Merced County

GRAND JURY FINAL
REPORT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2007-2008

June 20, 2008

The Honorable Hugh M. Flanagan
Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury
Merced County Superior Court

Dear Judge Flanagan:

On behalf of the 2007-2008 Merced County Grand Jury, it is my distinct honor to submit this
?nal report to you pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933. This report was reviewed and
approved by vote of a quorum of the members.

This Grand Jury has worked very hard in carrying out its duties as watchdogs of Merced County
government at several levels. It has been a privilege and honor as well as a challenge for all of us
to serve in this capacity over the past year.

In addition to the mandated inspections of the Merced County Juvenile Justice facility, both
Merced County jails and the L03 Banos jail, the Grand Jury inspected the Livingston, Gustine,
Dos Palos, Merced College and Merced city police departments and the Merced County
Coroner?s Office. The Grand Jury also received over thirty complaints of which it investigated
nine, declined to investigate nineteen, referred one to the District Attorney and deferred two to
the 2008-2009 Grand Jury.

All correspondence received was discussed before the full body and appropriate action taken.

We are all proud of the work we have done on behalf of the citizens of Merced County and hope
that we have made a positive contribution to our community.

Respectfully,
Al?'ed G. Mueller, Foreperson
Merced County Grand Jury

2007-2008
Merced County Grand Jury

Foreperson:

Al Mueller

Deputy Foreperson: Harlan Dake
Law, Justice & Public Safety
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Jane Fournier (Chair)
Raymond Beverly *
Don Surdich *
Denise Borge *
Jerry Pimentel
Ann Thurston
Audit & Finance/Cities/Special Districts

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Lori Henenfent (Chair)*
Barbara Adams (Successor Chair)
Jose Delgadillo
Elaine Cortez
Charles Reeves
County Administration/County Services

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Karen Arden-Waller (Chair)
Helen Amarant
Donna Evans
Jil Borden
Willie Moore
Health, Education and Welfare

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Gene Post (Chair)
Harlan Dake
Mary Anderson
Michelle Garcia*
Marcia Forgey

*Unable to complete term

3

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Letter ................................................................................................................2 
Merced County Grand Jury.........................................................................................3 
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................4 
Livingston Police Department ....................................................................................6 
Gustine Police Department .........................................................................................8 
DOS PALOS POLICE DEPARTMENT ..................................................................10 
MERCED COLLEGE POLICE DEPARTMENT ....................................................13 
CITY OF MERCED .................................................................................................15 
MERCED COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ................................................16 
JOHN LATORRACA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY ............................................18 
IRIS GARRET JUVENILE JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL CENTER .....................20 
LOS BANOS JAIL ...................................................................................................22 
MERCED COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE ..........................................................24 
COMPLAINT # 07-08-01, 07-08-03 & 07-08-06 ....................................................26 
Response to Complaints 07-08-01, 07-08-03, 07-08-06 ......................................29
Evaluation of Response - 2007 -2008 Grand Jury Report....................................33
COMPLAINT 07-08-02............................................................................................34 
COMPLAINT # 07-08-04.........................................................................................36 
COMPLAINT 07-08-05............................................................................................37 
COMPLAINT # 07-08-07.........................................................................................38 
COMPLAINT # 07-08-08.........................................................................................39 
COMPLAINT 07-08-09............................................................................................40 
COMPLAINT 07-08-10............................................................................................40 
COMPLAINT 07-08-11............................................................................................40 
4

 COMPLAINT 07-08-12............................................................................................40 
COMPLAINT 07-08-13............................................................................................41 
COMPLAINT 07-08-14............................................................................................41 
COMPLAINT 07-08-15............................................................................................41 
COMPLAINT 07-08-16............................................................................................41 
COMPLAINT 07-08-17............................................................................................42 
COMPLAINT 07-08-18............................................................................................42 
COMPLAINT 07-08-19............................................................................................42 
COMPLAINT 07-08-20............................................................................................43 
COMPLAINT 07-08-21............................................................................................45 
COMPLAINT 07-08-22............................................................................................45 
COMPLAINT 07-08-23............................................................................................45 
COMPLAINT 07-08-24............................................................................................45 
COMPLAINT 07-08-25............................................................................................46 
COMPLAINT 07-08-26............................................................................................46 
COMPLAINT 07-08-27............................................................................................46 
COMPLAINT 07-08-28............................................................................................46 
COMPLAINT 07-08-29............................................................................................47 
COMPLAINT 07-08-30............................................................................................47 
COMPLAINT 07-08-31............................................................................................47 
RESPONSES ............................................................................................................48 
City of Livingston ................................................................................................................... 49
Merced County......................................................................................................................... 50
City of Los Banos.................................................................................................................... 53
CITYOF GUSTINE................................................................................................................ 54 
5

 Livingston Police Department
Inspection
On August 21, 2007, members of the Grand Jury inspected the police department facilities at
1446 C Street, Livingston, CA.
The Grand Jury members met with Chief Bill Eldridge who provided an overview and a tour of
the entire facility and provided a question and answer period. The chief also introduced some of
his staff who made presentations concerning their areas of responsibilities which covered crime
analysis, gang suppression activities, training and community service.
Chief Eldridge has been with the Livingston Police Department since 1992. He is very proud to
serve and is completely involved in the department and the community. The Department facility
was opened in 1998 and the building and grounds are clean and well maintained. The Health
Department and the Fire Department inspections are current. The department is comprised of 35
staff members including an Animal Control Officer as well as paid and unpaid Reserve Officers.
The patrol vehicles are well secured in a designated parking area. There are adequate and clean
kitchen break room facilities for staff personnel and officers.
The Grand Jury members were shown how evidence was processed, documented and stored. The
evidence room is well secured and organized; logs are current and efficiently handled. All
records are backed by computer input and meet the required retention rates. The dispatch center
is well staffed and contains first rate equipment that is arranged for ultimate efficiency and
accessibility. The weapons locker is well managed and properly secured under dual control.
Upon completion of the tour, the Grand Jury members met in the office of Chief Eldridge. He
explained his philosophy on law enforcement and community involvement. His department has
built a very strong relationship with the schools in the community. Officers provide outreach and
education at the Middle School and the High School including such programs as the Gang
Resistance, Education and Training (GREAT) program, Neighborhood Visit program, “Every 15
minutes” program, Red Ribbon Week, Toys 4 Tots, Coats 4 Kids, Safe School Program, and
Sober Graduation Night. Police Department On-campus School Resource Officers provide
Traffic Safety Education in the classrooms.
Chief Eldridge organized the Police Department Citizen Volunteer Program which has grown
from two original members in 2000 to a current complement of ten. Their efforts are aimed at
crime prevention services and community awareness programs. They patrol the streets of the
City in specially marked police vehicles and report to on-duty officers. They participate in
Neighborhood Watch, vehicle abatement, bicycle rodeos, Fourth of July celebrations, animal
control, traffic control and fingerprinting. They also assist dispatch personnel by answering
business telephone lines, handling citizen inquiries and providing general clerical services.
Traffic Safety is important to the department. Each major area of traffic safety is addressed
including drunk driving, passenger restraint usage, speed enforcement, bicycle helmet use and
unlicensed drivers. In particular, drunk driving and seat belt checkpoints and aggressive traffic
enforcement send a strong message to traffic violators.

6

 Summary: The Livingston Police Department is a highly organized, progressive and
professionally managed department which serves the needs of a fast-growing community. All
sworn officers and the support staff are to be commended for their efforts.

7

 Gustine Police Department
Inspection

On Tuesday, October 30, 2007, members of the Grand Jury inspected the Gustine Police Department
facilities located at 682 3r Avenue, Gustine, CA. Grand Jury members were also invited to a
dedication ceremony held on Friday, November 30, 2007, for the new animal shelter constructed on
Carnation Road.
The Grand Jury members were given a tour of the Gustine Police Department Facilities by Chief of
Police Kris Anderson, Records Supervisor Loretta Strickler, and Community Service Officer Joann
Freitas. In addition, Officer Earl Warner was present during a discussion and information session.
Some Grand Jury members attended the dedication ceremony for the newly constructed animal shelter.
In a collaborative effort between the city and the Gustine Lions Club, the shelter was built to improve
conditions for personnel who tend to the shelter and the sheltered animals. The previous shelter
posed safety and health concerns. The approximate cost of the shelter was $50,000, with the
Lions Club donating labor and materials worth approximately $40,000 and the city contributing
$10,000.
A follow-up interview was conducted with Ms. Strickler and Ms. Freitas on Friday, December 7,
2007 for additional information on recent events within the department. In addition to the interview,
the grand jury members were invited by Chief of Police Anderson to attend a ceremony he
coordinated. To correspond with the day of the invasion of Pearl Harbor, the ceremony was to
recognize and honor four veterans for their service in WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, and Gulf
War, respectively. It was one example of his philosophy of the department being community-oriented.

