HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.C 09/12/2005CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 4.0
AGENDA BILLSeptember 12, 2005
Agenda Title: Discussion and Action Regarding City of Petaluma Meeting Date: September 12, 2005
Response to Grand Jury Final Report.
Meeting Time: ® 3:00 PM
❑ 7:00 PM
Category (check one): ❑ Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ® New Business
❑ Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation
Department: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number:
City Manager Michael Bierman Michael Bierman 707-778-4345
Cost of Pronosal: n/a Account Number:
Amount Budgeted: Name of Fund:
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item:
1. Excerpt from the Grand Jury Final Report dated June 28, 2005
2. Draft response letter
3. Resolution approving letter
Summary Statement: At the end of each term, the Grand Jury publishes their final report. Typically, .
several items are reported on, and affected cities are asked to respond to the Grand Jury's responses and
findings. The City has 90 days from receipt of the Final Report in which to respond back to the Grand
Jury.
The City of Petaluma's responses to the three items we must respond to:
• Conflicts of Interest in Sonoma County
• A Disaster Waiting to Happen
• Housing Assistance for Sworn Officers
have been reviewed by the City Attorney's office, Fire Department, Police Department, and Housing
Administrator.
Recommended Citv Council Action/Suggested Motion:
Approve resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign response letter.
Reviewel by Admin. Svcs. Dir:
Dat
j ( 110
odav's Date: 1
September 6, 2005
Reviewed by City Attornev
Date:
Approved,hy Citv Manager:
A r
Date:
Revision # and Date Revised: File Code:
200 �Q25COU:A--
tu
S
ir I'm ?.81
20o5
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
Following are pertinent excerpts from the California Penal Code concerning
responses to Grand Jury reports,
"Section 933(b) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the
operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body
of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the
findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the
governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand
jury has responsibility pursuant to section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the
control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that
officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall
also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and
reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who
impaneled the grand jury.
"A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the cleric of
the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor, when applicable,
and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the
applicable grand jury final report by, and in control of the currently impaneled grand
jury, where it shall remain for a minimum of five years."
Copies of the Responses to the 2003-2004 Sonoma County Grand Jury Final Report
are available in the Family Law Division, Room 108-J, of the Sonoma County Superior
Court The report will also be available for review at all branches of the county library,
by e -mailing the Grand Jury at gjury o@sonoma-county.org, or online at
httq://www.sonomasuneriorcourt.com/index.Dhp?v,qiQry info or by mailing a request
to Sonoma County Superior Court, 800 Administrative Drive Room 107J, Santa Rosa
CA 95402.
"Section 933.05 (a) For purposes of the subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each
grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) the respondent agrees with the finding; (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or
partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the
finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore.
"Section 933.05 (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand
jury recommendation, the responding persons or entity shall report one of the
following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary
regarding the implemented action; (2) The recommendation has not yet been
implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for
implementation; (3)The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation
and the scope and parameters of an analysis or discussion by the officer or head of
the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body
of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from
the date of publication of the grand jury report; (4) The recommendation will not be
implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation
therefore."
90 4
The 2003-2004 Sonoma County grand jury distributed its Final Report in July,
2004. The responses to the findings and recommendations are described in the
2003-2004 Response Audit Report, in the Grand Jury Final Report dated June
28, 2005.
"Section 933.05(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury
addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed
by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of
supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board
of supervisors shall address those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has
some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department
head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her
agency or department."
The Penal Code also requires that the Grand Jury Foreperson be available to the
respondents for 45 days to clarify the recommendations of the jury's report.
91
f
CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN SONOMA COUNTY
Facilitating Prevention, Detection, and Early Intervention
Summary
Conflict-of-interest violations by elected and appointed officials, including public employees,
undermine the confidence and trust of government operations on the national, state and local
levels.
The focus of this grand jury's investigation was on conflict -of- Facilitating
interest violations of commissions, committees and boards in
Sonoma County, including elected and appointed officials. This
report presents recommendations for improvement in the . -
areas of prevention, detection, and early intervention. Prevenjeor,
The investigation revealed that most Sonoma County elected
oeteci opIg-q
ttees and rds act above
ore good
~�
roach with intentions to serve the public t the best of
P 9 P
i ,.p=.
their ability. However, there were instances where conflicts of
I Ealy Intervention
interest occurred. They included elected and appointed
involvement at the city
officials who neglected to file Statements of Economic Interests—disclose
financial holdings—and/or disqualify themselves from making or influencing government
decisions in which they had a financial interest.
A message to Sonoma County residents from the grand jury follows this report. It is intended to
assist citizens who have conflict-of-interest concerns and enable them to become involved in
reporting or resolving issues.
Reason for Investigation
The grand jury received several complaints citing ethics violations and integrity failures by
government officials. Because the conflict-of-interest issue appeared as a common thread of
these complaints, it was decided to investigate further.
At the time of the grand jury's investigation, a highly publicized case of a local appointed official
having violated conflict-of-interest provisions of the Political Reform Act was settled by the
California Fair Political Practices Commission. The FPPC, which oversees the Act, conducted
an investigation and substantiated a nine -count violation resulting in a Stipulation, Decision and
Order imposing maximum.fines of $24,000 against the official.
A subsequent review of FPPC public records, revealed nine other Sonoma County cases during
the past seven years in which appointed and elected officials violated conflict-of-interest laws by
either failing to file Form 700, disclose economic interests, or disqualify themselves from
decisions in which they had a financial interest as required by law.
I
The grand jury's
Of the ten cases, six were settled during the period 2004-
analysis of cases
2005. Additionally, most cases investigated took the FPPC
revealed a lack of
several years to resolve, while potential/apparent conflict
awareness and passive
5
involvement at the city
and county levels.
I
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County (continued)
situations involving officials continued. The grand jury's analysis of cases revealed a lack of
awareness and passive involvement at the city and county levels.
In view of this information, the grand jury sought to identify weaknesses and, in turn,
recommend changes to facilitate prevention, detection, and early intervention of violations that
undermine the confidence and trust in our public officials.
Scope of Investigation
The scope of the investigation encompassed elected and appointed officials within Sonoma
County and its nine cities. There are 60 county committees, commissions and boards, and
approximately 45 similar city entities. The sources of code violations were obtained through
interviews, literature search, and document analysis (Also see, Sources of Information).
Investigation was based on review of more than 25 documents (laws, codes, and practices),
and a screening of more than 100 articles from web information sources. In-depth analysis
focused on 30 articles and 28 interviews with county, state, local officials and citizens.
Note: The grand jury did not undertake to identify/investigate ... the magnitude of
suspected or possible wrongdoing, nor review individual the problem remains
Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700). Consequently, unknown.
the magnitude of the problem remains unknown.
Background
Maintaining a high standard of integrity among our political officials, and avoiding conflict of
interest, has been a part of our nation's history in both the public and private sectors. Recently,
more vigorous prosecutorial actions and media coverage has raised the threshold of higher
expectations of integrity in business and in government. Despite federal and state laws enacted
to provide regulatory controls and enforcement, violations continue.
In Califomia, Proposition 9 was voted into law in 1974 as the Political Reform Act (Act). The Fair
Political Practices Commission (FPPC) was established and charged with the administration
and enforcement of the following provisions of the Act:
• Conflict of Interest — Government Code, §§ 87100-87500
• Campaign contributions and expenditures— Government Code, §§ 84100-84511
• Lobbying disclosures —Government Code, §§ 86100-86300
The Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) was established as part of the Conflict of
Interest Government Code. The following are definitions of the form and process:
• Form 700 — Statement of Economic Interests - A disclosure requirement of the Act.
Submitted by Designated Filer upon assuming/terminating office; yearly thereafter.
• Desionated Filers — Certain state, county, city employees, and elected/appointed
officials.
Governing Bodv — For each county, the board of supervisors is the governing body.
• Code Reviewina Bodv — State (FPPC), county (county counsel), and city (city attorney).
• Filina Clerks — Supply and log forms; forward to Filing Officer.
• Filina Officers — Receive, screen, and maintain Form 700 Statement of Economic
Interests. Records are open to the public.
A general description of conflict of interest is that it occurs when a public official's private
interests supersede his/her public obligations. For instance, a committee chairperson, who is
6
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County (continued)
also a shareholder in a company being considered for a contract involving public funds, neglects
to self -disqualify from the decisioh-making process.
The Political Reform Act more specifically defines conflict-of-interest as follows:
d61111111Ili I :i, mu6u11.1 I I lOwl11611111,IL.1111..�..ill ili VI ill, 111111 .11 Illi I I I i lilI id ii,a6li ltl II I! i
ii'!w<`hi'aac-wa;siue;s"� E-yxsar°.,'.
W ats:�sTaItfifl:lts 71-htia -',k
A public official, employee, unpaid member of a
board, commission, committee, or consultant has a
conflict of interest when all of the following occur.,
1) Makes, participates in, or uses his/her official
position to influence a government decision;
2) It is foreseeable that the decision will affect
the official's economic interest;
3) The effect of decision on official's economic
. interest will be material;
4) The effect of decision on official's economic
interest will be distinguishable from its effect
on the public generally.
n
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County (continued)
An example on the national level is illustrative of the federal government's attempt'to bring
about reform:
• The Washington Post of February 2, 2005, reported, "The NIH (National Institutes of
Health) Issues Strict Rules on Conflicts of Interest....This followed a year of internal and
congressional investigations into allegations of conflict of interest involving NIH scientists
and administrators. All of the more than 18,000 employees are to be subject to stringent
new restrictions."
The NIH Director stated that he thought we needed to absolutely achieve the number
one goal of preserving the public trust with no taint of conflict of interest or the
appearance of conflict of interest.
On the state level:
• An appointed member of the California Transportation Commission participated in 14
decisions to approve allocation of funds for specific construction projects. The appointed
member owned substantial interests in business entities. For failing to disclose 3,270
sources of over $10,000 of income to each of his business entities, the penalty levied by
the FPPC was $165,000.
On the local level:
• In Sonoma County, a board member, committee chairperson/member, district director,
and a commissioner were cited and fined, by the FPPC in 2004-2005 for failure to submit
timely Statements of Economic Interests, disclose financial holdings, and/or disqualifying
themselves from voting on matters in which they had a financial interest.
It is generally considered that most infractions of the Act are inadvertent and unintentional,
brought about by well-intentioned citizens with a desire to participate in and improve their
surrounding community. Some of the questions the grand jury considered were:
1. How widespread are conflict-of-interest violations in Sonoma County?
2. How can these violations be prevented?
3. What means or mechanisms will enable detection?
4. How and by whom can early Intervention occur?
5. Who has responsibility/accountability for taking action?
6. What is the likelihood that other instances of improper influence or conflicts of interest go
unnoticed?
J't7
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County (continued)
Findings
Ft. Failure to Submit Statement of Economic
Interests
The grand jury observed five individual cases
identifying officials who did not file
Statements of Economic Interests (Form
700) until repeatedly notified of non-
compliance.
F2. Failure to Disclose Economic Interests
Three cases indicated failure to disclose
economic interests; a fourth individual failed
to report expenditures and sub -vendor
payments.
F3. Failure to Self-Disoualifv from Debates
and Decisions
Three cases listed individuals who did not self -disqualify from decisions in which they
had a financial interest.
