INTRODUCTION Oath..................................................... (available in hard copy only) 2000 2001 Grand Jury Officers................................................. 1 2000 2001 Grand Jury Officers Photo......................... (available in hard copy only) Foreman s Letter to Judge...................................................... 2 How Blessed We Are.......................................................... 3 Final Report Staff............................................................. 4 Organization and Committee s Chart.............................................. 5 2000 2001 Grand Jury Photo................................ (available in hard copy only) The California Judicial System................................ (available in hard copy only) Superior Court Judge Photo.................................. (available in hard copy only) California s 58 Counties..................................... (available in hard copy only) In House Accomplishments of the 2000 2001 Kern County Grand Jury................. 6 Formal Statement of Position.................................................... 7
OFFICERS OF THE 2000-2001 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY Foreman Robert E. Herrick Foreman Pro tem Helen J. Richards Sergeant-At-Arms James E. Poole Corresponding Secretary Cleo M. Harlander Recording Secretary Elaine S. Hiatt Assistant Sergeant-At-Arms James B. Garner 1
June 27, 2001 Honorable Arthur E Wallace, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Judge Wallace: In compliance with Penal Code Section 933, the 2000-2001 Kern County Grand Jury presents its final report of investigation undertaken and completed by members of this jury. A successful Grand Jury is dependant on the volunteering of citizens who want to serve our society by their dedication and willingness to work as a unit. This begins with an aggressive recruiting campaign followed by the nominating of qualified applicants by the Superior Court Judges. Add to this the outstanding support from the Presiding Judge as was the case this year and a successful jury year ensues. After being empaneled, Judge Wallace gave the charge and the direction for the jury to proceed. With this in mind, we all wish to express our appreciation to judge Wallace and the entire staff of the Superior Court for their dedicated support. Among the many others who have given fine support to this jury, we would like to recognize the County Counsel, the County Administrative Officer, the department heads and the District Attorney. With their assistance it is possible for the jury to be successful Thank you again for your support and guidance. Sincerely, Robert E. Herrick, Foreman Kern County Grand Jury 2000-2001 2
HOW BLESSED WE ARE! We tend to overlook and often fail to appreciate how fortunate we citizens are. Our forefathers were remarkable men of conviction, dedication and foresight. They put their lives and property at risk to ensure the freedoms and system of governance we enjoy today. Having lived under another form of a truly non-representative government, they understood the problems and dedicated their all to give us a better government by their truly heroic public service. What they achieved was a representative form of government with the checks and balances for the protection of all. They carefully avoided the trap of the majority rule by insisting that the rights of the minority cannot be abridged. It seems that during the last election there were those who failed to understand a basic tenet of our system. For example, why did they set up our government to have a bicameral congress, which not only recognizes the right of population but also preserves the rights of the country. If the majority rule was adopted it would abridge the rights of areas and control would shift to the large population centers. This flies in the face of the tenets of our system and would destroy protection of basic rights that make our system the best. Our system of governance is dependent on the public service by citizens, hopefully with the same dedication as exhibited by our forefathers. This applies not only to our elected and appointed public servants, but equally to those who serve at the local level as members of Boards of Directors of tax supported special districts, commissions, school trustees, and other agencies. These volunteers often serve with little or no financial remuneration and with little public recognition or appreciation, but truly make our government work. As Grand Jury members we are vitally concerned that the citizens these volunteers serve can be assured their tax monies are being properly used and protected. Likewise, the Jury is equally concerned that those volunteers are not placed in jeopardy because they are not afforded proper guidance, education on policy and procedures to keep them from failing to observe their responsibilities. By pointing out possible failures that occur in the Jury position paper entitled "Public Trust", it is hoped to provide support for those who volunteer to serve their fellow citizens. It is to also remind those who support them to ensure these volunteers are properly prepared and supported in their assignment of duties, obligations, and responsibilities entailed in their public service. With this in mind this final report of the 2000-2001 Kern County Grand Jury is dedicated to those who obligate themselves to serve for the public good and others who have given their time, energy, and even their lives to preserve our form of government. -Robert E Herrick, Foreman 2000-2001 Kerm County Grand Jury "How little do my country men know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and of which no other people on earth enjoy!" -Thomas Jefferson 3
KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY 2000-2001 FINAL REPORT PUBLISHER 2000-2001 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF James E. Poole EXECUTIVE EDITOR Cleo M. Harlander ASSISTANT EDITOR Elaine S. Hiatt PROOF READERS: Harold D. Casper J. Mack Ryan SPECIAL ADVISORS: Nellie G. Gomez Gerald M. Alderete Barbara J. Gardiner 4
2000-2001 Grand Jury ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOREMAN Robert E. Herrick FOREMAN PRO TEM Helen J. Richards SERGEANT-AT-ARMS James E. Poole ASSISTANT SERGEANT-AT-ARMS James B. Garner CORRESPONDING SECRETARY Cleo M. Harlander RECORDING SECRETARY Elaine S. Hiatt PARLIAMENTARIAN Robert E. Herrick/James E. Poole ADMINISTRATIVE & AUDIT COMMITTEE Harold D. Casper - Chairman LAW & JUSTICE COMMITTEE Thomas D. Stockton - Chairman CITIES & SERVICES COMMITTEE Frank G. Pitts - Chairman HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE Gerald R. Pelant -Chairman CONTINUITY &TRACKING COMMITTEE Jerry M. Aldrete -Chairman EDIT/FINAL REPORT - COMMITTEE James E. Poole - Chairman PUBLIC RELATIONS & RECRUITING COMMITTEE Nellie G. Gomez - Chairman AD HOC COMMITTEE #1 AD HOC COMMITTEE #2 AD HOC COMMITTEE #3