The Gustine Police Department (PD) facilities do not include a jail. Persons taken into custody are
booked into either the Los Banos or Merced County Jail. The Department is housed in a city building
that also houses Council chambers and city government offices. The department has recently moved the
evidence room to a larger, secured room. The two evidence handlers attended a workshop in
summer 2007 to ensure the Police Department was following good practices in handling of evidence.
Some rearranging of offices has also enabled the officers to now have a small break room.
The Gustine PD had received some Homeland Security funds approximately two years ago, which
the Department originally used to procure some Hazardous Materials (HazMat)
handling/abatement equipment. Their intent was to establish and train a HazMat team in
cooperation with the Gustine Volunteer Fire Department and members from a local business which also
had HazMat issues. However, the business later decided to keep its team as strictly an in-house
function. The PD determined that initial and ongoing training costs and time requirements would be
prohibitive, so the equipment was transferred to the Merced County fire team (CalFire), which
now provides HazMat abatement services to the city.
The last visit by a Grand Jury was many years ago, so the Department has experienced some changes
in leadership since the last review. The most recent change in leadership occurred in January 2007
when Chief Anderson was hired. His style of leadership is in stark contrast to his predecessor. This
difference in leadership, along with staffing and scheduling, initially created dissention among some of
8

 the officers, resulting in a vote of no-confidence in the Chief in July 2007. That vote was rescinded in
December 2007 after the city offered to have Police Officers Standards Training (POST) evaluators
step in to conduct an assessment of department operations.
While the withdrawal of the no-confidence vote does not indicate all issues have been resolved, it is
an indication the officers are willing to move on and wait for the POST findings. In addition, the
staffing has been brought back to almost full levels which has contributed to improved morale.
Currently, the department personnel consist of one chief, two sergeants, one corporal, and nine
officers. While the department has three newer vehicles, the fleet also includes some older vehicles
with high mileage which should be replaced.
The Gustine Police Department also hired a full-time Community Service Officer in 2005; this has
contributed to higher effectiveness in the code enforcement and dog licensing. Evidence of this is
shown in the following statistics: in 2004, 286 dog licenses were issued; by 2006, 692 dog licenses
were issued, and in 2007 approximately 800 dog licenses were issued. Weed and vehicle abatement
are two other areas of emphasis for code enforcement Weed abatement is most notably enforced April
through May, while vehicle abatement is a focused enforcement in January through February. Other
areas are addressed throughout the year.
The department is actively pursuing expansion of three particular programs: Reserve, Volunteer
and Explorers. The Reserve Program recently swore in two reserves, the Volunteer Program is
garnering more interest, and the Explorers Program is continues to enroll a number of young adults.
Recommendations:
The City should identify and obtain possible expansion facilities for the Gustine Police Department,
as the current space is filled to capacity. Funding should also be made available for replacement of
high-mileage vehicles.
The Chief and staff should continue to resolve their differences to become a more cohesive unit.
The City should attempt to follow POST recommendations.
Commendations:
The City and the Gustine Lions Club are to be highly commended for their collaboration on the new
animal shelter. Chief Anderson is also to be highly commended for his community-based policing.

9

 DOS PALOS POLICE DEPARTMENT
INSPECTION
INTRODUCTION
The Merced County Grand Jury has, at its discretion under California Penal Code 925A, the
option to investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of officers, functions,
methods or system of performing duties of law enforcement agencies within Merced County.
Since there were two complaints registered against the Dos Palos Police Department (PD) with
the 2005-2006 grand jury and four more with the 2006-2007 grand jury, this panel chose to
follow up and investigate the Dos Palos PD again this year.
The grand jury's Law & Justice Committee visited the Dos Palos PD on two occasions, the first
of which was to observe the overall operation and see what changes, if any, had been made since
the previous grand jury had been there. The second visit was a follow-up to look at some records
which had not been available on the first visit. Police Chief Barry Mann conducted a tour of the
facility during the first visit, which included a trip to the newly built animal control center. The
animal control officer conducted a thorough tour of the center.
During the second visit, members again met with Chief Mann and discussed several questions
which had been asked by other members of the grand jury during their meetings. The members
also inspected appropriate officers' training records.
FINDINGS
The police department facility is orderly and as clean as can be expected, considering the age and
deteriorating condition of the building in which it is housed and the space allocated for the
department to function. A complete reorganization of the evidence locker and associated logs has
been implemented. It is evident that an effort to clean and organize the entire facility has been
made.
With respect to staffing, an administrative assistant has been hired who has some evidence
technician. He has eight years experience in law enforcement, but recognized the need for further
training and the department has plans to provide him with additional training. The improvement
in this area is noteworthy. The grand jury does have some concern for the manner in which
firearms are being stored within the evidence room; they are not secured in any kind of
container, but merely stacked in a corner. There is still a need for more officers. A recently hired
sergeant was terminated prior to the end of his probationary period, a situation which seems to be
an ongoing problem. Another sergeant is being sought, and Chief Mann stated that the
department is now short one sergeant and two officers. There is no school resource officer at this
time.
The previously designated holding cells have been deactivated and arrestees are now taken to
Los Banos for booking and detention. The operations room was considerably more organized
than it was during last year's visit. The city's animal control shelter, which was in extremely poor
condition last year, has been replaced by a new building. It is a first-rate facility, staffed by many
volunteers under the supervision of the animal control officer. The animal control officer also
has a new truck. The animals in the shelter are obviously well fed and cared for in a professional
10

 manner.
There is no K-9 unit at this time because a trained officer is not available. Two dogs have been
retired and a third is being kept at the animal control facility where it receives some training, but
until an officer specifically designated for the K-9 unit is hired and the officer and dog receive
proper training, the unit will not become active.
The police vehicles are parked outside the station in an unsecured area. The department has
recently obtained two new patrol cars, and the entire fleet is now uniformly painted. All of the
patrol cars are now equipped with mobile data terminals, enabling officers to file their reports
while in their vehicles, thus providing the community with greater police visibility and presence.
The terminals also provide mapping for and tracking of the vehicles.
The department has also recently purchased a new records management system which greatly
enhances day-to-day tracking of appointments, reports and other administrative details.
A review of the citizens' complaint log showed that community complaints are logged and
addressed in a timely manner. The chief keeps the log and all associated records concerning the
matters in his office. The log and information therein seem to be in order. The grand jury
committee also reviewed the officers' training logs. All officers have met the Basic Peace Officer
Standards and Training (POST) standards. The chief has completed basic POST and has three
more quarters to complete with Kaplan University on-line to obtain his BA degree.
The committee also obtained and reviewed the job description for the police chief. While the
minimum requirement consists of only possession of an "appropriate" California operator's
license, there is a number of other presumably desirable attributes, outlined in the job
description, including knowledge, ability, experience, training, education and medical. The
document was adopted on Sept. 5, 1978, and should be reviewed and updated by appropriate
authority.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. While it appears that the Dos Palos Police Department has made efforts to implement the
recommendations of last year's grand jury, there remains much work to be done. The job
description for the police chief needs to be updated and revised to reflect current needs and
standards. The city administrator then needs to assess the chief's qualifications and ensure that
the chief meets those requirements.
2. The department must obtain and utilize a more secure storage locker for the weapons kept in
the evidence room.
3. The evidence technician should attend current training for his position as soon as possible.
4. Consideration should be given to provide a more secure area in which to park department
vehicles. As currently configured, the vehicles could easily be vandalized.
5. The department should reassess its need for a K-9 unit. In such a small department, it may
prove to be unfeasible or impractical to have a K-9 unit.
6. This grand jury strongly recommends that the 2008-2009 grand jury reinspect the Dos Palos
11

 Police Department.

12

MERCED COLLEGE POLICE DEPARTMENT
On November 7, 2007, members of the Grand Jury inspected the Merced Community
College Police Department located at 3600 M Street in the Services Building on the
Merced College campus. The last inspection conducted by the Grand Jury was on
November 17, 2003.
The tour of the facility was conducted by Merced County Deputy Sheriff Jim Wilde.
Deputy Wilde is the on-site Law Enforcement Manager for the department. The College
District has contracted through the Merced County Sheriff Department for supervision
and logistical support for the Police Department.
FINDINGS

Deputy Wilde has been supervising the department for approximately two years. Under
his supervision, the department was remodeled to include a wall in the entrance area for
privacy and security. The department was clean and in good condition. There is a
central area which serves many purposes including an area for computers where the
officers are able to complete their reports.
The department consists of a total of 21 personnel including three security officers at
the Los Banos campus. There are three full-time P.O.S.T certified police officers, an
office manager, three part-time citation officers who work 19 hours per week on an 11
month contract. The remainder are part time security officers who are considered 8
hour a week contract employees.
During the investigation of Grand Jury report Complaint # 03-04-11, the grand jury
found that some equipment the department had obtained from the Defense Reutilization
and Marketing Service was being removed from the campus by employees. It thus
recommended the equipment be carefully tracked. This equipment was later
determined to be excess to the department's needs and was returned to Sharp Army
Depot by Sergeant B.J. Jones and other employees of the Merced County Sheriff's
Department.
The department's Record Management System (RMS) is integrated with the Merced
County Sheriff's Department, so that information gathered can be used for reporting and
security purposes.
The lost and found procedures were updated to include keeping records in house and
securing and processing such property separate from evidence items. The lost and
found property is now stored in a secure locker.
The department has established a working relationship with the California State Parole
Agency, Merced County Probation Department and other allied agencies; this has
proven to be effective in dealing with various elements of the student population.
One new patrol vehicle was purchased recently and has been completely outfitted with
13

 appropriate equipment.
Assigned police officers are trained in how to respond to on-campus shooting threats.
The officers are current with their required P.O.S.T training which is set up through the
Merced County Sheriff's Department and is consistent with the patrol staff at the
sheriff's department. The officers take part in range training with the sheriff department
personnel.
The officers as well as other personnel commonly provide classroom presentations on
safety and security. Officer Tim Martin is instructing a class at Cruickshank Middle
School in the Gang Resistance Education and Training, (G.R.E.A.T) program.
Assigned personnel are also pro-active in the area of community relations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The department should plan, develop, install, test and implement an effective campuswide warning system as soon as possible. The system should be simple enough to be
easily understood by all students as well as employees, yet complex enough to convey
all essential messages in the event of a serious emergency. Minimally, it should be
able to convey instructions to all student and instructors to remain in their classrooms
until an all-clear is given, and to wait for further instructions. A reliable back-up system,
while not an absolute necessity, should be considered. Such a system might be one
which makes automated announcements to each classroom, or notifies all students via
their cellular phones.
COMMENDATION
Deputy Wilde and his staff should be commended for the improvements that have been
made and implemented since the last Grand Jury tour.

