1 / 21

The Grand Jury

The Grand Jury. John Monaco Foreman Placer County 2010 – 2011 Grand Jury. History. England, 12 th Century Bring charges against anyone who committed crimes United States, 1635 Massachusetts Bay Colony – 1 st Grand Jury, to consider cases of murder, robbery, wife-beating

karan
Download Presentation

The Grand Jury

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Grand Jury John Monaco Foreman Placer County 2010 – 2011 Grand Jury

  2. History • England, 12th Century • Bring charges against anyone who committed crimes • United States, 1635 • Massachusetts Bay Colony – 1st Grand Jury, to consider cases of murder, robbery, wife-beating • U.S. Constitution, Article Five of the Bill of Rights, 1791 • California, 1850, CA Constitution, Article 1, § 23 • Arm of the court system; component of judicial branch • Criminal hearings (as requested) - decreasing • Civil oversight - increasing Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  3. Mission – A Watchdog Function • Help local government be more responsive and efficient. • Monitor performance of county, city, and other public county entities within the county. • Conduct research; interview public officials, experts, citizenry; visit facilities. • Publish reports with recommendations to increase efficiency and effectiveness of government services. Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  4. Concepts • Confidentiality • Oath – Sworn to secrecy for life • Collegial Body • Meeting of equals; decisions as a body • Independent Body • Most independent of all government institutions • Continuity Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  5. Instill Government Accountability • Via publically published response to Grand Jury reports • Findings: • Agree, or • Disagree wholly or partially. • Recommendation implementation: • Has been, • Will be, or • Will not be. Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  6. Areas To Investigate • Shall Investigate: • Conditions & management of public prisons in the county; • Inquire into willful/corrupt misconduct of public officials. • May Investigate: Counties Cities School Districts Authorities & Agencies Special Districts Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  7. Areas To Investigate • Not within Grand Jury jurisdiction: Federal Agencies Superior Court System State Agencies (excluding prisons) School district personnel records, curriculum, policy Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  8. Sources of Investigations • Responses to previous Grand Jury report: • Reporting requirements • Potential further investigation • Required inspections (public prisons) • Carry-over recommendations from prior Grand Juries • Citizen complaints • Agency investigation history – past 3 to 5 years • Criminal hearings upon district attorney request Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  9. Selectivity of Reporting • Grand Jury can be selective in what it investigates and reports • Based on proposed investigation’s: • Scope – complexity • Importance / impact on county citizens • Significance – itself compared to other potential investigations • Existing legal activity • Grand Jury’s: • Resource availability and timeline • Expertise Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  10. Investigation Principals • Methods: • Observation • Research • Interviewing • Factual information: • Obtain • Verify (triangulate) • Utilize leads Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  11. Research Sources Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  12. Investigations 2005 - 2010 76 Published Reports Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  13. Volume of Work • Annual average from 2005 through 2010: Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  14. Final Reports - 2005 - 2010 • Financial Management • Quimby Act in Auburn • City Manager’s Compensation • Revenue Sharing Funds • Libraries – Service vs. Business • Volunteerism • Blue Bag Recycling • Thunder Valley Casino Costs to Community • Refinancing School District Bonds • Special District – Special Benefit Assessment • Sewer Service Rates in Auburn • City Council Members’ Compensation • Auburn Recreation District Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  15. Final Reports – 2005 - 2010 • Health and Welfare • Animal Shelter • Child Abuse Procedures • Emergency Call Center Consolidation • Waste Water Treatment in Colfax • Child Abuse Reporting Process in Schools • Sewer Lift Station • Public Guardian’s Office • Adult Residential Facilities Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  16. Final Reports – 2005 - 2010 • Operational Efficiency and Effectiveness • Cemetery Districts • School - Districts, Auburn, Charter • Materials Recovery Facility • Roseville Transit • Auditor-Controller • Community Development Resource Agency Software • Police Department Complaint Process • Newcastle Fire Protection District • Resource Conservation District • Building Department Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  17. Final Reports – 2005 - 2010 • Required Holding Facility Inspections • Cities – Auburn, Lincoln, Rocklin, Roseville • County – Auburn Courthouse, Santucci Justice Center, Main Jail, Burton Creek Substation • County - Juvenile Detention Facility Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  18. Final Reports – 2005 - 2010 • Law Enforcement • Held and Seized Property • Misconduct • Sierra College President Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  19. Relationship with the County Auditor-Controller • An audit or part of an audit can be the starting point of an investigation • Audit reports and financial information as tools for more effective and efficient investigations • The Auditor-Controller’s office can be used to verify that a recommendation has been addressed • Recommendation to audit an organization or function • Other – Potential subject of an investigation by the Grand Jury Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  20. No Shortage of Watchdogs • Placer County 2009-2010 Grand Jury Report • Issue: • Myriad of different audits and external reviews conducted by municipalities and districts • Findings: • No single repository • Different agencies report through different channels • Three different reporting cycles • Recommendation: • Auditor-Controller create webpage as central repository • Implemented partially - within authority and where practical Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

  21. Thank you Placer County 2010-2011 Grand Jury

More Related