorization from the District. Such actions by the CFO gave
the appearance of conflict of interest.
In March 2004, CalPERS sent a memorandum to the District that contained results of its
investigation of CASA to see if reciprocity with regard to CalPERS benefits had been
appropriately granted. That investigation found that CASA employees were in fact
employees of SCUSD and therefore did not have the right to opt out of CalPERS
membership. It further found that CASA did not qualify as an agency with which
5

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

CalPERS could establish reciprocity. The report states, “CalPERS was not aware of any
of these facts at the time we approved reciprocal retirement status and health benefits and
would not have granted reciprocity if these facts had come to light.”
At its April 1, 2004 board meeting, the Board of Education unanimously voted to
withdraw SCUSD from the JPA effective July 1, 2004. At its April 29 board meeting, the
trustees voted to end the District’s relationship with any outside attorneys, financial
advisors and other consultants who previously advised them regarding CASA. The
Grand Jury recognizes that many of the issues and concerns raised by the MGT report are
already being addressed. The Grand Jury encourages the District to continue in this
positive direction.

Conclusion
The Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education failed in its oversight
responsibilities. It was negligent in its responsibility to protect the interest of all its
constituents, including voters, students, parents, taxpayers and employees by authorizing a
joint powers agreement ostensibly for retirement purposes. Inasmuch as Board members
make decisions in complex areas, they depend on district administrative staff for advice and
recommendations, including school finance, curriculum, student safety, personnel practices
and facility use. In the case of the establishment of CASA, the Board did not receive or
request a complete and balanced picture. By their own admissions, they were convinced by
their administrative staff of the efficacy of a unique retirement program—a program that
ultimately proved to be flawed, and a liability to the District.
Although the Grand Jury reviewed the conduct of Sacramento City Unified School District,
some of the recommendations could apply to the administrative functions of all school
districts within Sacramento County. In order to strengthen the integrity of the administrative
functions of school districts, the Grand Jury respectfully requests all school districts within
Sacramento County consider the report’s recommendations.

Findings and Recommendations
Findings for the Board of Education:
Finding 1. The Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education did not
fully explore, question nor understand the joint powers proposal presented by the Chief
Financial Officer and supported by the Superintendent.
Finding 2. In approving the JPA, the Board authorized transfer of district classified
employees to CASA.
Finding 3. The SCUSD Board, once CASA was established, paid little attention to
issues of oversight and management of the JPA. For example:

6

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

a. The Board did not appoint representatives to the CASA board but delegated the
selection to the Superintendent.
b. The Board did not require periodic reports or yearly audits of CASA.
c. The Board allowed CASA bylaws to be amended without approval.
d. The Board allowed the CFO to assume the position of Executive Director of
CASA while serving concurrently as the District CFO.
Finding 4. The Board opted to reward its three contract employees (Superintendent,
Chief Financial Officer, Legal Counsel) by giving them inflated retirement benefits. For
example:
a. Granting 10 additional years of service credit which was excessive and
unprecedented for public service positions.
b. Granting mileage allowances, travel expenses, and vacation pay to be included
in the final compensation calculation for retirement was inappropriate.
Finding 5. The CFO and the outside consultants she selected appeared to mislead the
Board with incomplete information and strong assurances of cost neutrality of the CASA
plan.
Finding 6. The Board authorized the issuance of an unnecessary $6.5 million pension
obligation bond and incurred financial liability with little or no discussion or
understanding of the possible financial impact to the District. The $420,709 cost to issue
the bond could have been applied to educational purposes.
Finding 7. The Board of Education and top administrators were dismissive of
community concerns regarding the JPA and CASA.
Recommendations to the Board of Education:
Recommendation 1. The Board needs to fully investigate and research all proposals that
incur financial obligations and have fiscal ramifications. A discussion of the pros and
cons should be publicly presented with adequate provision for public input.
Recommendation 2. Future attempts of the Board to compensate district individuals for
outstanding service should be within the limits of what is generally given to people in
education.
Recommendation 3. The Board should monitor and control all agencies or entities that
the school district creates and for which it assumes liability. The Board should not
delegate its oversight responsibilities to others. The Board should demand timely reports
and audits.