14

 CITY OF MERCED
POLICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTION
INTRODUCTION
The Law and Justice Committee of the Grand Jury conducted an inspection of the Merced Police
Department on November 28, 2007. The tour of the facility, located at 611 West 22nd Street,
Merced, was conducted by Commander Jeff Shindler.
FINDINGS
Commander Shindler gave a complete overview of the entire operation of the Merced Police
Department (PD). The passage of Measure C in 2006 has enabled the expansion of the PD's
uniformed force to 109 sworn officers. The main police station is well maintained, though quite
cramped for space, but the department has received approval to complete a study for a new
building. In addition to the main police station, the department has two substations, one located
at 1109 Loughborough Drive and the other at 470 West 11th Street. These substations, each of
which is staffed 12 hours per day, allow officers to be readily available to the neighborhoods in
which they are located for investigations and assistance in gang suppression activities.
The committee was also briefed by Commander Tom Martin, Officer Hector Ortiz and Chief
Russ Thomas. Commander Martin showed the committee officers' briefing room, their locker
room and the detectives' offices. Officer Ortiz conducted the tour of the evidence room, which
was very well organized, neat and clean. Access to it is limited to two officers, thus ensuring
positive control of all evidence materials.
Detective Joseph Weiss gave a thorough and interesting explanation of the operation of the
computer forensic laboratory where evidence of computer and cell phone crimes are investigated
and processed. Of particular note is the lab's status as a headquarters facility for the Sacramento
Valley Hi-Tech Crimes task force. As such it is consulted by other law enforcement agencies
throughout the central valley for its expertise in this specialized field.
Chief Thomas explained his beliefs and expectations for his officers. He has made some changes
in the command staff alignments and added new services. One example is the creation of a
Crime Scene Response Team, which has proven to expand the PD's investigative capabilities.
COMMENDATION
The Merced Police Department is well organized and responsive to the community's needs. The
facility is clean and well maintained and presents a professional appearance. Education of
officers and staff and service to the community are top priorities of the chief and his
administration.

15

 MERCED COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
MAIN JAIL
MANDATED INSPECTION
INTRODUCTION
The Merced County Grand Jury inspected the main Merced County jail at 700 W. 22nd Street,
Merced, on November 14, 2007. This inspection is mandated to be performed annually by
California Penal Code 919. Members of the grand jury met with Sgt. Dan Bobrowski and
Commander Rick Thoreson, who provided an overview of jail operations and a report of
employment needs. They also conducted a thorough tour of the facility.
FINDINGS
On the date of the inspection, the facility was at maximum capacity of 180 inmates. Members
were shown the operations center where all entryways are controlled and all of the displays for
the closed circuit cameras which provide jail security are located. The grand jury observed the
booking procedure which includes the Live Scan computerized fingerprinting process that is
connected to the state and federal law enforcement data base system. Also visited were the food
distribution area, the holding cell area and the classification office where inmates arriving from
the Latorraca Correctional Facility are processed.
Medical services are provided via a contract with the California Forensic Medical Group. The
medical department was inspected and some of the staff interviewed. They provide medical
services 24/7 for jail inmates, except for mental health services, which are provided on an on-call
and regularly scheduled weekly basis.
The grand jury then visited the segregated cell block area, a part of the jail which was
constructed in the 1960s, and is the oldest part of the jail. Inmates (at the time of the grand jury's
visit) are placed in cells according to their gang affiliation, if any. Since then, the two main
gangs, Nortenos and Surenos, are separated into the two county jail facilities - the main jail and
the Latorraca facility. The cells hold eight inmates each, in tiered bunks.
The overall condition of the cell blocks is deplorable! Paint on the ceiling and walls is chipped
and peeling and needs to be sanded and repainted. There is condensation on many surfaces and
metal surfaces are rusted. There is considerable evidence of roof water leaks. Repairs to cell
block hardware, if needed, are expensive and difficult to obtain because parts are hard to find and
no longer readily available. Because of its age, the grand jury questions whether or not there may
be an asbestos problem, as well. In sum, Merced County needs a new jail!
Staffing at the main jail continues to be a problem, as was noted in the 2007 Grand Jury report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Merced County Sheriff's Department and the county Board of Supervisors need to deal with
the continuing overcrowding problem, as well as increasing the number of correctional officers
at the facility.
Since funding for a new jail is unlikely to be obtainable in the near future, a concerted effort to
improve maintenance of the segregated cell area must immediately become a priority for the
16

 department. The area should be temporarily vacated, sand blasted and repainted, at a minimum.
The roof should be thoroughly inspected and repaired as necessary.
Improvements should be made to the heating/cooling/ventilation systems to prevent
condensation and reported wide temperature variations in the cell block areas.
If these deficiencies are not addressed quickly, the potential for inmate disturbances, possible
escapes and further, more expensive facility repairs will only grow to unmanageable proportions.

17

 JOHN LATORRACA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
MANDATED ANNUAL INSPECTION

INTRODUCTION
California Penal Code Section 919 mandates the grand jury to inspect correctional facilities
within Merced County annually.
The grand jury visited and toured the John Latorraca Correctional facility at 2564 West Sandy
Mush Road, Merced, on December 3, 2007. The Merced County Sheriff's Department, under the
command of Sheriff Mark Pazin, is responsible for the operation of the facility. The site is under
the direct supervision of Commander Joe Scott. The tour was conducted by the day shift
supervisor, Sgt Timothy Moore. The grand jury toured the facility and examined several
dormitories, of which there are 24, as well as the food service and medical care areas. Male and
female inmates were interviewed. Commander Scott then gave a presentation on the operations
and staffing of the jail.
FINDINGS
Staffing at the jail has been and continues to be at crisis levels. This is the seventh consecutive
year in which the grand jury has identified this serious deficiency! The jail typically has more
inmates than there are beds available. The only solution available to resolve this is to place
mattresses on the floor in the dorms. On average, the inmate population is 80% male and 20%
female. A large percentage of the inmates are charged with serious and/or violent crimes.
Inmates are confined to their dorms most of the time and are largely unsupervised there. As a
consequence, one inmate soon becomes a de-facto leader in each dorm. In jail slang, the leader is
called the "shot caller", because he dictates behavior among his peers. This clearly increases the
danger for more vulnerable inmates, and beatings are frequent.
Often, individuals with severe mental health problems, who are beyond the capability of the
Mental Health Department to control, are brought here to be placed in custody until they can be
transferred to a state mental facility or are released. This procedure adds more difficult
responsibilities to an already overburdened staff.
Staff shortages have also led to excessive overtime; this becomes an acute problem in volatile
times and escalates the potential for violence. These situations contribute to low morale among
correctional officers. A previous grand jury met with the County Executive Officer, who agreed
to budget for four additional correctional officers each year until the facility is adequately staffed
and becomes a safe workplace.
Recently, Merced County along with many other counties nationwide lost its insurance coverage
for law enforcement agencies. Therefore, in December, 2007 the Sheriff's Department
established a policy which made it very difficult to strip search prisoners; now when a prisoner is
booked, he or she must be allowed to change clothes and shower in complete privacy. This
creates a huge potential for concealed contraband to enter the facility.
The grand jury also inspected the kitchen and observed lunch preparation. Two hot meals and
18

 one cold meal are served daily. The kitchen also prepares meals for the main jail in downtown
Merced, as well as for the juvenile justice facility which is nearby. The food is well prepared and
sufficient. The kitchen was very clean and well organized. One problem with food at this facility
is that the local water has been found to be contaminated with unacceptable levels of arsenic. As
a result, the sheriff's department must purchase bottled water at a cost of nearly $50,000 per year.
A water filtering plant is to be installed, but that project is still only in the planning stage.
Commander Scott stated that the sheriff's department has applied for a grant to pay for a new
building which would house 96 inmates. The building would include a large all-purpose area
which could be adapted for many uses, perhaps even a courtroom, saving the costs of
transporting prisoners to and from downtown for hearings.
Overcrowding at the jail remains at crisis levels, and there continues to be an apparent lack of
concern and attention by the county Board of Supervisors to the problem.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Funding for adequate staffing and added building capacity must be sought by county officials at
every level to relieve the ongoing overcrowding crisis. This problem will only escalate over time,
and must be given attention by the county Board of Supervisors at every possible opportunity.
Inaction will only result in ever increasing costs in the future
COMMENDATION
The staff and supervisory personnel at the Latorraca facility are to be commended for their
efforts under trying and often dangerous conditions.

19

 MERCED COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT
IRIS GARRET JUVENILE JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL CENTER
MANDATED ANNUAL INSPECTION

INTRODUCTION

California Penal Code, Section 919, mandates the grand jury inspect correctional facilities within
the county each year. The grand jury undertook a tour and inspection of the Iris Garret Juvenile
Justice Correctional Center located at 2586 West Sandy Mush Road, Merced, on December 5,
2007. The jury toured the entire facility, examining the intake area, medical service station,
dormitories, classrooms and recreational facilities. The Assistant Chief Probation Officer and the
Facility Supervisor conducted the tour.
FINDINGS
The facility was very clean, well organized and in overall excellent condition. It consists of two
buildings, each with four wings in an "X" pattern, with a very modern control station centrally
located in the center of each "X".
This enables correctional staff to closely monitor and control all activity in each building. Each
wing has a classroom and teachers are permanently assigned to conduct regular academic classes
at the facility. In addition, some vocational training is available to the minors.
The population of the facility varies from 85 to 95 minors at any one time. There are 69 staff
members currently assigned to the center; 75 are authorized. Officials are attempting to recruit
for the open positions.
The food service facility was also inspected by the grand jury and found to be clean and well
managed. Well balanced meals, including snacks consisting mostly of fresh fruit, are prepared at
the nearby John Latorraca Correctional Facility and transported to the center at appropriate
times.
There are well organized and supervised recreational activities available to the minors. Staff
appear to be very much in control of a difficult job. There is a courtroom co-located in the center
which expedites the court process and eliminates transportation costs.
Of particular note is a relatively new program initiated at the center, called the Bear Creek
Academy. It is a program through which selected minors can earn their way out of detention
more quickly. The program operates on a point system whereby the selected minors can earn
points through good behavior or lose points through bad behavior. They can also earn additional
points through various endeavors, such as community service work in grounds maintenance. The
program thus provides incentive for good behavior, especially when minors see others being
released more quickly through their own actions.

