The county followed through on state requirements Monday, as the
Board of Supervisors formally responded to the 2002-03 Grand Jury
Report.
The report recommended changes in 10 separate county departments
or agencies.
The county followed through on state requirements Monday, as the Board of Supervisors formally responded to the 2002-03 Grand Jury Report.
The report recommended changes in 10 separate county departments or agencies.
At Monday’s special meeting, County Administrative Officer Gil Solorio recapped the county’s responses. He particularly noted three issues: Calls for change to court facilities, computer systems and how the Grand Jury stores files.
Next, the Board-approved responses – along with separate replies from department heads – will be forwarded to the presiding Superior Court judge, Harry Tobias, who maintains the document. If further questions arise, the following year’s Grand Jury is responsible for following up on those issues, according to Solorio.
The investigative report was compiled by the 19 members of the Grand Jury – a watchdog agency for the county, city, special districts and school districts. Its members are residents selected each year through a screening process. Each juror can serve for a maximum of two consecutive years.
Once the county received the report – which it did in late August – the Board had 90 days to approve the official responses.
While the report recommended an expansion of space for the San Benito County Superior Court, the county, in its response, agreed and also stated a need for enlargement – or a possible move – of other law enforcement agencies.
Solorio said the county has considered moving its Sheriff’s Department, Probation Department, District Attorney’s Office and Superior Court to an open area near the county jail – located on the city’s northwest side.
But he called that a “long-range” ambition. All of the involved departments or agencies are located in the vicinity of the courthouse on 5th and Monterey streets.
“There’s great potential for a campus-type law enforcement area,” Solorio said.
Regarding computer systems, the Grand Jury maintained other departments’ equipment should be upgraded to the same level of the Finance Department’s system. The county, in its response, agreed.
Furthermore, as Solorio pointed out during the meeting, the county is considering an alignment with Santa Cruz County to share its computer resources.
Though he emphasized the talks are preliminary at this point, it could entail San Benito County sharing resources with the neighboring county’s Information Technology department.
“It would be, if you will, an effective use of taxpayer money,” said Solorio, who added the collaboration could also allow San Benito County access to software applications used by Santa Cruz County.
Solorio then addressed the Grand Jury’s request for “a suitable room to maintain its files.” The Board, in the response, “fundamentally” agreed with that recommendation.
As do many of the county’s responses, however, the likelihood of taking action on the matter would depend on the state of finances when the budgeting process rolls around next summer. And the county – as are most jurisdictions in California – is struggling through poor economic conditions.
“I found the Grand Jury’s report very interesting, and I also found our responses from the administrative office very interesting,” Supervisor Pat Loe said.
The Board approved the responses 4-0. Supervisor Richard Scagliotti did not attend the meeting.
For a copy of the Grand Jury Report, go to www.sanbenitocountygrandjury.org.
To learn more about the agency or how to become a juror, call the Superior Court at 636-4057.