F4. Ten violations in Sonoma County
In the past seven years, the FPPC has taken action in ten instances in Sonoma County
for violations of the Political Reform Act, imposing fines totaling $64,200 against officials.
Nine of the cases were violations of the conflict-of-interest provisions, one case involved
campaign finance filing requirements (Refer to following chart, Ten Violations of the
Political Reform Act — Sonoma County).
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County (continued)
F4.
• Failure to disclose economic interests Appointed Official
• Failure to disqualify self
• Participated in making or 7/22/99'
influencing government decisions 6128/04"
CCR: Sect: 87203, 87206, 87207, 87100
• Failure to disclose income Elected Official
• Participate in making government
decisions when there is a financial 4121196'
interest 1/5/98"
CCR: Sect: Sect: 87100
• Participate In making government
Elected Official
decisions when there is a financial
(failure to maintain
interests
4/21/96'
CCR: Sect: 87100
1/5198"
• Campaign Financing
Elected Official
• Failure to maintain records
n/a
• Failure to report expenditures and
We
sub -vendor payments
10/1/98"
CCR: Sect: 64104 and 84211
FPPCI 961162'•'
• Failure to submit Statement of
Appointed Official
Economic Interests
11/7101
CCR: Sect: 87300
8/11/03"
• Failure to file timely Statement of
Appointed Official
Economic Interests
11/07/01`
CCR: Sed: 83700
11/04/04"
• Failure to file timely Statement of
Appointed Official
Economic Interests
1126/04'
7/16104'"
CCR: Sed: 87300
• Conflict-of-interest complaint
Investigated
CCR: Sect 87300
$1.585 million loan.
$29,700
(Bank' loan to business
(failure to maintain
$24,000 client of official,
>$4 50,000
4:
same time as the official
FPP 99/500
had substantial financial
CCR: Sect 87300
interest in the bank).
n/a
Approved city contracts
n/a
$14,5D0 resulting In over
$700,000 In revenue to
$98,400
entity in which official
FPPCI 961162'•'
had a business
2105103'
relationship
CCR: Sect: 87203
>$10,000
$3,000 n/a FPPC#: 96/162"
$18,000
$29,700
$3,000 n/a n/a
(failure to maintain
records or report
years
expenditures)
$1,000
CCR: Sect 87300
3/21/05"
n/a
$100
n/a
$100
n/a
Appointed Official Advisory
Letter
2/16/01" Issued
7/14/04"
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
• Failure to file timely Statement of
Appointed Official
$3,000 n/a n/a
Economic Interests — 3 successive
years
11/07101'
CCR: Sect 87300
3/21/05"
• Failure to file timely Statement of
Appointed Official
$500 n/a n/a
Economic Interests — 2 successive
years
2105103'
CCR: Sect: 87203
3121105"
'Date Case Opened " Date of Disposition
"Spume:
Fair Political Practices Commission — Gificial Records
10
J�
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County (continued)
F4.a Of the ten FPPC conflict-Qf-interest violations, the breakdown of referrals was:
Sonoma County
Complaint Referral — Origin x
Anonymous Complaints ................... (4)
County Clerk Referrals ...................... (3)
City Clerk Referral ............................. (1)
FPPC — 20% Sample ........................ (1)
Unknown ........................................... (1)
F4.b Twenty-two alleged violations not investigated by the FPPC (2000-2004):
Sonoma County
Reason Violation not Investigated e
Insufficient Agency Resources ...
(9)
Insufficient Evidence ...................
(5)
Complaints Unfounded ...............
(4)
Minor Violations ..........................
(2)
Past Statute of Limitations..........
(1)
Mitigating Evidence .....................
(1)
The grand jury acknowledges the FPPC for Sonoma County data shown In both of the above tables.
F5. Lack of communication, notification, collaboration
There appeared to be little communication, collaboration and/or notification betweeri the
FPPC and city/county agencies in investigation of conflict-of-interest cases. The FPPC
doesn't formally notify city or county officials when investigating a complaint until
administrative resolution. It is not unusual for officials to learn through the media and
newspaper articles of administrative actions.
The above chart, 'Reason Violation not Investigated" shows that of the 22 alleged
conflict-of-interest violations, nine complaints were not investigated due to insufficient
agency resources. Those nine cases could have been referred to the District Attorney's
office for review and possible investigation. This would assure that all future cases are
examined.
F6. Enforcement jurisdiction unclear
It was unclear to the grand jury how cases were prosecuted as criminal, civil, or
administrative, or by whom this distinction was determined. The average citizen does not
know who to contact if a conflict-of-interest violation becomes apparent.
11
II
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County (continued)
The Act designates the Sonoma County District Attorney (criminal cases) and the FPPC
(administrative/civil cases) as first points of contact for conflict-of-interest complaints,
depending upon whether the violation appears to be administrative or criminal in nature.
Beyond this distinction, there is no further direction on filing a complaint.
Because the FPPC assumes primary responsibility for complaint analysis and
enforcement, there are no procedures/protocols between the FPPC and the County
District Attorney. Complaints are not analyzed for criminal prosecution, only
admin istrative/civil.
The Code specifies which sections can be prosecuted as administrative, civil or criminal
The grand jury's interpretation of the three provisions of the code is shown below;
however, precise interpretation requires clarification by legal authority, e.g. FPPC,
County District Attorney, or City Attorney.
F7. Cases may take years to resolve
Of the ten conflict-of-interest cases investigated by the FPPC, one was settled in six
months. The remaining nine cases took from 18 months to five years to settle.
F8. Lack of increased awareness and local action
The county and city filing officers were effective in notifying the FPPC of individuals
failing to file Form 700; however, they were not a source of complaints for failure of
officials to disclose or disqualify themselves from decision-making. Such complaints
appeared to be from other sources, not by colleagues, staff, or supervisors of those
officials.
The grand jury found hesitancy on the part of city and county officials to initiate a referral
either to the FPPC, or the County District Attorney when suspected misconduct was
identified. Additionally, such cases are not considered to be a priority.
12
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County (continued)
It appeared only publicized cases of violations have influenced city and county entities to
recognize, respond, and deter future incidents. Following a series of reports appearing in
the Santa Rosa Press Democrat newspaper, the City of Santa Rosa put policies and
procedures in place that were above and beyond state requirements. However, in other
Sonoma County jurisdictions, awareness and systemic improvements were not
apparent,
F9. Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing
The grand jury noted elected officials cited with conflict-of-interest violations resulting in
settlement fines; were reported in the Press Democrat newspaper as intending to use
campaign funds to pay off the FPPC fines. Government Code § 89513 (c) states that
campaign funds cannot be used to pay or reimburse fines, penalties, judgments, or
settlements, with the exception that if the FPPC action results in the respondent hiring
an attorney, then payment of the attorney's fees, as well as the fine itself, can be paid
with campaign funds. As a result, the fine creates no incentive to desist from further
violations, since there is no financial hardship on the fined official, as long as the official
has campaign funds (or contributors) available to pay the fine. (§§ 89513(c) - 89514).
F10. Code of Ethics
Ethics —A Dhilosophv or system of morals
A written system of standards of ethical conduct; principles Intended to aid members of
the field individually and collectively in maintaining a high level of professional conduct.
The fundamental concept of a Code of Ethics, as related to conflict of interest, is that a
public official's decision is based solely on what is best for the public—not the official,
his/her friends, or owned businesses. A Code of Ethics aims at perception, as well as
actuality. A public official should consider abstaining from participating on a matter if
there appears to be a conflict.
A recent Humboldt County Grand Jury statewide survey found only 10 out of 41
respondent counties had established codes of ethics for officials and employees, but
state agencies mandate the requirement. Although a number of California cities have
adopted codes of ethics, only a few cities in Sonoma County have an established Code
of Ethics. Also noted was one Santa Rosa official who voluntarily added ethics training
as his personal effort to be above reproach, and set a standard for his employees.
F11. Incompatible activities dilemma
Professional expertise of elected and appointed members of committees, commissions
or boards is valued because it is a public service offered by civic -minded individuals at
little or no remuneration; however, these same individuals often have businesses or full-
time occupations related to their public positions. Because an official should be wary of
an actual conflict of interest, as well as the appearance of conflict of interest, the system
itself is vulnerable.
F12. Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests is complex, due to the Act
The FPPC manages 18,000 Designated Filers and receives over 50,000 inquiries a year
from state and local officials seeking assistance on how to understand and respond to
the Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) and other questions related to the Act.
It was determined that the Form 700 is not user friendly because the Act itself is complex
and not user friendly.
13
1''2
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County (continued)
Conclusions
The grand jury found conflict-of-interest violations occurred at all levels of government, whether
deliberate and intentional, or inadvertent and unintentional. Because the FPPC has authority
and responsibility under the Political Reform Act, too often the cities and counties defer to the
FPPC, rather than taking responsibility, or collaborating in a mutually reinforcing effort to take
action when identified (this specifically pertains to disclosure omission and self -disqualification
failures). The cities or counties need to be proactive and collaborative in resolving conflict-of-
interest situations. This method would result in timelier case resolutions and fewer violations.
Ultimately, it is a matter of personal responsibility—the ethics and integrity of the elected or
appointed official, and is a view confirmed by a number of respondents interviewed by the grand
jury. The Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) is a tool driven by the law and starts the
process for the Designated Filer. The form isn't a major point of vulnerability, except that it is
difficult to understand due to the complexities of the Act itself.
The public has been active in detecting and alerting authorities of officials in conflicted
situations. The grand jury highly encourages more public monitoring of our elected and
appointed officials through regular attendance of public meetings, viewing televised meetings,
and availing themselves of the opportunity of reviewing an official's Form 700, or county
charters, all of which are public documents.
The grand jury concluded major weaknesses in the application of the system are:
• Failure to understand Form 700 and its requirements;
• Individuals not declaring all economic interests;
• Individuals failing to disqualify themselves from making or influencing decisions in which
they have a financial interest;
• Lack of communication between the FPPC and the office of the County District Attorney;
• The loophole in the government code that allows fines to be paid with campaign
finances.
Opoortunities for Improvement:
Filing/Monitoring: The most effectively managed provision of the Act is the Statement of
Economic Interests (Form 700) reporting requirements to prevent influencing government
decisions in which the person has an economic interest. All state, county, and cities'maintain a
Form 700 filing system.
The management of reporting is shared by individual agencies/organizations within the FPPC
with forms monitored individually for completeness on the local level. They are not monitored for
information relative to their particular committee, board, or commission association, i.e., the
documents are supposed to serve as an identifying means so the public, and when necessary,
the judicial system, has a reference point to determine whether violations occurred. Disclosing
financial interests is a vulnerability in the system as it relies on Designated Filers' understanding
of the disclosure requirements covered by §§ 87200-87210 of the Act.
Early Intervention, Cases are not detected or acted upon early. The individual committee,
commission and board, along with the office of the district attorney, county counsel, and city
attorneys, should take more proactive, organized roles to assure the preservation of the integrity
of our government is of the highest priority—be it actual conflict of interest—or appearance
thereof. A more effective coordinating procedure at the city and county levels to reinforce and
support state effort is needed.