20

 COMMENDATION
The staff and administration of the Merced County Juvenile Justice Center are to be commended
for the excellent work they are doing. The facility is very secure and well managed, thus helping
to ensure the safety of the community as well as the minors.

21

 LOS BANOS JAIL
MANDATED INSPECTION
INTRODUCTION
On January 9, 2008, the Merced County Grand Jury inspected the City of Los Banos jail at 945
5th St. Los Banos, Ca. The Grand Jury Law and Justice Committee spoke with Chief Chris
Gallagher of the Los Banos Police Department (LBPD). The chief had been "at the helm" for
approximately 16 months at the time of the meeting. He turned the tour and discussion over to
Administrative Commander and Jail Manager Dan Fitchie who has served with the LBPD for 26
years.
FINDINGS
Los Banos operates a Type 1jail facility which allows the department to house no more than 20
inmates for up to 96 hours, excluding holidays. On the day of the grand jury's visit there were no
inmates being held in the facility. The California Highway Patrol, Dos Palos Police Department,
California Fish and Game Department, Merced County Sheriff's Department and Gustine Police
Department all use the LB jail for booking purposes. In 2007 there were 3552 bookings at the
jail.
The jail, part of the police department facility, was designed according to the standards in effect
at the time of its construction in the 1960s. As such, it no longer meets criteria in effect today,
and cannot be modified to meet today's standards. The jail has passed all required inspections,
including those of the health department, fire department and juvenile justice agencies. Its next
inspection by state authorities was scheduled to be performed shortly after the grand jury's visit.
Notwithstanding its age, the facility is clean and well maintained. There is one cell designed to
hold inmates who may be in danger of injuring themselves. Again, due to its age, the materials
used in that cell are no longer available, and repairs to the surfaces are difficult to accomplish,
expensive, and only minimally satisfactory. There is a kitchen area where sandwiches and other
snacks are prepared for inmates. Although all persons entering the jail area, including uniformed
officers, are required to place any dangerous devices such as guns, knives, etc. in a secured
locker, on the day that the grand jury visited the jail there was a sharp knife in one of the kitchen
drawers.
Los Banos police officials will not hold what they call "unique" inmates, such as violent or
mentally disturbed detainees. Such inmates are immediately transported to more appropriate
Merced County facilities. The LBPD however, proudly states that its jail has been effectively
utilized by keeping approximately 16,000 inmates out of county jail facilities over a ten year
period. Generally speaking, these have been "cite and release" or bailed out detainees.
Commander Fitchie told the grand jury that the LBPD is very pleased with the cooperation it
receives from other Westside law enforcement agencies. In particular, he noted that the Merced
County Sheriff's Department to leave a vehicle based at the LBPD to transport inmates to county
facilities each day, if needed, thus saving the LBPD the resources required to make a round trip
for that purpose.
The LBPD is authorized to employ seven Community Service Officers (CSO) who are used as
jail monitors under the supervision of an on-duty sergeant. At the time of the grand jury's visit,
22

 the department had only three CSOs on staff, four short of the seven authorized, and one out on
maternity leave. One CSO is funded under Measure P (Public Safety Fund 2004), one is funded
through Community Facilities District and five are funded from the city's general fund. The city
is currently in the midst of a hiring freeze; hence the unfilled CSO positions cannot be filled at
this time. When CSOs are not available, the jail area is under constant surveillance by police
dispatch personnel. The LBPD is planning to build a new facility which may include some
holding (12 hour maximum) cells.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The grand jury recommends that increased emphasis be placed on securing the kitchen area and
removing any dangerous items that may be found there.
We also recommend that every effort be made to find funding for the unfilled CSO positions.
COMMENDATION
The grand jury thanks Chief Gallagher and Commander Fitchie for their positive attitude and
informative tour.

23

 MERCED COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE
On February 13, 2008, members of the Grand Jury inspected the Merced County
Coroner's Office located at 455 E. 13nth Street, Merced. The members were given a tour
of the facility and examined the meeting room, record keeping system and the
decomposition area. They also spoke with several employees.
FINDINGS:
Chief Deputy Coroner Mike Harris conducted the tour of the facility and gave a general
overview of the facility. Deputy Harris has been in charge of the facility for
approximately one year and two months. Most of the recommendations made by the
2004-2005 and 2005-2006 Grand Juries have been implemented. The exception is that
there is no pathologist on-site. This finding is addressed later in this report.
The exterior and interior of the facility are clean and well maintained.
The interior has been remodeled to include a private conference room. This room is
used to conduct meetings and consultations with families; it provides more privacy and
confidentiality for the staff and family members.
A new record management system has been implemented. Record keeping is now fully
automated, and can be searched by name, date of birth, case number or next of kin.
There are 21 cases pending which are over 90 days old, and a total of 50 pending
cases. Most of the older cases are awaiting responses from the state laboratories in
Sacramento. When cases become 90 days old, a report is automatically generated,
alerting staff to follow up to determine the reasons for the delay. A status board in the
office lists current cases as well as older ones still under investigation. The coroner's
Record Management System was designed by Deputy Corner Mike Harris using
Microsoft Access. Several other county coroners' offices have expressed interest in
using the system.
The coroner staff includes Deputy Harris, four full-time deputy coroners and one parttime extra help coroner. There are three vans available for transportation. Hours
covered by the full-time staff and extra help are 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. Monday through
Wednesday, 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. Thursday and Friday, and 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday and
Sunday. There is a full-time deputy coroner on call 24-7. Full-time deputy coroners are
sent to the P.O.S.T 80 hour Death Investigation Course. Two of the full-time deputy
coroners are registered with the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators.
The remaining two full-time deputy coroners have completed the pre-requisites for the
same program and are scheduled to be tested in 90 days. Continuing education
consists of attendance at a State Coroners' seminar at least every two years.
Death certificates are completed within eight working days of a death and sent to the
Public Health Department. Death certificates are not issued by the coroner's office.
Regardless of whether or not the determination of cause of death has been established,
a death certificate is filed within this time frame. If the cause of death has not been
determined when the death certificate is filed, a pending death certificate is issued. A
pending death certificate is almost always accepted for insurance purposes. When the
cause/manner of death is determined, an amended death certificate is filed and that
24

 usually goes to Sacramento through the Merced County Public Health Department.
Certified death certificates are almost always available through the funeral home. The
Merced County Coroner's Office does not have access to or issue certified death
certificates.
In April of this year, the state will be installing the Electronic Death Registration System.
This system will greatly speed up the death certification process and allow the coroner's
office to submit amendments immediately rather than having to go through
Sacramento.
The decomposition area was constructed in 2004 and is designed to handle a
decomposing body; the air system has been changed, and the coroner's office is
currently waiting for public works and PG&E to get additional power to the building to
handle the system. Two Grand Jury members inspected this facility.
An autopsy, if necessary, is conducted in four to five days. The body is then released to
the funeral home. If a pathologist is needed, the coroner's office has a contract with a
pathologist out of Stockton, and usually receives same day response.
Not all deaths meet the criteria set forth within the California Government Code (GC
27491) to be deemed coroner cases. The coroner's office has established a list of
deaths which meet the appropriate criteria.
When queried about what procedures are followed in the event of a death due to
possible or actual radiation contamination, Deputy Harris replied that such a scenario
had not been officially contemplated; hence no written procedure has been developed.
He added that in such instances, assistance would likely be requested from state
authorities.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. A strong effort, including assistance from the Office of the Sheriff and/or the Board
of Supervisors if needed, be made to complete the power requirements for the
decomposition room so that it can be fully utilized.
2. Although a radiation caused death is unlikely in this area, such an occurrence is
possible. A standard procedure should be developed and published for handling and
processing such cases.
COMMENDATION
3. Deputy Coroner Mike Harris and his staff are to be commended for the
improvements that have been made to the coroner's facility, and their continuing efforts
to make further improvements.

25

 COMPLAINT # 07-08-01, 07-08-03 & 07-08-06
Livingston City Council
Summary
Several complaints were received from residents of Livingston about three members of the city council of
that city. Specific complaints alleged that city staff was being harassed, non-agenda items were being
voted on at council meetings, the Brown Act was being violated and improper conduct was taking place.
The Grand Jury found that city staff are being intimidated, some improper requests of city staff are being
made, one member of the council, Councilman Rodrigo Espinoza, did not comply with the California
Health & Safety Code, the public is unaware of how to obtain copies of official minutes of council
meetings and council meeting rules are not being followed. The Grand Jury also found that serious
personal differences among city council members are negatively impacting the ability of the council to
govern the city effectively.

Introduction
The complainants, of which there are three, allege that three members of the Livingston City Council,
Mayor Gurpal Samra, Councilman Rodrigo Espinoza and Councilman William Ingram, repeatedly
interrupt the work of and harass the city hall staff, vote on non-agenda items at City Council meetings,
violate the Brown Act, and engage in conduct which is questionable and/or unethical. The Grand Jury
agreed to investigate the complaints. All three complaints are related, so the Grand Jury decided to
combine them into one investigation.
Method of Investigation
The County Administration/County Services Committee interviewed each of the complainants
separately. All three stated that their primary complaint was that certain members of the city council do
not follow proper procedures and protocol in contacting city hall staff, and that they make unreasonable
demands of the staff. The complainants also stated that:
The position of a Code Enforcement Officer, urgently needed in the city, had been provided for in past
and current budgets, but has not yet been filled.