7

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Recommendation 4. The Board of Education must guard against appearances of
potential conflict of interest whether ethical or legal.
Recommendation 5. The Board should establish a process to assure that community and
constituent concerns are heard and addressed.
Findings for District Administration:
Finding 1. The Superintendent allowed the CFO to control the central office without
necessary checks and balances. For example:
a. The Internal Auditor reported directly to the CFO rather than to the
Superintendent and the Board.
b. The transfer of funds between the District and CASA went unsupervised by
the Superintendent and the Board.
Finding 2. The centralization of power in the hands of the CFO created a climate of
intimidation and coercion within the administrative offices. For example, employees
were discouraged from questioning the CASA plan and some stated they felt pressured
into joining.
Finding 3. The proposed retirement program and the enhanced retirement package put
forward by the CFO for herself, the Superintendent and the Legal Counsel were selfserving.
Finding 4. The appearance of a conflict of interest occurred when the CFO of the
District served as the unpaid Executive Director of CASA.
Recommendations to the District Administration:
Recommendation 1. Community concerns regarding district administration actions or
policies need to be fairly and openly addressed. A community oversight committee could
be established to directly monitor the response to these concerns.
Recommendation 2. The Superintendent must actively oversee the business
administration of the school district, as well as the educational program.
Recommendation 3. It is one of the responsibilities of the Superintendent to establish
and maintain a positive climate within the district office. Communication lines should be
structured in such a way as to encourage and permit employee access to the
Superintendent, enabling all opinions to be heard.
Recommendation 4. The Superintendent is responsible for assuring that a system of
checks and balances is maintained so no one person or a group can bring undue or unfair
influence on decisions.
8

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Recommendation 5. The internal auditor should be autonomous and responsible and
accountable to the Superintendent and report directly to the Board on a quarterly or biannual basis.

Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the
Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2004 from:
•

Board of Education, Sacramento City Unified School District

9

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

-- page left intentionally blank --

10

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Grant Joint Union High School District’s
Inappropriate Use of Public Funds
Issue
The Grand Jury received a complaint alleging Grant Joint Union High School District
(GJUHSD) was using its newspaper, Grant Today, to advocate one side of a political issue.
Since the newspaper is supported by public funds, the Grand Jury looked into whether or not
this use of funds was appropriate.

Method of Investigation
Reviewed:
•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•
•

Eight issues of Grant Today from April 2003 through February 2004.
The GJUHSD Mission Statement, “Communications Plan” of February 2002.
“Grant Select Commission Final Report,” July 15, 1998.
Sections of GJUHSD’s board policies, Community Relations, BP 1112,
adopted February 6, 2002, and Personnel - Political Activities of Employees,
AR 4119.25, adopted August 21, 2002.
Similar school newspapers from other districts within Sacramento County, including
Sacramento City Unified School District’s The Connection, Galt Joint Union High
School District’s Reflections, and the San Juan Unified School District’s San Juan
Scene.
The school board policies regarding advocacy in political campaigns of Elk Grove
Unified School District and Sacramento City Unified District and others from
around the state, such as El Segundo Unified School District, El Dorado Union High
School District, and New Haven Unified School District.
73 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 255 (1990).
California State Education Code section 7054.
The publication of the California School Boards Association, titled Political
Activities of School Districts, November 2001.

Conferred with:
•
•

The District Attorney of Sacramento County.
The State Attorney General’s Office.

11

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Interviewed:
•
•
•

The Director of Communications/Community Relations for GJUHSD.
GJUHSD Legal Counsel.
Directors of Information or Communication/Public Relations from Sacramento City
Unified School District, Elk Grove Unified School District and San Juan Unified
School District.