14
1�
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County (continued)
Recommendations
R1. Adopt an Incompatible Activities List
Each commission, committee, board and public agency should have their own
Incompatibility Activities list as a supplemental resource. This list would assist the
officials in understanding how to avoid conflict-of-interest issues, enhance the assurance
of public trust—the integrity of officials—and political processes as well. The following is a
sample of the type of list the grand jury recommends:
Incomaatible Activities — Sample List
Each commission, committee, board and public agency should tailor this list to their own duties and responsibilities
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Cannot have an interest in a contract made by the board, commission, or committee
that one is involved with. I
Cannot request, receive or agree to receive anything of value or other advantages in
exchange for a decision.
Cannot influence decisions relating to potential business or prospective employers.
May not acquire property interests within redevelopment areas over which one has
decision-making influence.
Cannot receive compensation from third parties for speaking, writing an article or
attending a conference.
Cannot use public agency resources (money, travel expenses, staff time and agency
equipment) for personal or political purposes.
Cannot participate in decisions that may affect (positively or negatively) their
personal interests, interests of their immediate family or their business partners.
Excerpt from: League of California Cities— Institute for Self-government
R2. Adopt a Code of Ethics
Sonoma County and each city should establish and implement a Code of Ethics. All
commissions, committees and boards, as well as elected and appointed officials, should
review the Code of Ethics and attest to understanding the policy as it pertains to their
position. Thereafter, the county and city officials should mandate periodic ethics training
and testing, just as is required of federal and state employees. For establishing a Code
of Ethics, the Attorney General's Office and the FPPC, have developed a web -based
ethics training course. The California League of Cities also has Information and
guidelines.
15
11
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County (continued)
R3. increase fines and penalties; prohibit use of campaign funds to pay penalties
The grand jury recommends that local officials from the county and the nine cities
contact their senate and assembly members to consider amending the Political Reform
Act to address the following two issues:
R3.a Raise fines and penalties commensurate with the amounts realized from
personal gain. The cost of penalties for conflict-of-interest violations are
insufficient to deter violators, therefore, the fines should be significantly higher—
the dollar amount ratio should be closer to the dollar amount gained.
R3.b The grand jury found several officials paid off their FPPC fines with campaign
- funds. The California Legislature should rescind and amend Government Code
§ 89513(c) and § 89514 to prohibit, rather than permit, campaign funds to be
utilized to pay off government -imposed monetary penalties.
R4. Institute regular, mandatory training
Provide Designated Filers with basic informational training.
Increase utilization of FPPC for training of Form 700 Filing Officers and Clerks
■ Require Code of Ethics training at the city and county level as similar to that as
mandated by state agencies (available online).
Require basic conflict-of-interest training for:
- Incumbent elected and appointed officials
- New appointees and elected officials
R5. Re -file Form 700 on a material change
Sonoma County administration and respective cities in Sonoma County should require
all Designated Filers to file amendments to Form 700 with clerks of the county or city
within 30 days of a material change, "Material Change" is defined in Government Code
§ 87103.
R6. Prevent actual and appearance of conflict of interest
The individual committee, commission, board, or public official should review whether
an actual or appearance of conflict of interest exists. If an actual or appearance of
conflict of interest exists, there should be a personal discussion with the official,
suggesting abstention. If the individual cannot recognize an inherent or potential conflict
situation and abstain, he/she should confer with their designated attorney, or the FPPC.
16
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County (continued)
R7. Improve collaboration/cross reporting
There should be closer collaboration between the Sonoma County District Attorney's
office and the FPPC. The grand jury recommends a Memorandum of
Understanding be proposed by the District Attorney to specify the respective
responsibilities, including a provision for cross -reporting. Additionally, a formal chain of
communication and referral protocol relative to assigning administrative/civil and
criminal complaints should be developed.
Since investigation is the first step to an action, one of the offices has to provide the
investigation resource, and each entity should know at what stage a case is being
reviewed.
The rationale is to have the quickest action by the appropriate enforcement agency of
the suspected violations, and, as mentioned in "Findings," nine cases were not
investigated by the FPPC due to insufficient agency resources. In the future, such
cases ought not to be omitted from investigation just because of insufficient resources
at the state level. '
Best Practices
A number of "Best Practices" were noted and are included here for recognition:
• The Santa Rosa Press Democrat newspaper, for conflict-of-interest news reporting.
• The County Counsel's effort to close loopholes in the conflict-of-interest filing process.
• Cities that have their city attorney present at meetings where guidance can be given
prior to there being a conflict-of-interest issue.
• The FPPC for responding to every call with a live person to answer Political Reform Act
questions.
• The FPPC for providing an array of publications and training to inform and educate the
public and elected/appointed officials.
• Citizen advocates who attend public meetings and become involved.
• The City of Santa Rosa for maintaining additional disclosure forms and other information
the City of Santa Rosa requires. This was above and beyond state requirements.
• Cities of Windsor, Santa Rosa; the Cloverdale and Healdsburg Planning Commissions
for identifying in their agendas and minutes, a "Conflict -of -Interest Declaration" or
"Statement of Abstention."
• The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors for adopting a resolution in February, 2005 to
expand Designated Filers and disclosure categories.
• The City of Sonoma for enacting a Code of Ethics for its officials and employees.
• The League of California Cities for providing continuing education, training and web -
based resource information.
Required responses to Recommendations:
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors — R3a, R3b
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors — R1, R2, R4, R5 ."
Nine City Managers and City Councils: Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa 41 I
NO
Rosa, Cotati, Healdsburg, Windsor, Cloverdale, Sebastopol, Sonoma — R1, R4, R5
City Managers and City Councils: Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Cotati, Healdsburg,
Windsor, Cloverdale, Sebastopol — R2
Sonoma County District Attorney - R7
17
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County (continued)
Sources of Information
1. The grand jury reviewed the following documents:
• A Guide to the Political Reform Act of 1974, California's Conflict-of-interest Law for Public
Officials, University of California
• Political Reform Act 2004, Fair Political Practices Commission
• FPPC Stipulations, Decisions and Orders and Admonishment letter
• California Government Codes §§ 87100-87313 and §§ 56010-56081
• The Maddy Act, California Government Code, §§ 54970-54975
• The Brown Act, California Government Code, § 54950
• The Hatch Act, under Title 5, United States Code, § 7321 et seq.
• The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act,
Government Code § 51200-51297
• The State of California, Little Hoover Commission Report, dated July 12, 2004, entitled
"Governing the Golden State, A Critical Path to Improve Performance and Restore Trust"
• The State of California, Little Hoover Commission Report, dated May 3, 2000, entitled "Special
Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources for the Future?"
• San Diego County Grand Jury Report 2002-2003 (March 6, 2003), San Diego City Ethics
Commission: "Can It Attain Its Purpose?"
• Orange County Grand Jury Report 1998-1999
• 'Orange County Sheriff -Coroner, Conflict -of -Interest Study
• Humboldt County Grand Jury Report of 2003/4 (#2004 -AF -01)
The Absence of Ethics Codes in Humboldt County
• Fair Political Practices Commission, publications:
- "Adopting a Conflict-of-interest Code"
- "Can I Vote?" - An Overview of the Conflicts Laws
- "Where to Find Copies of Form 700 Filed by Public Officials"
- "Your Resource for Advice, Education, Enforcement."
• Municipal Codes;
- City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code
- City of Sebastopol Municipal Code
- Town of Windsor Municipal Code
- City of Petaluma Municipal Code
- Santa Rosa City Code
- Sonoma County Code
• Over thirty articles from The Press Democrat newspaper (199B-2005)
• More than one -hundred state and national articles
2. The grand jury interviewed the following persons:
• State:
o Fair Political Practices Commission: Chief, Technical Assistance Division; Senior
Counsel, Enforcement Division; Enforcement Officer
• County:
o District Attorney, Deputy District Attorney, Staff attorney
o Member, Board of Supervisors
o Deputy County Counsel
o Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO): Executive and Assistant Executive officers
o Public Defender
• Cities:
o Cotati: Former Mayor
o Petaluma: City Attorney
o Rohnert Park: City Clerk, Assistant City Manager, Assistant City Attorney
o Santa Rosa: City Manager, City Attorney, Deputy City Attorney, Director of Community
Development, Former Mayor, two former Planning commissioners.
• Other Respondents:
o Three Citizen Advocates
im
I
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County (continued)
- •_
• MESSAGE TO SONOMA COUNTY RESIDENTS
FROM THE GRAND JURY
We commend those individuals, past and present, who sought elective and appointive office on boards,
committees, and commissions in city and county governments. They act as fiduciaries for our interests,
putting in many hours of personal time at little or no remuneration. While we must commend those who
offer their time and expertise in public service, we have a right to expect these individuals to fulfill their
responsibilities with integrity and ethical conduct; that is, they cannot use their position of public trust to
benefit themselves, their business Interests, families, or colleagues.
We expect elected/appointed officials to recognize actual and apparent conflicts of interest. But, this does
not always occur. Thus, it may fall on other parties, including informed citizens, to raise the issue. The key
is an informed citizenry.
Issues that create conflict of interest can be complex. We elect officials to work on our behalf-, however,
our duty as citizens does not end at the voting booth.. We must be ready to assist and monitor them by
being sensitive to the issues they face, particularly if they are contributing their expertise and time to
assist in decisions that improve our communities.
Being informed requires that you, as a citizen, pay attention to current issues. It requires study and
analysis of positions of our elected and appointed officials, and may even require attendance at
government meetings. Ultimately, it may require you to speak up if there is an actual or an appearance of
a conflict of interest. The goal is to preserve the integrity of our governmental functions. The reward is a
more responsive government and a more satisfying environment for all of us to live in.
We have set out information below that can help you, the citizens of Sonoma County, fulfill this goal
should a situation arise. Complaints concerning violations of the conflict-of-interest provisions of the
Political Reform Act should be made to the local District Attorney, or the Enforcement Division of the
FPPC.
Fair Political Practices Commission Phone: 1-866-ASK-FPPC (1.866-275-3772)
428 J Street, Suite 620, Sacramento, CA 95814. Website: ww .fooc.ca.aov
FPPC Publications. Trainino and Education:
• "Your Duty to File"—A basic overview of State Economic Disclosure Law
• "Can I Vote."? An overview of public officials' obligations
• "How Do I Get Advice from the FPPC?"
• Statement of Economic Interests — Form 700.
• Publication, "Your Resource for: Advice, Education, and Enforcement"
• "How to File a Violation of the Political Reform Act
• "Violation Report Form."
• "What happens after I file a complaint?"
• FPPC seminars for cities, counties, multi -county and state agencies
Leaoue of California Cities — Institute for Local Self -Government - Website: www.ilsc.ora
Local City and Countv Attornevs' offices:
Sonoma County District Attorney........ 707-565-2311
Sonoma County Counsel ................
_.. 707-565-2421
Rohnert Park ............. .....................
— 707-588-2227
Petaluma...... _ .....................................
707-778-4362
Santa Rosa .................. _.....................
707-543-3040
Cotatl ......:� ..................
707-665-3623
Healdsburg ...................
707-431-3317
Windsor ..............
_........ 510-351-4362
Cloverdale ..........
_........ 707-894-2521
Sebastopol ....................
707-823-7865
Sonoma ........................
707-938-3743
19
Al
A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN!