Some council members' conduct and decision making is unethically made for self-gain and not in the best
interests of the community which they were elected to serve.
Council member Rodrigo Espinoza has purchased property in the redevelopment area while he is a
director of the Redevelopment Agency, thus creating a conflict of interest.
The committee also interviewed several senior city officials, members of the city staff and a member of
the public, as well as city council members. One member of the council, Mr. Rodrigo Espinoza, even
after being subpoenaed, refused to answer any questions, citing his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination. He also refused to sign any documents, even the standard admonishment against
discussing any matters or questions asked of him by the Grand Jury.
The committee also reviewed audio recordings and published minutes of city council meetings,
26

 memoranda of record written by city officials and staff, city ordinances and other official documents.
Several grand jury members also attended selected city council meetings.
Findings
City staff members universally agreed that some members of the council habitually interrupted staffs
workday to request special attention to council members' concerns. These requests were documented in
letters and memoranda. Many staff members felt intimidated by the council members, fearing they could
lose their jobs and/or have their department's budget cut if they did not acquiesce to the requests.
Senior city officials and staff members, as well as the council members interviewed, all agreed that
contacts between the council members and staff should go through the City Manager, but this protocol is
obviously not consistently being followed.
The three council members have made requests of city staff that are inappropriate and could be
considered unethical. One example of this was an incident when a city staff member was asked to certify
that a relative of the councilman had performed some community service which the relative had not
actually performed.
The position of Code Enforcement Officer was budgeted for in the 2006-2007 city budget, and again in
the 2007-2008 city budget, but has never been filled. There is disagreement among council members as to
whether direction has been given to the city manager to fill the position. Councilman Ingram stated that
the city manager had been instructed by the council to fill the position, but this was not confirmed by any
other council members. City hiring officials stated that they had not been told to fill the position, and
could not do so until the council directed that the position be filled.
Published minutes of city council meetings are incomplete and inaccurate. This finding was also
addressed by the previous grand jury in their report on Complaint # 06-07-15. However, further inquiries
revealed that the official minutes of council meetings consist of the audio recordings of such meetings.
Those recordings are available for purchase by the public at a nominal cost. Published (written) minutes
are essentially a synopsis of council meetings.
Allegations of Brown Act violations could not be substantiated. Although numerous witnesses stated that
the three council members were often seen together, none could confirm that any city business was being
discussed by the three. Since the Brown Act explicitly permits social contact (CA Government Code
54952.2(c) (5)) among elected officials, the grand jury found no violations.
City Council members allow their personal differences and conflicts to interfere with voting and
decision making. This negatively affects the community.
Council member Espinoza did purchase property within the Redevelopment area while he was a Director
of the Redevelopment Agency. The California Form 700 was filed, but the purchase was never entered
into the city council minutes, as required by California Health & Safety Code, Section 33130 (a). Since
the filing of the Form 700 does constitute public disclosure, the grand jury does not believe there was any
intent to conceal the purchase on Mr. Espinoza's part, and it is possible that the failure to enter the facts of
the purchase in council minutes is merely an administrative oversight. Since Mr. Espinoza refused to be
interviewed, the grand jury was unable to clarify this matter any further.

27

 The committee randomly selected and reviewed several audio recordings of city council meetings
and was unable to verify that the council members regularly vote on non-agenda items.
The grand jury also noted that time limits for individual comments (three minutes per individual as
written in council meeting rules, and stated by the Mayor at each meeting) are not observed.
Recommendations
Council members should carefully consider all actions they might wish city staff to take, to ensure that
such actions are in the best interests of the city as a whole, not merely for the benefit of selected
individuals. They would be well advised to consult with the city manager first to obtain his and staffs
recommendations.
All council members should strictly observe the protocols implied by the City Organizational Chart and
make requests of city staff only through the City Manager, except in emergency situations.
Council should resolve their differences with respect to the need for a Code Enforcement Officer, and
direct the city hiring authority accordingly. There appears to be a real need for such a position, and the
grand jury recommends that the position be filled as soon as possible.
The council should make it very clear, perhaps through an ordinance, that the official minutes of council
meetings are the audio recordings of such meetings. Further, copies of these recordings should be made
readily available to the public at cost. One possible way to do this would be to provide copies to members
of the public at no cost if the person desiring such a copy provides a blank audio tape on which to copy.
Since not everyone has access to playback equipment, the city should provide for a room and equipment
which the public can use for this purpose.
Although no Brown Act violations could be substantiated, council members should be aware that even
the appearance of impropriety is to be avoided by elected officials. Council members should try to avoid
frequent gatherings which tend to instill public suspicions.
All council members should make every effort to cast aside their personal differences in favor of the
best interests of the City of Livingston.
Councilman Espinoza should resign from his position as a Director of the Redevelopment Agency.
Further, he should immediately enter into the next council meeting's minutes, notification of his purchase
of property within the redevelopment area.
Council should, with the assistance of the city attorney, enforce the three-minute rule for public comment
at all city council meetings.

28

 City of Livingston
1416 Street
Livingston, CA 95334

 

May 6. 2008

Merced County lGrand Jury
PD. Box 2034
Merced- California 95344-2034

Re: City of Livingston Response to Grand Jury Report Complaint 07?08?01. 07-08-03.
and 07-08-06

Dear Members ofthe Grand Jury:

The City of Livingston has reviewed the ?ndings and recommendations ofthe Merced County Grand Jury
Report regarding Complaint 07-08-01. 07-08-03. and 0108-06. After careful consideration of the report
and Livingston?s review ofthe facts. the City responds to the Grand .lury's findings and recommendations
as follows:

Finding I: City staffmembers universally agreed that some members ofthe Council habitually
interrupted staffs workday to request special attention to Council Members' concerns. These requests
were documented in letters and memoranda. Many staff members felt intimidated by the Council
Members. fearing they could lose theirjobs and/or have their department?s budget cut iftltey did not
acquiesce to the requests.

City Response: The City disagrees with this finding. The City is not aware of any individual staff
members concerns regarding special requests. fear of losing theirjob. andfor budgets cuts to their
department. The City Council is aware and familiar with the city manager form of government. which is
applicable to the City of Livingston. in which the City Manager. and not the Council has the power to
administer the day-to-day affairs ofthe City. hire and fire city employees. and perform such other
functions as the otmcii chooses to authorize by ordinance.

Finding 2: Senior City officials and staff members. as well as the Council Members intenriewed. alt
agreed that contacts between the Council Members and staff should go through the City Manager. but this
protocol is obviously not consistently being followed.

City Response: The City agrees that all contacts between Council Members and staff should go through
the City Manager.

Finding 3: Three Council Members have made requests ofCity staff that are inappropriate and could be
considered unethical. One example of this was an incident when a City staff member was asked to certify
that a relative of the Councilman had performed some community service which the relative had not
actually performed.

City Response: The City is not aware ofany inappropriate requests made by Council Members to City
staff. The City Council agrees that all contacts between Council Members and staff should go through the
City Manager and should not include requests that may personally benefit a Council Member.

CITY OF LIVINGSTON
1416 Street LIVINGSTON, CALIFORNIA 95334 PHONE: (209)394-3041 FAX: (209) 394?4190

wwlivingstoncitgcom

29

Finding 4: The position of Code Enforcement Of?cer was budgeted for in the 2006?2007 City budget,
and again in the 2007-2008 City budget, but has never been ?lled. There is disagreement among Council
Members as to whether direction has been given to the City Manager to ?ll the position. Councilman
Ingram stated that the City Manager had been instructed by the Council to ?ll the position, but this was
not con?rmed by any other Council Members. City hiring of?cials stated that they had not been told to
?ll the position, and could not do so until the Council directed that the position be ?lled.

City Response: The City agrees with this ?nding. The City Manager has not received instruction from
the City Council to ?ll the position of Code Enforcement Officer.

Finding 5: Published minutes of City Council meetings are incomplete and inaccurate. This ?nding was
also addressed by the previous grand jury in their report on Complaint 06-07-15. However, further
inquiries revealed that the of?cial minutes of council meetings consist of the audio recordings of such
meetings. Those recordings are available for purchase by the public at a nominal cost. Published
(written) minutes are essentially a synopsis of council meetings.

City Response: The City disagrees with this ?nding. The published minutes of the City Council
meetings are not verbatim minutes from the City Council meeting, but constitute a summary of the
meeting. The minutes are placed on the agenda for review and approval and present an accurate and
complete summary of the Council meeting. The City also records the Council meetings and makes these
audio recordings available to the public at no charge.

Finding 6: Allegations of Brown Act violations could not be substantiated. Although numerous
witnesses stated that the three Council Members were often seen together, none could con?rm that any
City business was being discussed by the three. Since the Brown Act explicitly permits social contact
(CA Government Code 54952.2(c) among elected of?cials, the grand jury found no violations.

City Response: The City agrees with this ?nding. The Brown Act does not prohibit social contact of a
majority of the City Council, so long as no City business is discussed. By itself, the presence of a
majority of the Council does not substantiate a Brown Act violation.

Finding 7: City Council members allow their personal differences and conflicts to interfere with voting
and decision making. This negatively affects the community.

City Response: The City disagrees with this ?nding. City Council members take their oath of of?ce and
responsibilities seriously and do not take into account any personal differences they may have when
considering a decision.

Finding 8: Council Member Espinoza did purchase property within the Redevelopment Area while he
was a Director of the Redevelopment Agency. The California Form 700 was ?led, but the purchase was
never entered into the city council minutes, as required by California Health Safety Code,.Section.
33130 Since the ?ling of the Form 700 does constitute public disclosure, the grand jury does not
believe there was any intent to conceal the purchase on Mr. Espinoza?s part, and it is possible that the
failure to enter the facts of the purchase in council minutes is merely an administrative oversight. Since
Mr. Espinoza refused to be interviewed, the grand jury was unable to clarify this matter any further.

City Response: The City agrees with this ?nding. Agency Board Member Espinoza did acquire property
within the Redevelopment Project Area while he was a Director of the Redevelopment Agency. Board
Member Espinoza was not aware of the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 33130 and did
not make any attempt to hide this acquisition of property, as documented by his Form 700.

Finding 9: The committee randomly selected and reviewed several audio recordings of City Council
meetings and was unable to verify that the Council Members regularly vote on non?agenda items.