Background and Facts
The organizational structure of many school districts in Sacramento County has been a
continuing issue. Presently, the Grant Joint Union High School District (grades 7-12) is fed
by five elementary school districts: Elverta Joint, Rio Linda Union, Robla, Del Paso Heights,
and North Sacramento.
Concerned parents and citizens recently formed a coalition, Families for Better Education, to
reorganize the GJUHSD into two separate 7-12 districts. One of the proposed districts would
serve the Elverta Joint, Rio Linda Union, and Robla school districts. The other would serve
Del Paso Heights and North Sacramento school districts.
In 2003, the coalition organized a petition effort to put its proposed plan before the
Sacramento County Board of Education, and ultimately before the California State Board of
Education. The role of the State Board is to review proposed plans and decide whether a
referendum is placed on a ballot for a vote by the citizens in the designated districts. At the
time of this Grand Jury report, the State Board of Education is reviewing a plan for
reorganization.
The GJUHSD board has publicly opposed splitting the district. In a monthly newsletter,
Grant Today, articles appeared which strongly opposed the reorganization plan put forth by
the coalition. Partiality and bias were observed in several articles headlined, “We cannot live
with what they’re proposing” (Vol. 3, No. 5, August 2003), and “Who really benefits from
the reorganization of Grant District?” (Vol. 3, No. 7, October 2003). The articles contained
no attempt to present a balanced, fair or objective viewpoint. The newsletter articles reflected
only opposition to the proposed reorganization plan.
Grant Today is an official district publication, supported by public funds, and is mailed to
55,000 residents within the boundaries of the Grant Joint Union High School District.
District officials reported the cost of publishing 11 issues of Grant Today in 2002 was in
excess of $100,000.
Most school districts have published policies governing political activities that are readily
available to the public and employees. The Grand Jury asked GJUHSD to provide policies
governing the publication of the Grant Today newsletter. Written documents provided
included the “Grant Select Commission Final Report,” the Mission Statement of the
“Communication Plan,” and the board policy dealing with community relations. None of
these documents made mention of policies governing political activity. However, in further

12

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

research, the Grand Jury found that GJUHSD policies relating to this report were on its web
site.
The GJUHSD policy in part states, …“district employees shall not use district funds,
services, supplies or equipment to urge the passage or defeat of any ballot measure or
candidate; or use district time to urge the passage or defeat of any ballot measure or
candidate.”
The California School Boards Association (CSBA), in its handbook, Political Activities of
School Districts, recommends the following:
“The district may disseminate information about a ballot measure as long as it
provides the public with a ‘fair and impartial presentation of relevant information’ that is
neutral in tone. This information may include an objective analysis of how a ballot measure
impacts the district.”
The GJUHSD’s Legal Counsel stated that he had reviewed school policies and laws
governing political activities by a school district and concluded that the proposed articles in
Grant Today did not technically violate state law because an election had not been scheduled
for the initiative.
The Grand Jury reviewed legal references suggested by CSBA in an attempt to clarify how
political activity by school districts should be conducted. In reviewing 73 Ops. Cal. Atty.
Gen. 255 (1990), this opinion states that public funds of a city, county, or district may
lawfully be used to draft an initiative or referendum measure but concludes that such funds
cannot be used to promote such measures. The use of public funds by a school district to
advocate or present only one side of a political issue in a district newsletter constitutes
improper campaign activity.

Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1. Grant Joint Union High School District has used public monies inappropriately
by advocating against the redistricting plan of Families for Better Education in articles
published in its monthly publication, Grant Today. The articles did not include any
information about the opposing point of view.
Recommendation 1. Officially disseminated information from a school district regarding a
contested issue should be fair, impartial and balanced.
Finding 2. Grant Joint Union High School District has specific written policies regarding
the use of district resources for advocating political issues and activities, but these policies
were not followed in several articles published in Grant Today.
Recommendation 2. Grant Joint Union High School District should make its employees
aware of these policies and ensure all personnel understand and interpret these guidelines as

13

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

intended by state law and case law. Employees should refer to publications by the California
School Boards Association to give them direction.
Finding 3. In the August 2003 newsletter of Grant Today, GJUHSD’s Legal Counsel was a
visible advocate opposing the coalition’s reorganization plan.
Recommendation 3. The District Legal Counsel should not advocate for a political issue or
activity that affects the District. Legal Counsel should ensure that a political issue discussed
in district public communications be fair and balanced.

Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the
Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2004 from:
•

14

Board of Education, Grant Joint Union High School District

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Sacramento County Jail Health
Inmate Psychiatric Services
Issue
As part of the Sacramento County Grand Jury’s responsibility to review county detention
facilities, it was decided to determine if psychiatric services are being administered in an
efficient and effective manner at the Sacramento County Main Jail. The number of
suicides that occurred early in 2002 was also a concern. In addition, the Grand Jury
examined whether the recommendations made in the Lindsay M. Hayes Report
concerning these suicides have been addressed.