April 25, 2005
Summary
The earthquake of April 18, 1906, although known as the earthquake of San Francisco, reduced
downtown Santa Rosa to rubble.' The greatest loss of life occurred in the hotels and rooming
houses of the 52 year old community. A fire immediately followed the quake, killing those who
were trapped in the wreckage.
Santa Rosa after the Earthquake and Fire, April 18, 1906
Courtesy of the Sonoma Valley Historical Society
Practically every building was destroyed or badly damaged. The brick and stone business
blocks, together with the public buildings, collapsed. The Court House, Hall of Records, the
Occidental and Santa Rosa Hotels, the Athenaeum Theatre, the new Masonic Temple, Odd
Fellows' Block, all the banks, everything went. In the city, not one brick or stone building was
left, except the California Northwestern Depot. The list of damage continues:
In the residential portion of the city, foundations receded from under the houses, badly
wrecking about twenty of the largest and damaging every one, more or less. Here, as in
San Francisco, flames followed the earthquake, breaking out in a dozen different places
at once and completing the work of devastation. The total of dead and injured was close
to a hundred.
' Details of the destruction in the Santa Rosa area are taken from web site
http://users.ap.net/—chenae/socoquake.htmi
21
A99
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Waiting To Happen! (Continued)
• The same earthquake inflicted considerable damage upon the business section of
Heaidsburg, with the large brick structures suffering the most.
• Many fine homes in the Geyserville vicinity were considerably damaged. In the
Alexander Valley, the quarter mile long bridge over the Russian River was wrecked.
• Windsor suffered considerably from the earthquake, many of its finest new buildings
being entirely destroyed. The Masonic building, which was being constructed of stone
and brick, was reduced to debris.
• Sebastopol, which was just recovering from its last big fire, fared badly and was once
more a pile of ruins, especially in the business section.
Some may draw comfort from that was then, this is now, and building codes are significantly
more sophisticated than was the case in 1906. However, a major earthquake in Sonoma County
would cause significant destruction. Lessons learned from the Northridge Earthquake, were that
even the most modern designs do not prevent a surprising level of damage. Additionally,
building codes have been updated in the last few years, and while public buildings in Sonoma
County werg built to code, the majority of structures do not reflect these recent changes.
The historic records speak to the most likely disaster to occur in Sonoma County, namely a
large earthquake. But WAIT! What of other disasters that could befall the county? History also
shows that floods and landslides are likely events. Hazards analyses completed by emergency
planning staff in the county and its cities also identified chemical spills, Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD), terrorist activities (given increased emphasis in the wake of September 11,
2001), major epidemics such as flu, and even tsunamis.
In 1995, Sonoma County formally adopted the Standard Emergency Management System
(SEMS) to promote consistent and effective management of major emergencies and disasters
in the county. SEMS had been used in planning prior to 1995, but was first used in earnest
during the 1995 winter and spring floods.
The 2004-2005 grand jury decided to examine the effectiveness of the SEMS -based planning in
Sonoma County, the preparedness of the key organizations that need to respond to the plan in
the event of an emergency, and public awareness of the plans. A key part of the examination
would be to check for consistency between the county and city plans.
Reason for Investigation
Since the Oklahoma City bombing, and the events of September 11, 2001, there is increased
public awareness of the impact of major disasters. The US Geological Society and others
conclude that an earthquake of at least a 6.7 magnitude will probably occur in the San
Francisco Bay Area before 2030. Major fires, floods and landslides, as seen in the last two
years elsewhere in the state, serve to remind residents of Sonoma County that these foo are
potential disasters in "God's country." The 2004-2005 grand jury determined that an
investigation of the county's preparedness for such disasters was more than timely.
The grand jury noted that since the investigation began in January 2005, there has been a
marked increase in plan re-examination and modification. This confirmed the validity of the
investigation.
The grand jury observed that minimal effort had been exerted to inform the public as to its
expectations prior to a major event. Similarly, there were minimal plans in place to educate the
22
g�
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Wafting To Happen! (Continued)
public at the time of a major event. Therefore, the grand jury recommends that considerably
more effort be applied to meeting this key challenge.
Background
The SEMS methodology for consistent management of major disasters received impetus in
California following the Oakland fire in 1991. Sonoma County formally adopted SEMS as its
emergency and disaster management methodology during the floods of early 1995.
SEMS incorporates the use of the following entities:
• Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
• Incident Command System (ICS)
• Master Mutual Aid Agreement
• Existing mutual aid systems
• The operational area concept
• Multi -agency or inter -agency coordination.
Local governments must use SEMS to be eligible for funding of disaster -related costs under
state and federal disaster assistance programs. Adoption of SEMS is now a prerequisite for pre -
mitigation funding.
Given these financial incentives, all counties in Califomia are committed to SEMS, as is the
state itself. Most other counties and states within the United States of America are following the
same lead. Within two years, there will be a Federal (National) Incident Management System,
NIMS, which will interface with the state and county systems, almost certainly calling for some
rewriting of existing plans. The concept of all local governments using the same disaster
recovery methodology as the state and federal agencies is encouraging and timely. It is a major
step forward, but only if the county and city plans are complete and in synchronization.
In recent years in Sonoma County, a SEMS -based approach has been used in the following
disasters:
1995 January and March rainstorms and floods
1997 New Year floods
1998 Rio Nido landslides.
Notwithstanding these examples, the grand jury believes that in the ten years since its formal
adoption, SEMS in Sonoma County is relatively untested in real disaster situations. With no
wish to minimize the personal and economic effects of the identified emergencies, it can be
noted that a flood disaster is different from most others since there is usually a period of
advance notice, albeit a handful of days. In the last ten years, Sonoma County has not suffered
a major county -wide emergency, a major earthquake (such as in 1906 and 1969), or a terrorist -
related disaster. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, the terrorist activities of September 11,
2001, the tsunami catastrophe of December 2004, and the Indonesian Earthquake of March
2005, are fresh reminders of the enormity and chaos of a major disaster.
The grand jury recognizes that the written plan itself, the Sonoma County/Operational Area
Emergency Operations Plan, is a major advance on its predecessor. The previous plan
comprised two volumes, (each 2" thick), "hopelessly verbose and indigestible." A number of the
people the grand jury interviewed referred to the previous plan as a door -stopper, because of its
23
�_6
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Waiting To Happen! (Continued)
size. In contrast, the new plan is succinct, focused on the early hours and days of an
emergency, with a clear priority given to the safety and wellbeing of people. The overall plan
itself is light on the recovery processes, although in some individual agency plans, the grand
jury did see good examples of recovery procedures. The grand jury recommends that all major
agencies and departments be required to detail their recovery plans, including the longer-term
requirements.
The SEMS -based plan for the county is managed by the County Department of Emergency
Services, and was last published in November 2000 with a minor update in May 2002. In the
evolving world of SEMS, Sonoma County is part of the Coastal Region, from which mutual aid
may be drawn if necessary. The state requires that an Emergency Council be formed and meet
twice per year. There is a Sonoma County Operational Area Emergency Council that complies
with this requirement. The state also requires that the SEMS -based plan be tested at least every
two years. An actual critical incident may qualify as a sufficient "test" of the emergency
responses, thus relieving the need for a periodic test.
The organization required by SEMS, in the event of a major disaster, is shown in Exhibit B at
the end of this report. Exhibit C shows the way Sonoma County has allocated the key
responsibilities.
In the event of a disaster, the key participants meet in a prepared operations room (the EOC
room), to begin and manage the disaster management processes, and to call on such additional
agencies as the disaster warrants.
The grand jury found widespread inconsistent approaches to emergency and disaster planning.
Some county employees embraced the process of planning with enthusiasm, while others,
tvoically senior manaaement and elected officials,, were non -enthusiastic, relying instead on
"people will know what to do:' The grand jury does not doubt that in all emergencies and
disasters there have always been, and will continue to be, outstanding examples of heroism and
remarkable feats. The grand jury also recognizes that a disaster is not managed by everyone
running around with the plan' in their hands. However, after -action reports of major
disasters all emphasize the need for pre -planning and pre -written checklists. Planning
provides a means of communication and collective thinking before the event, ideally
producing checklists for key players to follow during the event. There is a well-worn
adage in planning disciplines that "the journey is far more important than the
destination," namely that the very process of producing a plan is as valuable as the plan
itself. This is especially appropriate to disaster planning.
After -action reports provide excellent lessons to be leamed in planning ahead for extended
power outages (maybe weeks), or for major telephone system overloads. Sonoma County is
especially vulnerable to power outages. A strong wind can do it, or a car hitting a power pole on
the Windsor 101 cloverleaf. So what might a major disaster do?
Investigative Procedures
The Investigation included interviews with staff, departmentallagency management, and elected
officials all of whom have a stake in the production of effective plans for emergency
management.
In addition to interviews, the investigation also included examination of relevant county and city
emergency management manuals and related procedures.
24
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Waiting To Happen! (Continued)
The investigation also examined a number of public domain after -action reports from major
disasters of the last few years, including the events of September 11, 2001.
Details of all these investigated areas are listed in Exhibit A at the end of this report.
Findings
An extract from the State of California SEMS Guidelines defines SEMS thus:
"SEMS was established to provide an effective response to multi -agency and multi -jurisdictional
emergencies in California. By standardizing key elements of the emergency management
system, SEMS was intended to:
• Facilitate the flow of information within and between levels of system
• Facilitate coordination among all responding agencies."
The grand jury found that the top-level county plan is well written and reflects recent thinking in
this arena. It is championed by a small group in Emergency Services. The plans below the top
level are not consistently well written, and in some cases do not exist in written, teachable and
reproducible format. Examination of the plan publication dates, county and city, shows a wide
span of dates, 1987 to 2002. Most plans have dates prior to the calamitous event of September
2001. So does the State of California SEMS websitel
The grand jury examined, in some detail, the use of SEMS by cities within the county and found
many inconsistencies. Some cities relied entirely on the county -based system to drive their
disaster recoveries, even if the disaster was quite local to the city. While some cities had well-
developed plans, other cities had absolutely minimal plans and frighteningly false expectations.
Use of checklists was spasmodic.
Detailed findings are as follows:
F1. Sonoma County has embraced SEMS as the standard and consistent methodology to
manage major emergencies and disasters effectively (as has the State of California).
F2. SEMS is designed to standardize emergency responses, and immediate recovery
processes, not mid or long-term recovery processes.
F3. Written plans and checklists are not consistent among county, cities, agencies, and
departments, and in some cases are non-existent.
F4. Where plans and checklists do exist, they are not always stored in multiple safe places for
guaranteed access in the event of a disaster. The most common place is "the office,"
notwithstanding that a disaster does not limit itself to regular work hours, and office
buildings may not be accessible!
F5. Recovery processes, especially long power and water outages, are not consistently
broken down by time periods, e.g. first 2 hours, first 24 hours, first 3 days, first 3 months. ,
F6. The county radio system schematic shows sufficient built-in redundancy to withstand an
interruption, unless specific "switch -able" radio towers are out of action (there is a study to
extend the redundancy).
25
0
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Waiting To Happen! (Continued)
F7. The county telephone system and 911 phone line system schematic shows sufficient
redundancy built in to withstand any interruption, short of a complete loss of the main SBC
building in Santa Rosa.