City Response: The City agrees with this ?nding. The City Council does not vote on items that are not
listed on the agenda, unless permitted under the Brown Act.

30

Finding 10: The grand jury also noted that time limits for individual comments (three minutes per
individual as written in council meeting rules, and stated by the Mayor at each meeting) are not observed.

City Response: The City disagrees with this ?nding. The Mayor has enlisted the City Attorney to time
each speaker to allow each speaker 3 minutes for public comment as written in council meeting rules.
This has been enforced as of December 2007.

Recommendation 1: Council Members should carefully consider all actions they might wish City staff to
take, to ensure that such actions are in the best interests of the city as a whole, not merely for the bene?t
of selected individuals. They would be well advised to consult with the City Manager ?rst to obtain his
and staff?s recommendations.

City Response: The City Council agrees that all contacts between Council Members and staff should go
through the City Manager and should not include requests that may personally bene?t a Council Member.

Recommendation 2: All Council Members should strictly observe the protocols implied by the City
Organizational Chart and make requests of City staff only through the City Manager, except in emergency
situations.

City Response: The City agrees that all Council Members should observe the City Manager form of
government and make requests of City staff through the City Manager, except in emergency situations.

Recommendation 3: Council should resolve their differences with respect to the need for a Code
Enforcement Officer, and direct the City hiring authority accordingly. There appears to be a real need for
such a position, and the grandjury recommends that the position be ?lled as soon as possible.

City Response: The City disagrees with this recommendation. The need for a code enforcement of?cer is
within the purview of the City Council. Such a decision must be considered against other competing
interests and needs of the City, keeping in mind the City?s limited budget.

Recommendation 4: The Council should make it very clear, perhaps through an ordinance, that the
of?cial minutes of council meetings are the audio recordings of such meetings. Further, copies of these
recordings should be made readily available to the public at cost. One possible way to do this would be to
provide copies to members of the public at no cost if the person desiring such a copy provides a blank
audio tape on which to copy. Since not everyone has access to playback equipment, the city should
provide for a room and equipment which the public can use for this purpose.

Ci? Response: The City has already implemented this recommendation by adopting a Resolution that
makes the audio recordings of the City Council meetings available to the public at no cost. The City also
allows the public to listen to the audio recording at City Hall.

Recommendation 5: Although no Brown Act violations could be substantiated, council members should
be aware that even the appearance of impropriety is to be avoided by elected of?cials. Council members
should try to avoid frequent gatherings which tend to install public suspicions.

Cigg Response: The City agrees in part and disagrees in part with the recommendation. The Council has
completed its AB 1234 ethics training and is very familiar with the Brown Act and the appearance of
impropriety. The Council is not prohibited from attending social gatherings, so long as no City business
is discussed. The Council is aware of the appearance of impropriety that can occur and takes its ethical
obligations seriously.

Recommendation 6: All Council Members should make every effort to cast aside their personal
differences in favor of the best interests of the City of Livingston

City Response: The City already implements this recommendation. City Council members take their
oath of of?ce and responsibilities seriously and do not take into account any personal differences they
may have when considering a decision.

31

Recommendation 7: Councilman Espinoza should resign from his position as a Director of the
Redevelopment Agency. Further, he should immediately enter into the next council meetings minutes,
noti?cation of his purchase of property within the redevelopment area.

Cig Response: Agency Board Member Espinoza has indicated that he will resign from his position as a
Board Member of the Redevelopment Agency and will disclose for the meeting minutes his acquisition of
property within the RedeveIOpment Project Area.

Recommendation 8: Council should, with the assistance of the City Attorney, enforce the three-minute
rule for public comment at all City Council meetings.

City Response: The .
Attorney has enf ed the 3 ute rule for public comment at all City Council meetings.

 
 
    
 

Sincerely
.

toga] SamraWr

 

32

Evaluation of Response - 2007 -2008 Grand Jury Report

This evaluation is in reference to the response made by the Councilmen of the City of Livingston
to Complaint 07-08-01, 07-08-03 and 07-08-06.
The Grand Jury is dismayed by the response because the investigating committee found the
complaints about staff interference to be clearly documented in a letter and other written
memoranda. Regrettably these documents cannot be made public because they would reveal the
identity of Grand Jury witnesses, a clear violation of the law. However, the overwhelming body
of written documentation and testimony from numerous witnesses makes it undeniably clear that
city staff is being intimidated and badgered by council members.
The response stated that the published minutes of council meetings present an accurate and
complete summary of the meetings and that audio recordings are made and available to the
public. The response does not state which version is the official one. However, it does state that
the minutes are placed on the agenda for review and approval. If that is the case, the published
(written) minutes must be the official ones. They however, do not reflect the identity of citizens
who present comments or complaints, nor do they reflect the substance of such comments. The
response also stated that the three minute rule for citizens' comments at council meetings has
been enforced since December, 2007. Members of the Grand Jury personally attended a city
council meeting after that date and noted that no effort was made to enforce the rule.
Finally, the response stated that council members do not take into account any personal
differences they may have when considering their decisions. It was painfully obvious to Grand
Jury members who attended that council meeting that the council members did indeed allow their
personal feelings to influence their votes.
The overall response to the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations reflect an arrogance and
attitude of superiority which does a disservice to the citizens of Livingston.

33

 COMPLAINT 07-08-02
MERCED COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH

SUMMARY
The Grand Jury received a complaint regarding the lack of services provided by the Merced
County Department of Mental Health. The complaint was accepted and assigned to the Audit and
Finance Committee. In its investigation, the committee found that the Mental Health Department
is faced with a number of challenges, primary among them being severe budgetary restraints.
Additionally, the department has great difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified
professionals and providing services to county residents in a large geographical area. The jury
recommended that the department and other agencies in Merced County should make a strong
effort to coordinate their actions in order to more effectively and efficiently provide services to
mental health consumers.
INTRODUCTION
The Grand Jury received a complaint stating that services provided by the Merced County
Mental Health Department are seriously inadequate and poorly coordinated. The complainant
stated that there are less than five psychiatrists in Merced County, while the demand for mental
health services indicates a need for 30 or more. The complainant went on to state that the
department does a poor job of recruiting professional staff and cannot retain those that it has. The
complainant added that the department should form and coordinate an active and functional
mental health development board to explore all options available to increase psychiatric care
throughout Merced County.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
Individuals from numerous agencies including the mental health department, Merced County
Department of Education, Merced County Health Advisory Board, Merced County Sheriff's
Department and a local foster care facility were interviewed. Additionally, expenditure and
revenue reports for several years (2004-2007) were reviewed.
FINDINGS
The Merced County Mental Health Department faces a number of challenges. Budgetary
restraints, recruitment and retention of qualified professionals, and providing services to county
residents in a large geographical area are primary issues the Mental Health Department must
contend with on a daily basis. It should also be noted that Medi-Cal recipients, not insured or
full fee paying patients, are the main consumers of the department's services.
Prior to 2007, the department had a Mobile Emergency Services unit which provided on-site
services for handling 5150 situations (instances in which individuals were classified as mentally
unstable and possibly suicidal) throughout the county. Some perceived disadvantages of this
system were as follows:
¾ Clinicians were placed in dangerous situations at private residences
34

 ¾ Long response times were common because of large geographical coverage
¾ Cost of these services were high
The department eliminated the Mobile Emergency Services unit in 2007 and turned over
responsibilities for handling 5150 situations to law enforcement agencies throughout the county.
This new process, implemented in 2007, appears to eliminate some of these issues. The current
practice requires law enforcement personnel to respond to a 5150 call and deal with the mental
health consumers. Law enforcement officials have received limited training in dealing with
these situations. While some agency representatives believe the new process is a better option
than the previous one, others believe the new process has the following disadvantages:
¾
¾
¾
¾

Lack of training for law enforcement personnel
Lengthy waits for consultation at Marie Green Center
Transportation and liability issues
Inconsistent handling of 5150 cases

Review of expenditure and revenue reports did not expose any extraordinary expenses; however,
severe fiscal issues resulted in a revenue shortfall of approximately $8 million for the 2006-2007
fiscal year. Additional cuts were included in the 07-08 budget. As a result, approximately sixty
(60) positions in Mental Health Department were identified as staff reductions to erase the
shortfall. At their January 9, 2007 meeting, the Board of Supervisors authorized the deletion of
twenty-five (25) vacant positions and the reduction in the workforce of thirty-five (35) filled
positions. Additionally, the Board approved a reorganization of various positions.
The Mental Health Advisory Board has a number of vacant positions at the current time, and
recruiting qualified individuals to fill positions is one of the challenges the Board faces.
Additionally, the Board only acts in an advisory capacity and makes recommendations, so
implementation of recommendations may not occur.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Mental Health Advisory Board should recruit authoritative personnel from various
agencies to form a subcommittee to investigate and propose a strategy which will enable various
agencies to collaborate and coordinate services to optimize limited resources. The Board of
Supervisors should also investigate ways to increase effectiveness of the Mental Health Advisory
Board.
2. Merced County Mental Health and Public Health Departments, law enforcement agencies,
and educational institutions should attempt to coordinate services to provide efficient and
effective services to mental health consumers.
3. The Board of Supervisors should make every effort to fill the vacant positions and increase
the workforce in the Department of Mental Health as funds become available.

35

 COMPLAINT # 07-08-04
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES AGENCY
Improper Removal of Children
Summary
The Grand Jury received a complaint which stated that the Merced County Child Protective Services
Agency improperly removed two dependents from the complainant's home due to false allegations of
child abuse. The complainant wanted the dependents returned to her. After reviewing Child Protective
Services (CPS) and police reports of the incident which led to the removal of the dependents from the
complainant's home and interviewing the CPS worker and a CPS Supervisor, the Grand Jury determined
that there was sufficient evidence to justify the removal of the dependents from the complainant's home.
Therefore, no further recommendations were made.