Method of Investigation
The following reports and documents were reviewed:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

“Technical Assistance Report on Jail Suicide Prevention Practices Within the
Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department,” by Lindsay M. Hayes,
May 30, 2002.
“Recommendations and Response to Technical Assistance Report by The Suicide
Prevention Task Force,” June 26, 2002.
“Suicide Prevention Task Force Action Summary,” January 21, 2003.
“The Medical-Mental Health Inspection Report, Main Jail,” December 5, 2003.
“Medical-Mental Health Inspection Report,” January 14, 2004.
“Main Jail Inmate Handbook,” February 2003.
Local Detention Facility Health Inspection Report, 2003.
Revised intake and screening forms.
An incident report of an attempted suicide.

The following individuals were interviewed:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Medical Director, Correctional Services.
Commander of Staff Services Division.
Chief of Correctional Health Services.
Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Training Manager
and Training Assistant.
Assistant Chief, Director of Nursing, Correctional Health Services.
Interim Medical Director, Jail Psychiatric Services, University of
California at Davis.
Chairperson of the Suicide Prevention Task Force.

15

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

The following sites were visited at the Main Jail:
•
•
•

Intake Unit.
Psychiatric Care Unit.
Medical Housing Unit.

Background and Facts
In 2002, public attention was focused on the increase of suicides at the county’s Main
Jail. In the short period from January through April, four suicides occurred. In 2003, a
significant organizational shift took place, taking the responsibility for inmate health care
from the Coroner’s Office and putting it under the direct authority of the Sacramento
County Sheriff’s Department (SCSD). The Grand Jury was interested in determining
what kind of impact this made regarding the health care of inmates, particularly in the
area of mental health.
In an effort to be pro-active in stopping suicides at the Main Jail, the Sheriff’s
Department sought the assistance of an outside consultant to conduct an assessment of
jail practices and to make recommendations regarding its suicide prevention policies and
procedures. The Assistant Director of the National Center on Institutions and
Alternatives, Lindsay M. Hayes, was selected.
In addition to hiring a consultant, the Sheriff’s Department formed a Suicide Prevention
Task Force in February of 2002. The multidisciplinary task force is chaired by the
Clinical Director of Psychiatric Services. It includes as its members the Medical Director
and staff of Jail Psychiatric Services (JPS), two representatives from the Sheriff’s Citizen
Advisory Committee and jail management staff from custody, health care and mental
health.
The report by consultant Lindsay M. Hayes was completed in May of 2002. The report
determined that the spike of suicides was a statistical aberration, based on the average
daily jail population during the time period of January through April 2002. During the
years from 1996 through May 2002, the average rate of suicides in the Main Jail was 51.5
per 100,000 inmates. Recent national data on county jail suicides is approximately 54
deaths per 100,000 inmates. The Sacramento County Main Jail was below the national
average.
Consultant Hayes noted that the general population of the Main Jail includes: 1) pre-trial
inmates awaiting adjudication, and 2) other inmates transferred from the Rio Cosumnes
Correctional Center because of special needs such as mental health, suicidal behavior,
administrative segregation, disciplinary confinement, etc. These “special needs” inmates
are recognized as being at a much higher risk of suicide. It should also be noted all the
suicides occurred in the cells of the general inmate population. The responsibility for
direct observation of these inmates falls to the custodial officers. Inmates housed
separately under JPS supervision were not casualties of suicide. Hence, it would seem
16

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

the initial screening of inmates in conjunction with the mental health training and
increased awareness of the custodial officers are two of the most important factors in
preventing jail suicides. Mental health assessment of inmates remains key to preventing
future incidents.
In October 2002, the Suicide Prevention Task Force issued a response to the
recommendations made in the Lindsay M. Hayes Report. The task force followed up in
January 2003 with an “Action Summary” describing the continuing efforts to meet the
recommendations in the Lindsay M. Hayes Report. On January 14, 2004, a statemandated, bi-annual inspection report evaluating the current health conditions at the Main
Jail was released. The Jury used these three reports as a benchmark in determining
improvements in jail health services.