F8. There is an agreement with the county fuel supplier that provides for priority fuel supplies
for generators in the event of prolonged losses of power. While it is not guaranteed, there
is an assumption that "government" will get the highest priority. Even so, among most
departments and agencies, there is complacency about the total availability of generators
and fuel supplies. This leads to assumptions that the generators themselves would survive
the disaster, or that there would be a sufficient amount and duration of power for all
purposes and all county buildings.
F9. All county employees are listed as disaster recovery resources, as indeed are members of
the grand jury, but there is no clear plan on how they will report in for duty, or how they will
be used.
1710. The city plans are not consistent in scope and detail. The City of Santa Rosa has a well -
structured but dated plan, Cotati's plan is literally a copy of the county plan, Cloverdale is
still using the 1989 two volume door -stopper plan that existed before the adoption of
SEMS, and Healdsburg's plan is dated 1987. See Exhibit D for a table comparing the
format and date of the county and city plans.
F11. Of the plans that exist, almost all of them have dates prior to the events of September 11,
2001.
F12. There are no consistent plans to inform the public ahead of time of what information will be
available atthe time of a disaster, nor is there a consistent plan to make use of media, or
the City Watch system in the event of a disaster. (The City Watch system is a software
program that allows for sending informational or alert messages to a given geography of
telephone subscribers),
F13. There is an agreement dated 1997, between the cities and the county, promising help from
the county for the construction of, training in, and testing of city -based disaster plans. This
assistance is not provided, nor sought on a continually consistent basis, despite the
payment of a $2000 annual fee by the cities.
F14. There are no consistent disaster response checklists for law enforcement and public
safety personnel, the two major agencies involved in every disaster. While law
enforcement acknowledges SEMS, it relies on its normal critical incident skills to sustain
its disaster response efficacy. There is too much reliance on a disaster being just another
critical incident, basically "all in a day's work." As a result, there are no written policies
and/or procedures that describe the responsibilities of the Sheriffs Department as part of
the County Emergency Operations Plan.
F15. The County Mobile Communications Vehicle, funded by Homeland Security, is parked
within 200 feet of the County Dispatch Center for which it is the backup.
F16. The Sonoma County Law Enforcement Consortium (SCLEC) system comprises Computer
Aided Dispatch (CAD), Records Management System (RMS) and Mobile Data Computer
(MDC). All of the Sonoma County law enforcement agencies, except Healdsburg and
Sebastopol, use SCLEC for dispatching, tracking, and communicating with mobile units.
26
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Waiting To Happen! (Continued)
The SCLEC computer system is housed in one county building with no backup if the
building were destroyed.
F17. There is little in the county and city plans to indicate how long term losses of infrastructure
will be managed, e.g. roads, freeways, and bridges.
Conclusions
The County has adopted the SEMS approach to developing disaster recovery plans. The
County signed an agreement in 1997 to assist all of the principal cities with their SEMS -based
plans. The plans as assembled are inconsistent in content and with each other. Some of the
plans are seriously out of date, and in none of the plans is there evidence of post "9/11"
updating. It is difficult to believe that the events of September 11, 2001 did not cause significant
reviews of disaster plans. It is even more difficult to believe plan revisions would not have been
indicated as a result of such reviews.
The smaller cities have the least complete and (typically) the oldest plans, and are relying far
too much on the County EOC to "rescue" them in the event of a disaster within their own
boundaries. Consider the heavy dependency in the county on a minimal number of North/South,
EasttWest access roads, and it is not difficult to imagine the central EOC having major problems
in assisting a disaster in for example, Cloverdale or Sonoma.
The small cadre of mid-level staffers involved in the design and drafting of the plans
demonstrated a good deal of understanding and enthusiasm; the same could not be said for
their managers and supervisors. Some of that may just be the way such plans are developed.
The grand jury's fear is that In the event of a major disaster too much recovery dependency will
be placed on these staffers. Most of the senior manaaement and elected officials interviewed
were well distanced from, and in some cases ionorant of, salient nieces of the glans.
In almost every case, procedures from law enforcement, as they related to their role in an
emergency, or a disaster within their own infrastructure, were provided to the grand jury as a
secondary offering, in some cases not a direct match to the question the grand jury had asked.
The jury is left with a very real impression that law enforcement is relying too much on a disaster
simply being just another (maybe larger) critical incident, for which their personnel are trained.
Too often law enforcement quoted street disturbances, or Russian River floods, as examples of
their emergency -handling prowess. The jury does not believe that either of these examples is a
good basis for a major (unexpected) disaster plan.
The grand jury has no expectation that all of the personnel involved in a disaster recovery will
actually work from the plan manual. However, the spasmodic, in some cases zero, use of
checklists misses a great opportunity to put effective planning into action at times of great
personal stress and confusion. SEMS certainly encourages use of checklists. After -action
reports from major disasters elsewhere also stress the value of checklists.
The senior management commitment to the various disaster plans, at the Board of Supervisors
level, County Administrator, the city council level, the city manager level, and the public safety
level, is demonstrably inconsistent and does not bode well should the county experience a
major disaster.
27
a5
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Waiting To Happen! (Continued)
Commendations
The jury commends the Department of Emergency Services for a well-written, digestible County
Emergency Operations Plan, so much better than its predecessor. Its focus on people safety is
especially commendable, as is the dedication of the staff group that produced it.
Both the Sonoma County Water Agency and the City of Santa Rosa developed well -constructed
plans and in particular, made good use of checklists. Both plans had dates that are not recent;
in both cases the jury understands updates are in progress.
The grand jury would like to thank all of the people who gave valuable time for interviews and
willingly provided many examples of written material.
Recommendations
No disaster recovery plan is perfect. It is always possible to find some aspect that needs
revision, based on testing or real events.
Given the widespread commitment to SEMS in Sonoma County, and the availability of lessons
learned from events such as "9/11 ", the Loma Prieta and the Northridge earthquakes, and the
Oklahoma City bombing, the grand jury expects to see at least the following, for all
organizations:
• Disaster plans consistent in date, content and mutual aid expectations, for the county, its
cities and major agencies/departments
• Improved use of checklists, including a notebook -style suitable for automobile visors or
glove boxes, similar to that used by the City of Santa Rosa
• Comprehensive analyses of realistic responses to prolonged multi -week power outages,
and telephone system overloads.
Detailed recommendations are:
R1. The County Department of Emergency Services, working with each city in the county,
should:
• Assist in producing updated disaster plans, based on SEMS, consistent in content, in
use and style of checklists. The plans should be completed by December 2005, in
support of the 2006-2007 budget cycle
• Make clear how the revised city plans relate to the county plan
• Propose, by October 2005, new communication methods and media outreach
strategies aimed at providing the public with information on what plans and
procedures are designed and in place to manage major disasters.
• Provide employee guidelines on storing disaster recovery documentation away from
the work place, for example, at home, in an employee's car. The guidelines should
be complete by October 2005.
JO
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Waiting Ta Happen! (Continued)
R2. The Board of Supervisors should:
Initiate an annual review of the County Emergency Plan. Since this may lead to
budgetary outcomes, the event should be included as a part of the budget cycle,
starting with 2006-2007. The review should include the following tasks as a
minimum:
— Examine status of the actions from the previous year's review,
— Review any tests completed during the year and any plan changes required
as a result of the tests ("no change" is an unlikely outcome).
— Require evidence of detailed changes to the plan occasioned by known state,
national or world emergencies that occurred during the year.
— Require evidence of detail changes to the plan required by directives from the
Department of Homeland Security (with due regard to any security and
secrecy requirements).
Concur, by a vote, that the review has been completed successfully.
R3. Each city council should:
• Initiate an annual review of its disaster plan, coincident with the budget cycle,
starting with the 2006-2007 cycle. These reviews should include the following tasks
as a minimum-
- Examine status of the actions from the previous years review.
— Review any tests during the year and any plan changes required as a result
of the tests ("no change"'is an unlikely outcome).
— Request detail of any changes to the plan occasioned by known state,
national or world emergencies that occurred in the review year.
— Request detail of any changes to the plan required by directives from the
Department of Homeland Security (with due regard to any security and
secrecy requirements).
— Concur, by vote, that the review has been completed successfully.
R4. The Sonoma County Sheriff should:
• Clarify and document, by year-end 2005, the common procedure for invoking the
City Watch alert system.
• Institute, by year-end 2005, a periodic public test of the system, similar to the
periodic testing of the TV and radio emergency alert system,
• Relocate the County Mobile Communications Vehicle to be at least five miles from
the Dispatch Center/Sheriff's Office. This should be done by October 2005.
• Provide, by October 2005, a written procedure detailing how county law enforcement
expects to meet its commitment as a primary resource agency to EOC in the event of
a major disaster.
29
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Waiting To Happen! (Continued)
R5. The Board of Supervisors, and each city council, should:
Demand that plans be put in place to ensure that all existing employees have been
or will be trained in SEMS and the Emergency Recovery Plan for the county, and/or
their city. The training should be completed by year-end 2005.
Document the reporting steps employees must take as support individuals in the
event of a disaster.
Endorse that the most effective use of most employees is to focus on business
resumption.
R6. The County Dispatch Center manager, working with radio, telephone and data
processing management in the Information Systems Department, and with the major
vendors, should, by October 2005:
Provide a detailed design showing how all forms of critical communications are
duplicated, backed up and/or capable of re-routing, in the event of a disaster.
Explore the use of simple mathematical queuing models to show how quickly the
County Dispatch Center telephone set-up becomes overloaded in the event of a
major disaster.
Identify the remedial equipment and procedural changes that alleviate overload
problems determined by the overload analysis.
R7. The Director of County Information Services, working with the Sonoma County Law
Enforcement Consortium (SCLEC), should:
• Propose, by October 2005, a plan to provide immediate backup to the Sonoma
County Law Enforcement Computer System, presently a single point of failure.
R8. The County Director of General Services should:
Produce, by year-end 2005, a detailed document showing the location, earthquake
preparedness and fuel capacity of all the generators the county and cities expect to
commission in the event of a major disaster. The document should. include
communication with the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrative Officer, and
all departments and agencies, as to the amount of power they can reasonably expect
to have following a disaster.
Rg.' The County Director of Public Works should:
• Produce, by year-end 2005, a document outlining the realistic alternatives in the
event that major sections of North/South and East/West roadways are disrupted.
T
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Waiting To Happen! (Continued)
Required responses to Findings
Director— County Department of Emergency Services —F2, F3, F4, F5, F9, F10, F11,
F12, F13, F14
County Administrative Officer— F3, F9, F12, F14
City Managers — F3, F4, F9, F10, F13
Sonoma County Sheriff— F12, F14, F15, F16
Director of County Information Systems Department — F6, F7, F16
Board of Supervisors—F9, F11, F13, F15
Each City Council — F10
County Director of General Services — F8, F17
County Director of Public Works — F17
Requested responses to Recommendations
None are requested.