Introduction
The Grand Jury received a complaint which stated that the Child Protective Services Agency had
improperly removed two children from the complainants' home due to false allegations of child abuse.
The complainant wanted the children returned to her.
Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury reviewed Child Protective Services (CPS) and police reports of the incident which led to
the removal of the children from the complainant's custody. The CPS worker and a CPS Supervisor were
also interviewed.
Findings
1. There was sufficient evidence to indicate that the children had not been properly cared for while in the
complainant's care.
2. The CPS referred the case to the Superior Court, which, on March 27, 2007, made the children
involved wards of the Court.
Recommendations
Since actions of the Court are outside of the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury, no recommendations are in
order. The Grand Jury believes that CPS should be commended for handling this case in a very
professional manner.

36

 COMPLAINT 07-08-05
Merced County Public Defender
The grand jury received a complaint alleging that the Merced County Public Defender was not
properly representing the complainant in court with respect to a DNA sample test and analysis.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because it is a matter to be resolved in
court.

37

 COMPLAINT # 07-08-07
LIVINGSTON DEVELOPER DONATION
SUMMARY
The Grand Jury received a complaint that a developer gave a check in the amount of $55,000 to
the city of Livingston to possibly gain favorable treatment for the developer. After investigation,
the grand jury found that there was no violation of the law in the donation, or contribution, to the
city.
INTRODUCTION
The grand jury received a complaint from a citizen of Livingston, alleging that a developer,
Ranchwood Homes, had improperly given a check in the amount of $55,000 to the city of
Livingston in exchange for certain favors concerning the construction of a sewer pipeline in the
Livingston area. The grand jury decided to investigate the complaint.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
The assigned grand jury committee interviewed the complainant and senior members of the
Livingston city staff. The committee also consulted county counsel for advice. The city staff
explained that it is common practice for developers to make contributions to cities when they are
working on projects in the cities and discover they have realized savings on a particular project.
Staff went on to say that the $55,000 was part of a saving realized by the developer when he was
allowed by the city to change from a concrete pipe to PVC pipe during construction of the sewer
line. The city then used the contribution to purchase two pick-up trucks which are to be used at
the city's waste water treatment plant. Since the two trucks cost slightly less than the $55,000, the
balance will be used for future maintenance of the vehicles. County counsel advised that there is
nothing illegal about such contributions, which are commonly included in many development
agreements. Counsel pointed out, however, that such potential contributions normally are
included in pre-construction development agreements, which was not done in this instance. The
contribution thus gave the appearance of impropriety.
FINDINGS
The grand jury finds that there was nothing illegal involved in Ranchwood Homes making the
contribution to the city of Livingston.
RECOMMENDATION
The city of Livingston should ensure that potential contributions such as the above should be
agreed to by developers and the city in written agreements prior to the beginning of any
construction.

38

 COMPLAINT # 07-08-08
LIVINGSTON CITY COUNCIL
Brown Act Violation
SUMMARY
The Grand Jury received a complaint alleging that three members of the Livingston City Council were
believed to have violated the Brown Act. The Grand Jury investigation uncovered no evidence of a Brown
Act violation; therefore, no recommendation was made.
INTRODUCTION
The Grand Jury received a signed complaint alleging that three members of the Livingston City Council
were seen together at a local restaurant. The complainant believed that a meeting was held and that city
business was discussed and decisions on how to vote at the next council meeting were made that would
affect the city and the community.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
Members of the Grand Jury read the complaint and decided an investigation was justified. The Law &
Justice committee met with the complainant. After an extensive interview with the complainant, the
committee determined that the complainant had not heard any city business being discussed by the
councilmen, nor did the complainant know of anyone else at the restaurant who may have overheard any
of the conversation. The committee decided that any other interviews would result in the same findings and
determination.
FINDINGS
Since the Brown Act expressly permits social contact (Government Code 54952.2(c)(5)) among elected
officials, the committee determined that no proof of a Brown Act violation existed.
RECOMMENDATION
No further action is necessary on this complaint.

39

 COMPLAINT 07-08-09
City of Livingston
The grand jury received a complaint alleging that the city of Livingston is not following the rules
of publishing complaints in its city council minutes, nor is it publishing action(s) taken on such
complaints.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because its subject matter is being
investigated as part of another complaint.

COMPLAINT 07-08-10
City of Livingston
The grand jury received a complaint alleging that the city of Livingston is not making accurate
minutes available to the public.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because the subject matter is part of an
earlier complaint which is being investigated.

COMPLAINT 07-08-11
City of Livingston
The grand jury received a complaint alleging that the city of Livingston is expanding its
wastewater treatment plant without obtaining the proper permits or completing required
Environmental Impact Reports.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because this complaint was investigated by
the 2006-2007 grand jury and the city of Livingston is preparing its response to that investigation
at this time.

COMPLAINT 07-08-12
City of Livingston
The grand jury received a complaint alleging that the city of Livingston is in violation of the
California Public Records Act.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because the subject matter is part of an
earlier complaint which is being investigated.
40

 COMPLAINT 07-08-13
City of Livingston
The grand jury received a complaint alleging that the city of Livingston is illegally purchasing
property outside of its city limits.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because the jury believes the complaint is
frivolous.

COMPLAINT 07-08-14
City of Livingston
The grand jury received a complaint alleging that the city of Livingston is violating previous
grand jury recommendations.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because not following grand jury
recommendations is not a violation of the law.

COMPLAINT 07-08-15
City of Livingston
The grand jury received a complaint alleging that developer influence is causing conflicts of
interest within the city of Livingston.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because its subject matter is being
investigated as part of another complaint.

COMPLAINT 07-08-16
City of Livingston
The grand jury received a complaint alleging that the city's growth rates as projected by its
planning department are inaccurate.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because projected city growth rates are
inherently inaccurate and therefore not illegal or improper.

41

 COMPLAINT 07-08-17
City of Livingston
The grand jury received a complaint alleging that the city is "targeting" land outside its city
limits and sphere of influence.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because planning city growth is a normal
and proper function of city planning, whether or not such plans eventually come to fruition.

COMPLAINT 07-08-18
City of Livingston
The grand jury received a complaint alleging that the city is violating the Brown Act because it
did not meet the requirements to post legal notice of meetings on the city's web site.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because it appeared to be a frivolous
complaint.

COMPLAINT 07-08-19
City of Livingston
The grand jury received a complaint requesting the grand jury revisit a complaint that was
investigated by the previous grand jury.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because the city of Livingston has not yet
responded to the earlier complaint in question.

42

 COMPLAINT 07-08-20
MERCED POLICE DEPARTMENT
OFFICE of the DISTRICT ATTORNEY
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
A WOMAN'S PLACE
SUMMARY
The Grand Jury received a complaint that an incident at her home was not properly investigated
nor addressed by the police and the district attorney's office. The complainant also stated that the
Woman's Place involved itself improperly. The Grand Jury conducted interviews and reviewed
applicable documents and found that all procedures were followed properly.
INTRODUCTION
The complainant stated that the Merced Police Department officer who responded to her call
failed to interview her at the scene of an incident which occurred at her home, or at any
subsequent time. A further complaint was that the District Attorney's staff failed to respond to
her concerns regarding the incident, partially because of a personal friendship or relationship
with one of the individuals involved in the incident who is employed with Child Protective
Services (CPS). Additionally, the complainant believes that a representative of the Woman's
Place improperly interfered on the complainant's behalf. Finally, she complained that her
attempts to contact the District Attorney (DA) were rebuffed for no good reason.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
The Law, Justice and Public Safety Committee reviewed all case files, police reports and the
complainant's written statements to the investigating detectives. The committee also interviewed
the complainant, senior police department officials, senior DA officials and other involved
parties.
FINDINGS
* The Merced Police Department did in fact interview the complainant at the scene of the
incident at the time of its occurrence and again the following day.
* The DA's staff also interviewed the complainant and attempted to address her concerns.
Discussions between the DA staff and the complainant proved to be
fruitless, probably because the complainant is too emotionally involved in the incident to accept
the answers she is getting.
* The involvement of the Woman's Place representative is normal and accepted procedure in
domestic violence cases, and in this case, was in no way related to any relationship among DA
staff, CPS and Woman's Place personnel.
* The DA's staff and senior management acted in accordance with normal legal and office
procedures.
43

 * It is evident that the complainant does not understand the legal process.

RECOMMENDATION
The Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney, personally, grant a brief interview with
the complainant and fully explain how the law had to handle this case.

44

 COMPLAINT 07-08-21
Merced County District Attorney, et al.
The grand jury received a complaint alleging threats and improper actions by the District
Attorney's office.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because the complainant has filed a
monetary claim against the County of Merced in this matter (usually a precursor to legal action).
Therefore, the grand jury believes it would be premature to involve itself at this time.

COMPLAINT 07-08-22
Merced County District Attorney, et al.
The grand jury received another complaint from a second party alleging threats and improper
actions by the District Attorney's office.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because the complainant has filed a
monetary claim against the County of Merced in this matter (usually a precursor to legal action).
Therefore, the grand jury believes it would be premature to involve itself at this time.

COMPLAINT 07-08-23
Merced County Department of Environmental Health.
The grand jury received a complaint alleging improper actions by officials of the Department of
Environmental Health.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because the complainant has filed a
monetary claim against the County of Merced in this matter (usually a precursor to legal action).
Therefore, the grand jury believes it would be premature to involve itself at this time.

COMPLAINT 07-08-24
Merced County Department of Environmental Health.
The grand jury received a complaint alleging improper actions by officials of the Department of
Environmental Health.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because the complainant has filed a
monetary claim against the County of Merced in this matter (usually a precursor to legal action).
45

 Therefore, the grand jury believes it would be premature to involve itself at this time.

COMPLAINT 07-08-25
Dos Palos Police Department
The grand jury received a complaint alleging that a member of the Dos Palos PD was abusing
police powers.
The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because the complaint appeared to be
frivolous.