Findings and Recommendations
In its investigation, the Grand Jury looked into: A) inmate screening, B) training,
C) inmate monitoring and assessment, D) prescription drug storage and dispensing, and
E) reorganization and delivery of jail health services pertaining to suicide prevention
specifically, and mental health generally.
A. INMATE SCREENING
Finding 1. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report found that the intake forms being utilized were
inadequate. In addition, these forms were not automatically being forwarded to the Jail
Psychiatric Services (JPS).
In response, the Main Jail staff has revised its current intake forms in accordance with
national standards. All appropriate and relevant medical screening forms are now
transmitted by fax to the JPS in a timely manner. Also, arresting officers complete newly
developed forms to communicate medical information to the county jail medical staff.
Recommendation 1. A yearly review should be conducted to determine the
effectiveness of intake screening forms.
Finding 2. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report stated that classification deputies conduct
inmate interviews, examine forms and review two screening fields to capture information
on an inmate’s prior history. These deputies then use individual discretion to make
referrals to the JPS staff. These referrals are not always made on consistent criteria.
In response to the Lindsay M. Hayes Report, new classification forms have been
implemented, which include questions regarding mental health and suicide.
Recommendation 2. A software program should be developed to access quickly and
accurately an inmate’s prior health history for use by the classification deputies to ensure
consistency in evaluation and referral.
17

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Finding 3. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report states that contrary to some national
correctional standards, JPS staff does not conduct a mental health assessment on each
inmate within 14 days of confinement.
In response, the Suicide Task Force indicated that it would be cost prohibitive to conduct
reviews of health records for every inmate. However, there is a mental health screening
of all inmates at intake.
Recommendation 3. Inmates who have been in the system before should have their
records checked for mental health issues within 14 days.
B. TRAINING
Finding 1. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report found that only two hours of suicide
prevention training was included in the basic Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department
academy training. The burden of suicide prevention falls on the custodial officers.
Intensive training of custodial officers is essential in detecting mental health issues and in
the prevention of suicides. The national recommendation for such initial training is eight
hours.
In response, the Main Jail staff has since instituted a multi-session approach for new
officers consisting of eight hours of suicide prevention training. These sessions are
divided between the academy and the Main Jail orientation of new custodial officers.
Suicide prevention training for all other jail staff consists of one-hour yearly training in
addition to fifteen-minute quarterly sessions offered during briefings.
Recommendation 1. The quarterly trainings should be increased from 15 minutes to one
half hour. Attendance should be required and records kept in each officer’s training file.
Attendance at makeup sessions should be required.
Finding 2. One area of concern identified by the jail staff is the line of communication
between the courts and the correctional staff when the inmate is returned to jail after court
proceedings. Court actions can have a detrimental effect on the mental state of an inmate.
Recommendation 2. A process of communication should be developed that alerts the
correctional staff to the result of court proceedings regarding a particular inmate, when
the inmate is returned to the Main Jail.
Finding 3. The SCSD should be commended for its efforts in evaluating and revamping
its training program and increasing the attention focused on suicide prevention. In
addition to the increased training, they have created a “Suicide Risk” informational
pocket card for officers and correctional health staff. A workshop for public defenders
has also been developed and will be given annually. Great efforts have been made to
improve communications between the correctional staff and the JPS.

18

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Recommendation #3. None.
C. INMATE MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
Finding 1. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report stated that monitoring of the inmate population
is the primary responsibility of the custodial officers. Inmates housed in special housing
units, where most suicides have occurred, are presently required to be observed once an
hour. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report recommended that the custodial staff be required to
physically observe inmates placed in special housing units at 30-minute intervals.
In response, Main Jail staff concluded that to conduct 30-minute cell checks in designated
high-risk special housing units would demand an additional 35 custodial deputies. The
Suicide Prevention Task Force stated it was unknown what the financial effects or
feasibility of such an increase would be. Correctional officers have since been directed to
walk the floors and observe inmates with greater frequency.
Recommendation 1. Main Jail staff should adopt the suggested standard of observation
of the Lindsay M. Hayes Report due to the possibility of suicide among high risk inmates.
Finding 2. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report noted that inmates discharged from the JPS
acute inpatient psychiatric unit back to the general population of the Main Jail should
have regular follow-up assessment.
In response, JPS does a follow-up within 72 hours but has not adopted the standard as
outlined due to the cost of additional personnel. However, there has been an effort to
centralize outpatients so they can be more closely monitored. Inmates with suicidal
ideation assigned to the medical unit receive a 15-minute check.
Recommendation 2. An effort should be made to develop a regular monitoring and
assessment schedule for every inmate released from the acute psychiatric unit. Currently,
the nurse doing pill delivery has been delegated the added responsibility of assessing the
inmate’s condition. This policy is unsatisfactory due to the time constraint on nurses.
Finding 3. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report noted the need for more beds designated for
outpatient mental health housing. This need was corroborated by the “Medical-Mental
Health Inspection Report” of December 5, 2003.
In response, the jail staff has stated that space limitations of the present jail and budget
restraints are barriers to fully address this issue. However, additional beds have been
found for inmates discharged from acute psychiatric care, and needing closer supervision
than can be supplied in a regular jail unit.
Recommendation 3. Since space at the jail is at a premium, the County should
aggressively pursue plans to build another tower to accommodate the general need, as