Required responses to Recommendations
Board of Supervisors — R2, R5
Each City Council — R3, R5
Director, County Department of Emergency Services — R1
Sonoma County Sheriff— R4
Sonoma County Dispatch Manager— R6
Director of County Information Systems Department— R7
Sonoma County Director of General Services — R8
Sonoma County'Director of Public Works— R9
31
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Waiting To Happen! (Continued)
Exhibit A — Conduct of the Investigation
1. The following people were interviewed:
• Board of Supervisors
— Chairman of Board of Supervisors
• County Administration
— County Administrative Officer
• County Emergency Services
— Director of Emergency Services
— Emergency Services Coordinator
• Sheriffs Organization
— Sheriff and Coroner
— Assistant Sheriff
— Captain - Detention Division
— Captain—Patrol Bureau
— Captain—Administration Bureau
— Lieutenant (2) — Patrol Bureau
— Dispatch Manager
• Information Systems Department
— Director
— Division Director
— Assistant Manager— Radio and Communications
— Assistant Manager— Telephone Systems
• Sonoma County Water Agency
— General Manager
— Safety Officer
• County General Services
— Director of General Services
• City of Santa Rosa
— City Manager
— Divisional Fire Commander
— General Services Manager
• City of Cloverdale
City Manager
•. Sonoma County Office of Education
— Superintendent of Schools
• County Tax Collection Department
— Tax Collector
2. The following Emergency and Disaster plan manuals were examined:
• Sonoma County
• City of Santa Rosa
• City of Petaluma
• City of Sonoma
• City of Cotati
• City of Sebastopol
32
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Waiting To Happen! (Continued)
• City of Rohnert Park
• City of Windsor draft
• City of Healdsburg
• City of Cloverdale
• Sonoma County Water Agency
3. In some cases partial plans, or procedural extracts, were made available and were
examined, as follows:
Sheriff's Organization
— Jail Evacuation Plans
— Dispatch Center Evacuation Plan
— Weapon of Mass Destruction — Summary of Resources and Information
— Order for TD 280 Switch — to switch County 911 lines to Santa Rosa Police
Department
— Procedure managing outside access to Sheriff's Radio Frequency
— Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs- Urgent Interagency Assistance
Protocol
— Transfer List — Police Agency Phone List
— Review/Update Scratch Pad
— Vesta's Auto Dial Phone List
— Sheriff Procedure 358 Major Incident Notification
— Sheriff Procedure — Rules and Regulation on Conduct
— Sheriff Memorandum of Understanding with Santa Rosa Police Department
for mutual aid
— County Dispatch Center— Disaster Response and Recovery Plan (written
during this investigation)
County Emergency Services .
— Maximizing Volunteers as a resource during Disaster
— Overview of County EDP
— Sonoma County Operation: Smallpox II Tabletop Exercise after -action report
— Operation "Shop 'til you Drop' Control -Staff Instructions
— Operation "Shop 'til you Drop" Exercise Plan
— "Shop 'til you Drop" after -action report and evaluation
County Information Services Department (ISD)
— Sonoma County Telecommunications Network
— County of Sonoma Radio Relay Network
Sonoma County Office of Education (SCOE)
— SCOE Trainings on Safe School Plans and School Crisis Response
— SCOE — Emergency Preparedness Plan for the Skylane Facility
— Academic Aftershocks — a video featuring the impact of the Northridge
Earthquake on California State University - Northridge
— Practical Information for Crisis Planning — A Guide for Schools and
Communities
City of Cloverdale
— Agreement for Emergency Services (between County, Cities and Sonoma
State University), dated 1997
33
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Waiting To Happen! (Continued)
County Public Works Department
— La Plaza Building — Office Emergency Plan
— Hazardous Materials Incident Response Plan —August 2000
— Road Maintenance Department — Standby procedures
— Standby procedures — EOC Operations and Checklists
4. The following After -Action or Response Agency reports were read on the Internet:
• City of Oakland —Loma Prieta 1989
— (www.sfmuseum.nei/oakquake/1.O.htm!)
• The Oklahoma City Bombing — 1995
— (www.mipt.org/pdf/MIPT-OKC7-Book—And—Appc.pdf)
• The Arlington County Pentagon Disaster — September 2001
—(www.911investigations.net/document793.htmi)
• The Northridge Earthquake — 1994
(www.lafire.com/famous-fires/fires.htm)
�j�
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Waiting To Happen] (Continued)
Exhibit B — Sonoma Op Area Emergency Management Organization Chart
Sonoma Op Area Emergency Management Organization Chart
.UJ,DENLSDIS '
OPERATIONS
se=r MW
� LAIF BRANCH
• {;EJflE3CVEedtANCH
• MEDFFALIEMa)BRANCH
• PVP9JC WDaia eA:.NCH
• HEALTH BRANCH
• HA2A�OUS MAS—v.14L6
■ AH1kAL CDtLT1iDL8PiNCH
R CORON�BRANDH
Nwoember 2.LM
MANAGEMENT
EVC MY?'..1¢*
PLANNING : INTEL I I
9a =' MW
A fl; UATTDN ANALYSIS
1 DAYADEAfOEIZMEN
• RECM• Ry
• DCCUMENTATZ9
• TEC'HRICALfPEMwufn
• Emv[Plmivac Gnwalaafvr
• EeCnl Ci:lveJ
i Punkly BlamaVnPAlawr
-PUPPn�taemnflrn Fawn,
• a."k, Vtlaal
1 sla[e?Rve1CPa[Lialavn
I
LOGISTICSI FINANCEIAMN
ea
SecaCdiEr Se:Se5 Met
R SEA-VUSE6SRANCH
-MefcaPe Cedvr
_Hu2ert ReC4Y[neC
-FPPPt HD♦nr
-Gni 1nsRar'
-CacmUn�ba1[onc
_amwvic
. avPaDRs en:xtH
•RvcvPJae a:ntuc
-amPP1Y
-'rICIIJIf
-FfnnWalfniaA
.rause
-UiaWu
• SACUlOAeTFA NAJlA9FR
35
� DDPTJR£COP.Da VliiP
• TiICL'HFF
� CCNP tC_+:IY VII?
Sonoma County Grand Jury
A Disaster Waiting To Happen! (Continued)
EXHIBIT C -_The Sonoma County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) core team
This team comprises:
• EOC Director— County Administrative Officer
Emergency Services Coordinator — Department of Emergency Services, Emergency
Services Coordinator
• Operations Section Chief—Sheriff's Watch Commander or designee
• Planning/Intel Section Chief— Director of Permit Resource Management Department
• Logistics Section Chief — Director of General Services and Deputy Director
• Finance/Admin Section Chief — County Auditor and/or designated staff
• Legal Officer — County Counsel Director and/or designated staff
Safety Officer— Mental Health Staff
• Public Information Officer (PIO) — various people from Voter Registration, County
Administration analysts, and other county departments
36
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Nov — 00
Clone of County
Strong
A Disaster Waiting To Happen! (Continued)
Nov — 00
Literally a copy
Strong
EXHIBIT D — A table of County/City Plan comparisons
Of County Plan
Plan Date of ' Relationship
Commitment to
Calls for
Actual
Owner Plan To County Plan
SEMS in plan
Checklists
Checklists
County Nov -00 Full
Total
Yes
Yes
Santa Some 99 Separate Plan
Strong
Yes
Yes
Rosa
Healdsburg
1987
Separate Plan
Sonoma Nov -01 Clone of SR
Strong
Yes
Some
Petaluma
Nov — 00
Clone of County
Strong
Cotati
Nov — 00
Literally a copy
Strong
Of County Plan
Windsor
Draft
Makes some-
Some
Xmas
reference to
2002
County Plan, not
in same format
Healdsburg
1987
Separate Plan
None
Cloverdale
89-92
None
None
Sebastopol
1996
Clone of a South
None
Bay,Countyl
37
Some Some
Some Some, dated
2 -
Some
-Some No
Some Some
No No
Yes Yes -1995
U
HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR SWORN OFFICERS
Summary
PRESS DEMOCRAT, SUNDAY FEBRUARY 6, 2005
TIGHT MARKET SQUEEZES SONOMA COUNTY BUYERS
With home prices rising, traditional loans eschewed in favor of creative
alternatives.
The median price of housing in Sonoma County in April 2005 was $595,000 a 19%
increase since April 2004.The dramatic increase in the cost of housing has adversely
affected the infrastructure of the county workforce, i.e. fire, police, teachers and health
care workers. Some of the law enforcement agencies have vacancies in excess of
20% of their targeted headcount. All of the law enforcement agencies have, or intend
to have, a policy of recruiting into their lower salary grades, investing heavily in
intensive training. This strategy has an expectation that the retained recruit will migrate
up through the senior ranks and become a seasoned community -integrated sworn
officer (deputy sheriff or peace officer).
Median is the halfway point of the houses for sale at a point in time. With an average
take home pay of $3000 to $4000 per month, a new sworn officer recruit does not
expect to buy a home at the median level. Using the normal ratio that lending
institutions would apply, this take home pay level would provide for a house price of
approximately $250,000. In May 2005, the housing inventory for Sonoma County
included just 3 such properties. The same inventory had five times as many houses if
the price search had been $350,000 to $400,000. Clearly in Sonoma County there is a
major challenge for the law enforcement agencies to find a creative way of closing the
income -to -house price gap.
The law enforcement agencies are not alone in this dilemma. As Sonoma County
moves along a path of returning to the employment levels of the late 1990's other
employers see the same dilemma — recruiting younger people into the county is
constrained by the cost of housing. The essential difference in the law enforcement
case is the critical nature of the workforce. For a law enforcement agency to have
vacancies in excess of 20% is clearly a community safety issue of the highest priority.
Without some assistance the new sworn officer recruit is likely to choose to live outside
the county, where, for now at least, the house pricing problem is less of an issue.
However, a sworn officer living many miles and many commute hours from his/her
base operation presents a safety risk.
There may be other issues in recruitment of entry-level sworn officers; this report will
focus only on the relationship of house prices in Sonoma County and the county's
ability to recruit and retain sworn officers.
43
k`
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Housing Assistance for Sworn Officers (continued)
Reason for Investigation
In the course of visiting all the law enforcement agencies in Sonoma County, talking
with supervisors and officers in these agencies, participating in many ride-alongs and
meeting with the union representative of the Police Officers Association, the jury found
a recurring theme. Agencies were having a difficult time recruiting and retaining sworn
officers. One of the major reasons given was officers could not afford to buy a home in
the county, their first preference, not just because of the proximity to the workplace,
but also because of the natural attraction of this beautiful place, Sonoma County.
Courtesy of Don McDonald
Some of the law enforcement agencies in the county have reported that more than
10% of their sworn officers live outside the county, thus limiting opportunities to
integrate our safety officers with the 000ulation thev are there to orotect.
For sworn officers living an unacceptable distance from their base the commute can be
up to 3.5 hours round trip. Their duties often require them to remain at work to cover
for absent officers, especially when there is understaffing. In addition officers may be
called to emergencies and frequently must remain on duty longer. Court appearances
are part of the job often occurring on a day off duty or immediately after working a shift.
Unlike their fellow firefighters they do not have access to bases with sleeping facilities.
The officers sleep where they can rather than take the long commute home only to
return in a few hours. The officer not only has to plan around the commute but it
shortens time with the family, takes a toll on health and lessens community
involvement.
In conducting this investigation, the grand jury expects that the governing bodies in the
county will see the need for creative ways to narrow the gap between the ability to buy
appropriate housing within the county, and the salary levels for such new recruits. This
is not a philanthropic proposal; it is an investment program and public safety program.