COMPLAINT 07-08-26
Volta Community Services District

The grand jury received a complaint concerning the financial activities of certain members of the
Board of Directors of the Volta Community Services District.
After a brief inquiry, the grand jury referred the case to the Merced County District Attorney for
further investigation and appropriate action.

COMPLAINT 07-08-27
Livingston Police Department
The grand jury received a complaint alleging that the Livingston PD used improper arrest
procedures, committed a rude and warrant less entry into the complainant's home and failed to
follow police guidelines prior to detention of an individual related to the complainant.
The grand jury was unable to investigate this complaint because the complainant did not respond
to numerous attempts to contact him to obtain further information concerning the complaint.

COMPLAINT 07-08-28
City and County of Merced
The grand jury received a complaint alleging that the city and the county of Merced are not
complying with the provisions of California Proposition 215 to allow the establishment of
medical marijuana dispensaries in the city and/or county.
46

 The grand jury declined to investigate this complaint because it considered the complaint to be
frivolous.

COMPLAINT 07-08-29
Merced County Mental Health Department
The grand jury received a complaint that the mental health department had many problems with
its treatment programs and was not following its own procedures.
There was insufficient time to fully investigate this complaint, so it was referred to the 2008 2009 grand jury.

COMPLAINT 07-08-30
Merced County Human Services Agency
The grand jury received a complaint that the human services agency had improperly removed a
child from the custody of its parents.
The grand jury declined to investigate the complaint because it was apparent from the documents
submitted as part of the complaint itself that the agency's actions had been entirely proper.

COMPLAINT 07-08-31
Merced Housing Authority
The grand jury received a complaint that the housing authority is not complying with the laws,
policies and procedures which govern Section 8 housing allocations.
There was insufficient time to investigate this complaint, so it was referred to the 2008 - 2009
grand jury.

47

 RESPONSES

48

City of Livingston
1416 Street
Livingston, CA 95334

 

May 6. 20113

Merced County Grand Jury
P.O. Box 2034
Merced, California 95344-2034

Re: City of Livingston Response to Grand Jury Report Complaint 07?08?07
Dear Members of the Grand Jury:

The City of Livingston has reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Merced ounty Grand Jury
Report regarding Complaint 07-08-07. After careful consideration of the report and Livingston?s review
of the facts. the ity? responds to the Grand Jury's ?nding and recommendation as follows:

Finding: There was nothing illegal involved in Ranchwood Homes making the contribution to the it}; of
Livingston.

Cit)" Response: The City agrees with this finding. The City did not receive an illegal contribution from
Ranchwood Homes.

Recommendation: The City should ensure that potential contributions such as the above should be agreed
to by developers and the ity in a written agreement. such as a development agreement. prior to the
beginning of any construction.

City Response: The City has been in the process of negotiating a draft pre~annexation development
agreement with Ranchwood Homes. The parties will consider including the contribution into the
agreement.

  

CITY OF LIVINGSTON
1416 Street LNINGSTON. CALIFORNIA 95334 PHONE: (209)394-3041 FAX: (209) 394-4190
wwaivinostoncitvcom

49


COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE 0mm 0- Tatum

County Executive O?ricer
0 

2222 Street
Merced. CA 95340
{209) 385-2637

{209} 335??375 Fax


Equal Opportunity Employer
DATE: June 161 2008

TO: Judge John Kirihara. Presiding Judge ofthe Superior Court

FROM: Angelo Lamas. County Executive Office}; .. .I

:35 

SUBJECT: Grand Jury Response 

 

Enclosed is the appropriate County department response for the recent Grant Jury reports on the
Main Jail and John Latorraca Correctional Facility mandated inspections.

cc: Alfred G. Mueller, 200702008 Grand Jury Foreperson
Merced County Board of Supervisors
Demitrios O. Tatum, County Executive Officer

STRIVING FOR EXCELLENCE

50

   

. ?jl?'lmw

MARK N. PAZIN
COUNTY OF MERCED
OFFICE OF THE 

2008 GRAND JURY RESPONSE

As required per California Penal Code 933 the Merced County Sheriffs Of?ce is providing
the following responses to the Merced County Grand Jury?s ?Findings and Recommendations"
report of our correctional facilities and coroner?s division.

JOHN LATORRACA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 
STAFFING

Historically. staffing consistently remains the most important budgetary request for the ounty?s
correctional facilities and the following year?s request includes eight new correctional officers,
two account technicians, and four correctional facilities admission clerks. This staf?ng request is
ajoint .ILCF and Main Jail budget request as the proposed staffing levels will correspond to the
necessary ratio related to correctional of?cers and inmates.

OVERCROWDING

The Office of the Sheriff is always mindful and attentive to issues related to overcrowding.
Overcrowding not only burdens the individual inmate, but also those correctional officers
responsible for the respective inmate's welfare. The Sheriff continues to seek scarce state
funding sources to assist with future jail construction. Also, this correctional facility will be
implementing a three bed bunk system so that inmates will not be forced to temporarily sleep on
?oors.

MENTAL HEALTH

California Forensic Medical Group has provided mental health services for a year. The services
have signi?cantly improved our ability to address mental health issues of the inmates.

OVERTIME

Overtime has signi?cantly increased because staf?ng level requirements have increased for each
shift. Causes include, but are not limited to, recruitment, retention. and ever-increasing rates of
the inmate population, medical and mental health staf?ng requirements, video arraignments,
transportation requirements, and the new court facility becoming operational.

2222 STREET - MERCED - CALIFORNIA 0 95340 - (209)335?7451
51

Grand Jury Response

Page 2

STRIP SEARCH POLICY

The newly established strip search policy does restrict the scope of searching inmates for
weapons and contraband; however, other methods of detection should permit for effective
screening of inmates.

WATER

A new water ?ltration system has been installed by the Department of Public Works at the LCF
so that inmates, employees, and visitors are no longer dependent on bottled water.

MAIN JAIL

STAFFING
(Please refer to abovementioned ?Staf?ng? comments for LCF)

OVERC ROWDING

 

(Please refer to abovementioned ?Overcrowding? comments for LCF)

JAIL CONDITIONS

 

Requests for Capital Improvement Projects related to roo?ng, painting, etc. have been forwarded
to the Department of Public Works. Purchase and installation of new heating and air units have
been approved and are pending installation by DPW.

DIVISION

POWER REQUIREMENTS

Construction has begun to upgrade the power and electrical requirements for the decomposition
room and is expected to be completed by the end of July, 2008.

RADIATION CASES

A safety protocol has been established for handling cases involving suspected radiation
contamination.

CONCLUSION

The Merced County Sheriff? 3 Office always welcomes the opportunity and responsibility to
demonstrate its commitment toward the concerns of the Merced County Grand Jury. On behalf
of all dedicated men and women of the Merced County Sheriff? 3 Of?ce, this Of?ce thanks the
Grand ury?s commendation and recognition of our professionalism and commitment to duties
under stressful conditions.

52

 Banos

June 20, 2008

?up

Merced County Grand Jury
P.O. Box 2034
Merced, CA 95344

Dear Grand Jury Members:

The Los Banos Police Department is in receipt of your report on the Los Banos Jail
Mandated Inspection. 1 have read the ?ndings and am responding as requested by your
Foreman.

We take great pride in what we do to maintain a safe environment in the community of Los
Banos. Our hard working and conscientious employees are always striving to ?nd the best
practices to perform our duties as public safety of?cials.

I have read your ?ndings and agree with both statements. It is unfortunate that we were not
made aware of the kitchen ?nding at the time of inspection so that could have been resolved
immediately. This situation has been recti?ed and we will ?nd other utensils to use for the
preparation of food for the prisoners.

It is my hope that with the implementation of the 2008 - 2009 ?scal year?s budget, we will be
able to ?ll the open CSO positions, send those employees to the required training, and
schedule personnel in a manner that provides for the maximum safety in our jail.

The Los Banos Police Department appreciates the hard work performed by the Grand Jury

members. We look forward to ?lture discussions regarding the hard work of the men and
women who provide for our public safety in the City of Los Banos.

Sincerely yours,


MW

UM

Chris Gallagher
Chief of Police

Cc: City Manager

53

CITY OF GUSTINE

PO. Box lb [582 Third Ave. Gustine, CA 95322
Office: (209) 854-647I Fax: (209) SSH-28140 

 

April 11, 2008

Alfred Mueller

Foreman

Merced County Grand Jury
PO. Box 2034

Merced, CA 95344

Dear Mr. Mueller:

Thank for your response to the City of Gustine, Police Department Inspection and for your
commendations to the City, Lions Club, and Chief Anderson. We too believe that Chief
Anderson's community-based policing approach has made great strides in building a positive
relationship with our police department in the community. That was seen through the great
community support Chief Anderson received. Council and Staff are being vigilant to continue the
community-based policing in the decision of our new chief of police.

in response to your ?rst recommendation to expand facilities for the police department, we have
assigned a staff sub?committee to research and bring forth options for a new location or
expansion of existing facilities to accommodate not only the police department staff but also the
City's administrative staff facilities. This will be included in the 2008/2009 budget. To address
you second recommendation; the 2008/2009 budget includes a new replacement vehicle for the
police department.

Also mentioned in your recommendation was the adherence to POST recommendations; to date
we are awaiting the arrival of POST for the police department review and recommendations. It is
our intent to incorporate their recommendations which can be achievable with our limited
resources.

The police department has been sewing under the leadership of Acting Police Chief Starvrowsky
since February 24"1 w,ho' IS also a proponent of community- -based policing and has had a positive
in?uence In achieving a cohesive department

l?d like to thank the Grand Jury members who took the time to attend the special events on
December 7, 2007, honoring Gustine War Veterans, and the ribbon cutting ceremony of our new
animal shelter, built by our local Lions Club.

Sincerely, =7 1/ I

If

541/41?

Marga et SIN Ira
City Managf

cc: City Council
Acting Chief Stavrosky

54