IN HOUSE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE 2000-2001 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY A special thank you to the Superior Court for the Grand Jury Liaison that spent half of each day for several months in the jury room. This was a major boost for the Jury and provided continuity between juries in maintaining the office routines and procedures, as well as providing assistance to the new jurors. In the past the Jury's recruiting efforts were working the Kern County Fair and getting TV and radio spots on the air with the cooperation of the local media. This year's Jury expanded these activities by holding a media seminar and giving the attendees an informational packet for reference on Jury activities. Also added was a Spanish language radio spot, a Spanish language radio interview, another radio interview (in English) and a KGOV television interview. Perhaps the most successful new activity this year in recruiting was the very fine cooperation of the Bakersfield Californian in printing six (6) ads in their Sunday editions as a public service, for which, the Jury is most appreciative. A fine article written by Davin McHenry appeared in the Local section of the Californian which proved to be most effective. In the special ads a telephone number was given for interested persons to call for additional information and to leave their name, address and phone number if they desired to receive an application. This same ad was printed in the Fence Post weekly paper and The Inland Adventurer monthly tabloid, which was also greatly appreciated. It seems there have been more applications to be on the Grand Jury, this year, than ever before! The old furniture in the witness room has been replaced with a conference table and chairs and will now be much more useful for committee work. Four more modem computers were also added to the Jury equipment. A new Fax machine is now in use--this machine has been programmed to distribute to the media: print, TV and radio--copies of early releases of Final Reports intended for immediate release. The Jury is not dependent on the CAO to make such releases. The CAO's office makes distribution to all county department heads. As a part of a recarpeting project in the Superior Court Building the Jury rooms will be recarpeted this coming year. An additional phone was installed in the committee room which serves three of our committees. FINAL REPORTS ISSUED 34 CITIZENS' COMPLAINTS ANSWERED 83 6
FORMAL STATEMENT OF POSITION 2000-2001 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY PUBLIC TRUST As one grows up in this marvelous society we learn to trust certain people who come into our lives. We trust policemen, teachers, doctors, ministers, sheriffs, firemen, and all sorts of public figures, and that is the way it should be. However, as we mature it becomes apparent that at time-s some people forget their obligation of trust to the people they serve. Now before you interpret this as some kind of a blanket indictment of those in positions of trust who are serving the public, a clarification is in order. The members of the 2000-2001 Kern County Grand Jury have the opportunity to observe and investigate many departments and branches of local government and the many special districts, school boards and the like. This means contact with fulltime employees as well as people who voluntarily serve part time as board members or trustees for some organization or the other. The vast majority of our full time public servants are found to be dedicated, competent, hard working and loyal in their service to the public. In any system this large there are, of course, exceptions to this. The Grand Jury does, its best to ferret out instances where these persons are not fulfilling their proper public trust. When it finds such cases, it "shines the light of day " on these operations and recommends corrections, which are usually effective. The way our system of governance functions is to a great extent dependent on the public service of many fine persons willing to give their time, for whatever reason, to serve in a public position as board member, trustee or such. These people often serve for little or no financial reward but do assume an important responsibility, to their community. While most of these bodies function appropriately, and serve their constituents in fine fashion, the Grand Jury has observed several instances where such is not the case. When these failures of trust occur, it may not only harm an entity financially, but causes great disharmony among the citizens supposedly being served. In fact, 7
many of the problems that have come to light and caused trouble within a district are strictly the fault of poor decisions and performance by those in trust. In observing special district boards and school board trustees, the Grand Jury has noted several failures that occur within these bodies, causing great concern among those being served, such as: Failure to understand and observe the provisions of the Brown Act as to what may or may not be done in a closed meeting; Too much delegation of authority over the expenditure of public funds with insufficient controls by the board; Failure to conduct meetings in proper form using " Robert's Rules of Order", Failure to allow proper public participation at board meetings; Failure to use the services of attorneys at meetings to ensure proper performance by board members; Failure to properly keep their constituents informed of district business; Failure to allow community activities, to be held in public buildings, even religious groups may use them but may be charged a fee; Failure of board members to avail themselves of proper training in their duties and responsibilities; Failure to follow adopted policy and keep proper records as needed; Failure to avoid nepotism; Failure to promptly and thoroughly investigate complaints of misconduct. In other words, the failure to take their responsibilities seriously and use good judgment. There are hundreds of non-profit organizations in the county and apparently there is no official agency to over-see them. The Grand Jury can only examine those operations that involve such an organization in performing a service for the county, or individual cities under contract. However, there have been some prominent examples of improprieties in management by some of these groups, and their boards should well be reminded to remember their duties. Also, County and city agencies should be advised that they have a special duty to monitor the performance of these non-profits. Public trust goes beyond the boundaries of the county and it includes all elected, appointed or employed members of our government who serve the public. The Grand Jury can only act on matters within the county and incorporated cities. The 8
examples of public trust failures listed above are actual incidents within the county and, by bringing this matter to the attention of the citizens of Kern County, it is hoped they would keep this matters in mind when they monitor those who serve them in positions of public trust. November 13, 2000 9