44
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Housing Assistance for Sworn Officers (continued)
Background
As previously indicated, the law enforcement agencies in Sonoma County have a
policy of recruiting into the lower salary grades, and investing heavily in training,
classroom and practical. The table below provides some examples:
City Law
Enforcement
Rohnert Park
Department of Public
Safety
Police and Fire
Services
748 hours Basic
following sweadng-in:
640 hours On-the-job
training
800 hours
920+ hours
Academy
Incident responses
Emergency incidents
Patrol activities
Criminal investigation
Practical experiences
with mentor
Academy
Incident responses
Emergency incidents
Patrol activities
Criminal investigation
As in "City' above plus
Paramedic and
Firefighter training
$42,500
$50,000+
The investment in training is intended to produce a well-trained sworn officer to
become a resource well integrated with the community that he/she has sworn to
protect. To protect the investment, a few program ideas have been attempted, aimed
at providing creative housing assistance.
The following table shows some examples:
Land trust program
Land not included in price
is controlled by price and to
Land owned by the trust
Petaluma Work-
Provides housing built for a
force Housing
specific level of workforce
Program
acceptable
Healdsburg First-
Aimed at sworn officers
time -Homebuyers'
and firefighters
Program
Partnership with Exchange
Bank
Provides a "silent" deferred
payment second mortgage
"COP -NEXT-
Federal Program
DOOR"
Officer moves into high -
Program
crime area for a fixed
period of time at 50% of
cost.
Public Employees
Borrow against retirement
Retirement System
savings, up to 75%
Program (PERS)
Eventual sale in perpetuity
Presented to Santa
is controlled by price and to
Rosa and Petaluma,
whom it is sold
no action at this time
Still in planning stage
Still in planning stage
On subsequent sale In place.
deferred loan plus 3%
simple Interest has to be
paid off
Subsequent sale before
Not popular because
time period expires requires
financial penalty could
50% funding to be returned.
be high, and risk to
family is not
acceptable
Subsequent sale could put
New recruits not likely
lien against retirement
to qualify since they
savings
have not accumulated
significant retirement
savings.
LL
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Housing Assistance for Sworn Officers (continued)
Presently some Law Enforcement agencies in Sonoma County have in excess of 10%
of the sworn officer workforce living outside the county, and because of the housing
price affordability gap already demonstrated, this is expected to increase.
Security reasons preclude the specific number of sworn officers in each agency from
being divulged. The total number of sworn officers in the county is approaching 600,
and as the county population grows, the number of sworn officers will need to
increase. Elsewhere in this report, the jury noted that in some cases current vacancies
exceed 20% of the targeted headcount.
Investigative Procedures
1. Eleven tours of Law Enforcement Agency facilities in Sonoma County included:
• Cloverdale
• Healdsburg
• Petaluma
• Rohnert Park Safety Department (police, fire and paramedics)
• Cotati
• Santa Rosa
• Sebastopol
• Windsor
• Sheriffs Department
• Sonoma County Main Jail
• North County Detention Facility
2. Multiple ride-alongs* with sworn officers in each Department of:
• Cloverdale
• Healdsburg
• Sebastopol
• Sonoma
• Petaluma
• Rohnert Park
• Cotati
• Santa Rosa
• Sheriff's Department
• Windsor
'(a ride -along denotes civilian citizen, such as a juror, riding along with a swam officer for all or most of a duty shift)
Readings and Interviews
• Letter of inquiry to each law enforcement agency for pertinent data
• Mortgage qualification information from www.realtor.com and local mortgage
companies.
• Multiple Listing Service of Sonoma County, Marin, Napa and San Mateo
Counties
• Wall Street Journal
• Local real estate agents
• Interview with an executive board member of the Police Association
• Interviews with program leaders; Land Trust and Petaluma Housing Plan
46
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Housing Assistance for Sworn Officers (continued)
• Interviews with Chiefs of Police or their representatives
• Interview with the Sheriff -Coroner of Sonoma County
• The Santa Rosa Press Democrat .
• Petaluma Argus Courier
• Statistics manager for housing information for Sonoma County
• NorBar News (North Bay Association of Realtors)
Findings
F1. Sworn officers of Sonoma County law enforcement agencies are a critical part of
the workforce.
F2. Sonoma County invests money and time into the training of officers. The goal is
to retain these trained officers long term and have all law enforcement sworn
officers live within the county boundaries, not only for safety reasons but to be an
integral part of the community.
F3. In some law enforcement agencies, more than 10% of the sworn officers live
outside of Sonoma County due to the high cost of housing.
F4. The round trip commute of the sworn officers living out of Sonoma County can be
as long as 3 .5 hours.
F5. Of the programs shown, only the City of Healdsburg program is being used by
the sworn officer workforce.
Conclusions
Affordable housing programs for the sworn officer community are highly desirable.
How to attain this is a challenge. Programs that would seem to offer a solution are not
popular for some of the reasons shown. The grand jury looks to the county and city
governing bodies to investigate financial aid housing programs to help these officers
live within the community.
Such programs will help recruit and retain the best candidates, and at the same time
protect the training investment. It is of paramount importance that the sworn officers
are able to live among the communities they serve.
Commendations
While touring the Sheriffs Department and the Police Departments the grand jury was
impressed with the efficiency, dedication and pride of these agencies. We would like to
thank them for the time they took preparing information for our visit and for the prompt
and complete replies to any follow-up requests.
Recommendations
R1. By December 2005 the governing bodies of the county and each city should have:
• Evaluated the housing needs for sworn officers, targeting the entry-level officer
• Appointed a liaison to local banks and lending institutions to begin dialogues
outlining possible solutions.
47
"1�
Sonoma County Grand Jury
Housing Assistance for Sworn Officers (continued)
R2. By February 2006 the governing bodies of the county and each city will have
established qualification criteria for each program, and the nature of the investment
protection.
R3. By December 2006 an evaluation instrument will have been designed and used to
determine the effectiveness of the new program(s).
Requested responses to Findings
None
Required responses to Findings
County Sheriff - F2, F3
Chief of Police, Cloverdale - F2, F3
Chief of Police, Cotati - F2, F3,
Chief of Police, Healdsburg - F2, F3
Chief of Police, Petaluma - F2, F3,
Director of Safety Department, Rohnert Park - F2, F3
g MY y Chief of Police, Santa Rosa - F2, F3
Chief of Police, Sebastopol - F2, F3
Requested responses to Recommendations
None
Required responses to Recommendations
Cloverdale City Council - R1, R2, R3
Cotati City Council - R1, R2, R3
Healdsburg City Council - R1, R2, R3
Petaluma City Council - R1, R2, R3
Rohnert Park City Council - R1, R2, R3
Santa Rosa City Council - R1, R2, R3
Sebastopol City Council - R1, R2, R3,
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors - R1, R2, R3,
Board of Supervisors - R1, R2, R3
48 L
"1�
September 12, 2005
The Honorable Allan D. Hardcastle
Presiding Judge, Superior Court State of California DRAFT
3035 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
RE: Grand Jury Final Report — Responses and Recommendations
Dear Judge Hardcastle:
The City of Petaluma is pleased to provide you with our required responses to the Grand
Jury's Findings and Recommendations, as follows:
CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN SONOMA COUNTY
Rl. ADOPT AN INCOMPATIBLE ACTIVITIES LIST
The Grand Jury has suggested and has recommended that each commission,
committee, board and public agency have their own incompatibility activities list
as a supplemental resource and provide the sample list essentially setting forth in
general terms various restrictions and prohibitions on activities by the public
officials in the context of conflicts of interest.
The City of Petaluma, through the City Attorney's office, provides members of
the City Council and Planning Commission with a "City Council Handbook" and
"Planning Commission Handbook" which includes, among other information and
materials, papers and materials on (1) Political Reform Act and Common Law
Conflicts; (2) Prohibition of Contractors with Town; (3) Gifts, Honorarium and
Travel Expenses; (4) Local Conflict of Interest Code; and (5) The Ralph M.
Brown Act
Included in those handbooks and papers is a cover memorandum, and additional
memorandums which are provided from time to time, which discuss changes or
modifications in existing law or provide further information, interpretation and
analysis with respect to specific aspects of the law, and which touch on and
address every one of the seven items listed in the sample list in the Grand Jury
Report. These handbooks are loose leaf in nature to allow for subsequent
memorandums to be placed in the handbook in the appropriate category. Each
time a new Councilmember or Planning Commissioner takes office they are
provided with these manuals which are periodically updated and which have been
recently replaced in their entirety.
In addition, members of other commissions and committees receive materials
regarding these topics as well.
RZ. ADOPT A CODE OF ETHICS
As indicated above, City officials are provided a significant amount of material
regarding their obligations and duties as public officials and, in particular, with
respect to conflicts of interest. In addition, the City Council has adopted Council
Rules, Policies and Procedures which includes references to disqualification due
to conflicts of interest. The Planning Commission also has and Rules for Conduct
of Meetings that references disqualification for conflicts of interest.
R4. INSTITUTE REGULAR, MANDATORY TRAINING
As indicated above, the decision making officials of the City are provided
manuals which include papers and information on related conflict of interest
issues as well as periodic memorandums with updates reflecting modifications,
interpretations or changes in existing laws related to the general topics of conflict
of interest. In addition, there are a number of pamphlets from time to time that
are provided to the decision making officials of the City.
In the past there have been presentations at Council meetings on Conflicts and the
Brown Act by the City Attorney, outside attorneys and the FPPC. In addition, the
City Attorney and other members of his law firm provide periodic seminars
throughout California, including Northern California and Sonoma County on such
topics. Public officials of the City are invited.
It is anticipated and intended that future presentations will be made to the City
Council at City Council meetings regarding conflicts of interest. All other public
officials for the City will be invited to attend either in person or view on
television, and tapes will be made available to all public officials within the City.
The City Attorney's office and the City Clerk's office will continue to advise City
officials of any changes, interpretations or new laws relative to the general topic
of conflicts of interest. City officials will continue to be invited to the seminars
offered by the City Attorney's law firm.
In addition, the City Clerk serves as the local filing officer for all Conflict of
Interest (Form 700) and Political Campaign Committee Statements. As part of the
package of information given to candidates for Mayor and City Council seats, the
City Clerk's Office provides FPPC Form 700: Statement of Economic Interests, a
4
copy of the City's Conflict of Interest Code, and informs candidates that they are
required by Government Code §87200 et seq to file a Form 700 Candidate
Statement with the City Clerk's Office no later than the final filing date of a
declaration of candidacy.
Each February, the City Clerk's Office mails Form 700 to the City's elected
officials with the City's Conflict of Interest Code and information regarding the
date these completed Annual Statements are due.
R5. RE -FILE FORM 700 ON A MATERIAL CHANGE
It appears that the Grand Jury is suggesting that all Designated Filers should be
required to file amendments to Form 700 with the City Clerk within 30 days of a
"material change" as defined in Government Code §87103. Currently, there is no
requirement, other than on the required reporting date, that Form 700's be
amended. hi addition, though somewhat unclear, it appears that the "material
changes" referenced by the Grand Jury appear to be threshold amounts relative to
whether or not a public official has a "economic interest" for purposes of conflict
of interest analysis which may be different from threshold amounts for certain
interests for purposes of Form 700.
Such a recommendation will require further review and consideration, taking into
account some of the practical problems that may arise which could lead to
innocent and unintentional violations of such a requirement. It should be noted
that if such a recommendation is not implemented, there is still the requirement
for public officials, when a decision comes before them, to make a determination
as to whether or not at that point in time there exists a conflict of interest
irrespective of Form 700 reporting.