19

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

well as the need for appropriate housing for inmates requiring medical and psychiatric
care.
D. PRESCRIPTION DRUG STORAGE AND DISPENSING
Finding 1. The “Medical-Mental Health Inspection Report” indicated that there are some
serious problems with the storage of drugs and the dispensing program at the Main Jail.
Recommendations made over the past several years have not been fully implemented.
The County has contracted with a software company to develop a database program to aid
the health staff with prescription records. This program has yet to be developed.
Recommendation 1. The County should explore other contractors to develop this
database program if the contracted company cannot deliver in a specified period of time.
E. REORGANIZATION AND DELIVERY OF JAIL HEALTH SERVICES
Finding 1. In the spring of 2003, the reorganization of Jail Health Services resulted in
the transfer of management from the Coroner to the Sheriff. The improvement in
coordination and communication between the health and custodial staff has been noted by
the chief administrators and staff members, and is verified by the less frequent health care
complaints made by inmates. In its December 2003 report, the Medical-Mental Health
Inspection team also commented on the improvements in jail health services. Training is
better coordinated as well as the communication between custodial and health care staff
regarding the status of inmate health issues.
Most importantly, the health care providers have been given more autonomy in the areas
of health issues and decision making. Problems are solved more rapidly because of the
open lines of communication and the frequent meetings between health care and custodial
staff and their administrators. The creation of a Suicide Prevention Task Force, including
a mortality review of inmate suicides, has been a force for change. Medical staff has been
increased as their needs were communicated. All of these changes have contributed to
improvements in jail health care and hopefully the lessening of future suicide attempts.
Recommendation 1. Even though the County of Sacramento is facing budget cuts, the
Board of Supervisors should maintain the present level of staffing of the Medical
Housing Unit and its support of Jail Psychiatric Services.
Recommendation 2. The Suicide Prevention Task Force should remain in service and
continue to review the progress of implemented changes and to monitor jail policies and
procedures.

20

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Response Required
Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and
recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the
Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2004 from:
•

Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

•

Sacramento County Sheriff

•

Medical Director, Correctional Services

•

Medical Director, Jail Psychiatric Services, UCD

21

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

-- page left intentionally blank --

22

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

10-Year Final Report Index
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
County of Sacramento
2003-2004
2002-2003
2001-2002

Sacramento County Jail Health Inmate Psychiatric Services
School Safety in Jeopardy
Bureau of Family Support
Changes Needed in Juvenile Mental Health Services
Encroaching Land Use Imperils Sacramento’s Airport System
Unequal Treatment of Sentenced Female Inmates in
Sacramento County

2000-2001
1999-2000
1995-1996

Sewage Discharge into the American River
9-1-1
Campus Commons Golf Course Lease
Capitol Area Development Authority Mismanagement
Custodial Mental Health Survey

1994-1995

County Food Service Operations
County Owned Golf Facilities

1993-1994

Financing of Local Government

Coroner’s Office
2002-2003
1999-2000
1998-1999
1996-1997
District Attorney’s Office
2001-2002
1999-2000
1997-1998
1996-1997

1995-1996
Department of Finance
2002-2003

Death Investigation in Sacramento County: The Coroner’s
Office
Fees for Transporting Bodies
Review of Vendor Contracts and a Request for Proposal
Abuse of Dependent Adults in an In-care Home

Bureau of Family Support
Crime Lab Staffing
Child Abuse and Neglect
Child Support and Welfare Agencies
Use of American River Flood Control District Property
for Personal Gain
Child Support Collection and Enforcement
Political Activities in School Districts
Child Abuse in Sacramento County

Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’
Accountability

Department of General Services
1997-1998

Policy on Emergency Forms in County Vehicles

County Office of Education
1993-1994

Community Schools Usage

23

Sacramento County Grand Jury

Department of Health & Human Services
2001-2002

June 30, 2004

1993-1994

Adult Protective Services What is the Future of our Elder and
Dependent Adults?
Changes Needed in Juvenile Mental Health Services
Transitional Assistance for Aging-Out Foster Children
Recruitment and Retention of Foster Parents
Child Protective Services at the Crossroads
Children’s Receiving Home of Sacramento
Mental Health Treatment Center Review of Operations
Child Abuse and Neglect
Employee Harassment
Abuse of Dependent Adults in an In-care Home
Senior and Adult Services Division Operations
Alcohol and Other Abuse Treatment Initiative
Child Abuse in Sacramento County
Family Maintenance and Reunification
Public Guardian and Conservatorship
Children at Risk

Department of Human Assistance
1997-1998

Child Support and Welfare Agencies

Department of Medical Systems
2000-2001

Mental Health Services in the County Juvenile Justice System

2000-2001
1999-2000
1998-1999
1997-1998
1996-1997
1995-1996
1994-1995

Environmental Management Department
2002-2003
1999-2000
1998-1999
1996-1997

Letter Grades for Restaurants
Mismanagement at the Environmental Management
Department
Enforcement of the No-Smoking Law
Review of Conflict of Interest Statement

Local Area Formation Commission
(LAFCO)
2001-2002

Encroaching Land Use Imperils Sacramento’s Airport System

Office of Communications & Information
Technology
1998-1999

Sacramento Regional Radio Communications System

Office of Economic Development
1996-1997

Economic Incentive Policy

Probation Department
2001-2002

2000-2001
1999-2000
1994-1995

24

Changes Needed in Juvenile Mental Health Services
Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment Programs in
Sacramento County
Unequal Treatment of Sentenced Female Inmates in
Sacramento County
Mental Health Services in the County Juvenile Justice System
Juvenile Justice Facilities and Staffing
Boys’ Ranch and Carson Creek High School

Sacramento County Grand Jury

Public Defender’s Office
2001-2002
2000-2001

Public Works Agency
1997-1998
Sacramento County Employees’
Retirement System
2001-2002

June 30, 2004

Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment Programs in
Sacramento County
Use of Public Office for Private Gain By An Attorney in the
Public Defender’s Office

Sacramento International Airport Expansion Conflict of
Interest

The Directed Brokerage Program of the Sacramento County
Employees’ Retirement System

Sacramento Public Library
1999-2000

Sacramento County Library Authority

Sacramento-Yolo Port District
1994-1995

Administration and Operations

Sheriff’s Department
2003-2004
2002-2003
2001-2002
1999-2000

1998-1999
1997-1998

1996-1997
1995-1996
1994-1995
1993-1994

Sacramento Airport System
2001-2002
Department of Airports
1997-1998
1993-1994

Sacramento County Jail Health Inmate Psychiatric Services
School Safety in Jeopardy
Unequal Treatment of Sentenced Female Inmates in
Sacramento County
Main Jail
Work Release Facility: Alternative to Incarceration
Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center
Off-duty Work by Law Enforcement in Sacramento County
Sacramento Regional Radio Communications System
Use of Prostraint Chair at the Main Jail
Child Abuse and Neglect
Review of Escape at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center in
April 1997
Abuse of Adults in an In-care Home
Women’s Holding Cells at the Main Jail
Child Abuse in Sacramento County
Jail Training for Police Officers
Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center Women’s Detention
Facility

Encroaching Land Use Perils Sacramento’s Airport System

Sacramento International Airport Expansion Conflict of
Interest
Sacramento Executive Airport

25

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Fire Districts in Sacramento County
1995-1996

Firefighters: Our Local Heroes

Cities
1993-1994

Certificates of Participation
Financing of Local Government

City of Citrus Heights
2000-2001

Credit Card Usage – City of Citrus Heights

City of Folsom
2001-2002
2000-2001
1996-1997

Folsom Sewage Spills Continue
Credit Card Usage – City of Folsom
Industrial Incentives Economic Impact