A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN
F3. WRITTEN PLANS AND CHECKLISTS ARE NOT CONSISTENT AMONG COUNTY,
CITIES, AGENCIES, AND DEPARTMENTS, AND IN SOME CASES ARE NON-EXISTENT.
The City of Petaluma cannot explain the statement that emergency plans in some
jurisdictions are "non-existent". We are prepared and that preparedness is
documented. Within Sonoma County, there are a variety of jurisdictions: cities,
county, private organizations/entities, police, sheriff, fire departments that include
all paid, part-paid/call, and all volunteers. Some organizations are big and some
are small. Some have resources and some do not. Due to this variety, there is no
one -size -fits -all plan consistent throughout the county. SEMS and ICS are
common, but emergency plans for a jurisdiction are also drawn up to fit their
6
specific needs and capabilities. Due to the jurisdictional variety that is present in
Sonoma County, lack of complete consistency should not be a surprise.
F4. WHERE PLANS AND CHECKLISTS DO EXIST, THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS STORED IN
MULTIPLE SAFE PLACES FOR GUARANTEED ACCESS IN THE EVENT OF A
DISASTER. THE MOST COMMON PLACE IS THE OFFICE, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT
A DISASTER DOES NOT LIMIT ITSELF TO REGULAR WORK HOURS, AND OFFICE
BUILDINGS MAY NOT BE ACCESSIBLE.
There are copies of our Emergency Operations Plan in several offices. There is
also a copy in the Battalion Chiefs vehicle, which serves as the Incident
Command Post in the event of a large scale man-made or natural disaster. A plan
in a book serves as a good training tool and an after -the -fact reference guide but
the Fire Department's command officers have our basic plans committed to
memory. In addition, the Command Vehicle has Incident Command Sheets,
which are quick check -box reminders of issues that need to be addressed for the
structure fire, the flood, the hazardous material spill, the grass fire, etc. At a
future date, when the City's resources can support the project, all of these paper
checklists will be computerized on a lap -top located in the Command Vehicle.
F9. ALL COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE LISTED AS DISASTER RECOVERY RESOURCES, AS
INDEED ARE MEMBERS OF THE GRAND JURY, BUT THERE IS NO CLEAR PLAN ON
HOW THEY WILL REPORT IN FOR DUTY, OR HOW THEY WILL BE USED.
The Petaluma Fire Department conducts the SEMS instruction for all city
employees. Our instruction covers this very important point. Employees are
instructed to assure the safety of their families and then return to their work place.
If circumstances prevent them from traveling to their workplace, they should
report to the closest public agency and volunteer their services, keeping their
employer informed. The SEMS training for new city employees includes newly
elected City Councilmembers.
F10. THE CITY PLANS ARE NOT CONSISTENT IN SCOPE AND DETAIL. THE CITY OF
SANTA ROSA HAS A WELL STRUCTURED BUT DATED PLAN. COTATI'S PLAN 1S
LITERALLY A COPY OF THE COUNTY PLAN. CLOVERDALE IS STILL USING THE
1989 TWO VOLUME DOOR -STOPPER PLAN THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE ADOPTION
OF SEMS, AND HEALDSBURG'S PLAN IS DATED 1987.
Please refer to item F3 above. The City of Petaluma Emergency Operations Plan
is dated May 2001. The written narrative and associated checklists are all current.
4
F13. THERE IS AN AGREEMENT DATED 1997, BETWEEN THE CITIES AND THE COUNTY,
PROMISING HELP FROM THE COUNTY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF, TRAINING IN,
AND TESTING OF CITY BASED DISASTER PLANS. THIS ASSISTANCE IS NOT
PROVIDED, NOR SOUGHT ON A CONTINUALLY CONSISTENT BASIS, DESPITE THE
PAYMENT OF A $2,000 ANNUAL FEE BY THE CITIES.
The City of Petaluma is very satisfied with the support and assistance we receive
from the County Office of Emergency Services. We have a level of in-house
expertise that smaller cities may not enjoy. The $2,000 annual fee pays for
services, plans, and programs by the County that impact and serve the entire
operational area, including the individual cities.
R3. EACH CITY COUNCIL SHOULD INITIATE AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF ITS DISASTER
PLAN, COINCIDENT WITH THE BUDGET CYCLE, STARTING WITH THE 2006-07
CYCLE. THESE REVIEWS SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING TASKS AS A
MINIMUM:
• EXAMINE STATUS OF THE ACTIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S REVIEW
• REVIEW ANY TESTS DURING THE YEAR AND ANY PLAN CHANGES REQUIRED
AS A RESULT OF THE TESTS ("NO CHANGE" IS AN UNLIKELY OPTION)
• REQUEST DETAILS OF ANY CHANGES TO THE PLAN OCCASIONED BY KNOWN
STATE, NATIONAL, OR WORLD EMERGENCIES THAT OCCURRED IN THE
REVIEW YEAR.
• REQUEST DETAILS OF ANY CHANGES TO THE PLAN REQUIRED BY DIRECTIVES
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (WITH DUE REGARD TO
ANY SECURITY AND SECRECY REQUIREMENTS)
• CONCUR BY VOTE, THAT THE REVIEW HAS BEEN COMPLETED
SUCCESSFULLY.
"Emergency Preparedness" has been and continues to be a budgeted section
within the Petaluma Fire Department. The Fire Department reviews our actions
within this section from previous year's activities and in most instances repeats
those actions because of new employees and/or review for all impacted
employees.
Within the past 12 months, the Fire Department has reviewed various response
plans through field training activities including, but not limited, to:
• Mass -Casualty Incident training
• ICS -200 — Intermediate Incident Command
• Disaster Preparedness — SEMS
• Hazardous Material Training & Exercise with Weapons of Mass Destruction
• MAD Exercise — Mutual Aid Drill including Sonoma County and Marin
County Fire and Police agencies
These types of exercises often include the local hospital and the Police
Department as their resources and schedules allow. Taking on new
responsibilities is always considered, discussed, and followed through with as far
as fiscal resources allow.
R5. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND EACH CITY COUNCIL SHOULD:
• DEMAND THAT PLANS BE PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT ALL EXISTING
EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE TRAINED IN SEMS AND THE
EMERGENCY RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE COUNTY AND/OR THEIR CITY.
• DOCUMENT THE REPORTING STEPS EMPLOYEES MUST TAKE AS SUPPORT
INDIVIDUALS IN THE EVENT OF A DISASTER.
• ENDORSE THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF MOST EMPLOYEES IS TO FOCUS
ON BUSINESS RESUMPTION.
Please refer to F9 above. The City of Petaluma endorses the premise that the
most effective use of employees is to focus on life 'safety issues, employee safety
during their emergency response, conservation of all personal property as
resources allow, and the resumption of business.
HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR SWORN OFFICERS
F2. SONOMA COUNTY INVESTS MONEY AND TIME INTO THE TRAINING OF OFFICERS.
THE GOAL IS TO RETAIN THESE TRAINED OFFICERS LONG TERM AND HAVE ALL
LAW ENFORCEMENT SWORN OFFICERS LIVE WITH THE COUNTY BOUNDARIES,
NOT ONLY FOR SAFETY REASONS BUT TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
COMMUNITY.
The Petaluma Police Department concurs with the Grand Jury, as it is our strong
desire to retain trained police officers and have them reside within our
community. Experienced officers provide a more sophisticated level of service
and residing in the city completely invests them in the community. Officers who
live within the city limits provide other benefits such as a faster response for
officers assigned to special units such as SWAT, K9, Crisis Negotiators, Traffic
Team, Street Crimes Unit, detectives and supervisors who routinely get called
from home to handle individual incidents. All officers who reside within the City
also ensure a prompt police response should a large scale incident occur within
the City.
The City is currently renegotiating the employment contract with the Police
Officers Association, with the specific intent of identifying and providing
additional incentives to attract experienced lateral police officers and retain
6
existing officers from the department. The City is currently involved in the
process of identifying local workforce housing opportunities and low cost home
loans for emergency services personnel, with the specific intent of allowing
officers to live in Petaluma. This has been a difficult objective to meet, however,
given the escalating cost of homes, and will remain so until h housing costs settle.
The City is currently evaluating the possibility of expanding or rebuilding the
Police Department which will be a significant recruitment and retention tool.
F3. IN SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, MORE THAN 10% OF THE SWORN
OFFICERS LIVE OUTSIDE OF SONOMA COUNTY DUE TO THE HIGH COST OF
HOUSING.
In Petaluma, 56% of all police officers live outside the City limits. Many of the
officers who live in Petaluma are supervisors, or experienced officers who moved
here before the dramatic escalation in home prices. Removing supervisors and
managers from the total, over 70% of patrol officers live outside the City limits.
The City of Petaluma is actively pursuing opportunities, as mentioned in F2, to
allow the officers the ability to live within the City limits. These options are
currently limited, but we are committed to finding reasonable alternatives that will
meet this need as it benefits not only the officer but also the Police Department
and the community.
RI. BY DECEMBER 2005, THE GOVERNING BODIES OF THE COUNTY AND EACH CITY
SHOULD HAVE:
• EVALUATED THE HOUSING NEEDS FORSWORN OFFICERS, TARGETING THE
ENTRY-LEVEL OFFICER
• APPOINTED A LIAISON TO LOCAL BANKS AND LENDING INSTITUTIONS TO
BEGIN DIALOGUES OUTLINING POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
The City of Petaluma Housing Division has completed a preliminary survey of the
housing needs of the City's low and moderate income employees, with specific
emphasis on public safety employees. A more thorough review will be completed
in the fall of 2005, with direction from the City Manager and City Council.
Two staff members of the City's Housing Division have, as a portion of their
responsibility, the liaison to local banks and lending institutions. Each has her
real estate license and administers the City's existing homeownership program.
They will continue to work the financial community as we develop new programs
to better serve the community.
7
R2. BY FEBRUARY 2006, THE GOVERNING BODIES OF THE COUNTY AND EACH CITY
WILL HAVE ESTABLISHED QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR EACH PROGRAM, AND
THE NATURE OF THE INVESTMENT PROTECTION.
Housing staff will develop recommendations for modifications to qualifying
criteria for the homeowner program. With the approval of the City Manager,
theses modifications will be presented to the City Council by February, 2006.
R3. BY DECEMBER 2006, AN EVALUATION INSTRUMENT WILL HAVE BEEN DESIGNED
AND USED TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NEW PROGRAM(S).
An evaluation instrument will be a part of the staff report (see R2).
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury's report. If you have
additional questions, please let us know.
Sincerely,
David A. Glass
Mayor of Petaluma
cc: Petaluma City Councilmembers
Sonoma County Cities
Board of Supervisors
Michael A. Bierman
City Manager
O 1
RESOLUTION APPROVING RESPONSE LETTER TO THE SONOMA COUNTY
GRAND JURY AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN
WHEREAS, the Sonoma County Grand Jury issues a Final Report at the end of each
term; and
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma was asked to respond to three items within the Final
Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney's office, Fire Department, Police Department, and
Housing Administrator have provided language and reviewed the response.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the response
letter to the Grand Jury and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to sign same.