City of Galt
2002-2003
2000-2001
1997-1998
1996-1997
City of Isleton
2000-2001
1998-1999
1997-1998
1994-1995
City of Sacramento
2002-2003
2001-2002
2000-2001
1998-1999
1997-1998
1996-1997

Police Department
2002-2003
1995-1996

Misuse of Appointive Power by the Galt City Council
Lighting and Landscaping Districts
Galt-Arno Cemetery District Operations
Review of Galt-Arno District Operations
Galt-Arno Cemetery District Operations

Traffic Stop Practices of the Isleton Police Department
Policies & Procedures of the Police Department and City
Government
Questionable Behavior Between a Police Officer and a
Citizen
Administrative/Fiscal Problems

School Safety in Jeopary
Encroaching Land Use Imperils Sacramento’s Airport
System
Sewage Discharge Into the American River
Review of Sacramento Regional Radio Communications
System
Use of Time and Resources in the Mayor’s Office
Financial Incentive for Targeted Businesses
Sacramento Convention Center Operation
Industrial Incentives Economic Impact
School Safety in Jeopardy
Child Abuse in Sacramento County

Special Districts
2000-2001
1993-1994

26

Retained Earnings – Sacramento County Special Districts
Certificates of Participation
Financial of Local Government

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Remuneration to Special District Board Members
American River Flood Control District
1996-1997
Carmichael Water District
2002-2003
1996-1997
Citrus Heights Water District
2002-2003
Del Paso Manor Water District
2002-2003

Fair Oaks Water District
2002-2003

Florin County Water District
2002-2003

Use of District Property for Personal Gain

Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’
Accountability
District Operational Issues

Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’
Accountability
Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’
Accountability

Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’
Accountability

Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’
Accountability

Galt-Arno Cemetery District
2000-2001
1997-1998
1996-1997

Administration and Fiscal Management
Review of Operations and Business Procedures
Review of Operational Procedures

McClellan Air Force Base
1998-1999

Base Conversion Office

Regional County Sanitation District
1996-1997

Industrial Incentives Economic Impact

Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water
District
1997-1998
2002-2003

Inappropriate Use of Funds for the Development of a
Community Water District
Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’
Accountability

Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment
Agency
1993-1994
Capitol Area Development Authority
Sacramento Metropolitan Cable
Television Commission
1993-1994
Open Meeting Laws (The Brown Act)
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
1996-1997
Economic Development Plan

27

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Sacramento Suburban Water District
2002-2003
Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito & Vector
Control District
1998-1999

Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’
Accountability
Review of District Operations

San Juan Water District
2002-2003
Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’
Accountability
Wilton Fire Protection District
2001-2002
Status of Volunteer Firefighters Serving as Members of the
Board of Directors of the Wilton Fire Protection District

Schools
Center Unified School District
2002-2003
1997-1998
Elk Grove Unified School District
2002-2003
2002-2003

2001-2002

Grant Joint Union High School District
1993-1994
2003-2004

Sacramento City Unified School District
2002-2003
1994-1995

San Juan Unified School District
Sacramento Unified School District
2003-2004

1997-1998
1996-1997

28

School Safety in Jeopardy
Violations of the Brown Act

School Safety in Jeopardy
Elk Grove Unified School District’s Failure to Recognize
Fiscal Irresponsibility Prompting a Second Grand Jury
Investigation
Elk Grove Unified School District Fails Fiduciary
Responsibilities

Policies, Procedures and Administration
Grant Joint Union High School District’s Inappropriate Use
of Public Funds

School Safety in Jeopardy
School District Maintenance
Management, Fiscal Problems
School Safety in Jeopardy

Sacramento City Unified School District Board of
Education Was Negligent In the Establishment and
Oversight of the California Administrative Services
Authority
Allegation of Dual Employment with Two Public Agencies
Lack of Response to Requests for Public Information

Sacramento County Grand Jury

June 30, 2004

Non-Profit Organizations
Sacramento Handicapped Parking
Patrol, Inc.
1994-1995

Unsatisfactory Conduct/Performance, County’s Bidding
Process, Contract Safeguards, and Provisions

State Prison System in Sacramento County
2001-2002

Transportation of Prisoners for Non-Emergency Medical
Care by California Department of Corrections

29