City of Palo Alto (ID # 5909) City Council Staff Report

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "City of Palo Alto (ID # 5909) City Council Staff Report"

Andra Wilkinson
5 years ago
Views:

City of Palo Alto (ID # 5909) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/24/2015 Summary Title: Response to Grand Jury Report: Most Vulnerable Residents Title: Approval of

1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5909) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/24/2015 Summary Title: Response to Grand Jury Report: Most Vulnerable Residents Title: Approval of Response to Grand Jury Report on Protecting Our Most Vulnerable Residents From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the following response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, Protecting Our Most Vulnerable Residents. Background On June 8, 2015, the Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County released a report which surveyed various municipal law enforcement agencies in Santa Clara County to evaluate the purported failure of Law Enforcement s use of the California Penal Code mandates in reporting incidences of elder and/or dependent adult abuse, especially when the abuse was mental or emotional. A copy of the Grand Jury Report is included as Attachment A. Discussion The Grand Jury s Report culminates in seven (7) findings and twenty (20) recommendations (see pages 14 through 17). One (1) of those recommendations is related to law enforcement practices of the Palo Alto Police Department. The following discussion responds to the recommendation. Recommendation 6H The City of Palo Alto Police Department, as a member of the Police Chiefs Association of Santa Clara County, should advocate for the revision of the Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Protocol for Santa Clara County Law Enforcement. Response: Agree. The current County Protocol needs to be updated, revised and shortened. These modifications were discussed at the June 9, 2015 County Police Chief s meeting. A representative from the Santa Clara County District Attorney s Office presented on this topic and stated that they, along with other members of the county Elder Death Review Team, were already working on the proposed recommendations. On June 10, 2015, The District Attorney s City of Palo Alto Page 1

2 Office formally notified the Civil Grand Jury that they agreed with the recommendations and were in the process of updating the County Protocol. A copy of the Police Department s Response to the Grand Jury s Findings and Recommendations is included as Attachment B. Resource Impact There is no immediate fiscal impact resulting from this report. Policy Implications None - This report recognized that the Palo Alto Police Department Policy and practices regarding Elder and/or Dependent Adult abuse were consistent with best practices. Environmental Review There is no environmental review required for this report. Attachments: ATTACHMENT A - Grand Jury Report-Vulnerable Residents (PDF) ATTACHMENT B - Response Letter to Grand Jury - Elder Dependent Abuse (PDF) ATTACHMENT C - Extension Request and Response (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 2

33 August 24, 2015 VIA U.S. Mail and FAX Honorable Risë Jones Pichon Presiding Judge Santa Clara County Superior Court 191 North First Street San Jose, CA Re: Civil Grand Jury Report Protecting Our Most Vulnerable Residents (June 8, 2015) Honorable Jones Pichon, Attached please find the City of Palo Alto s response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury s Final Report entitled Protecting Our Most Vulnerable Residents (dated June 8, 2014) as required by California Penal Code 933(c) & (a) & (b). Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the enclosed document, please feel free to call me at (650) Sincerely, enclosure Dennis Burns Police Chief

34 Palo Alto Police Department Response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations Pertaining to the City of Palo Alto Recommendation 6H The City of Palo Alto Police Department, as a member of the Police Chiefs Association of Santa Clara County, should advocate for the revision of the Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Protocol for Santa Clara County Law Enforcement. Response: Agree. The current County Protocol needs to be updated, revised and shortened. These modifications were discussed at the June 9, 2015 County Police Chief s meeting. A representative from the Santa Clara County District Attorney s Office presented on this topic and stated that they, along with other members of the county Elder Death Review Team, were already working on the proposed recommendations.

35 July7, 2015 Chief Dennis Burns City of Palo Alto Police Department 275 Forest Avenue, MS I C Palo Alto, California Dear Chief Burns, As a follow up to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury's transmission of its Final Report, Protecting Our Most Vulnerable Residents, it has come to my attention that the Grand Jury sent a 60-day response letter dated June 15, 2015, which has the incorrect response submission date of August 17, As a responding agency, you should have received a 90-c1ay response letter from the Santa Clara Civil Grand Jury. Please submit your response to the office of the Honorable Rise Jones Pichon, Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, no later than Wednesday, September 16, ce~~~ Tamara L. Davis Deputy Manager Civil Grand Jury Cc: Honorable Karen Holman, Mayor, and Members of the Palo Alto City Council James Keene, City Manager, City of Palo Alto Received JUL POlice Chief SU PER I OR COU RT B U I LDI NG 191 N ORTH FIR ST S TREET, S A N J OSE, C,\I. I FOR N I A (4 0 8 ) FA' ~ t> OO~

36 OFF I CE OF THE CITY ATTORN E Y C I " Y 01 PALO ALTO 25 0 Hil m ll ton Avenu e. 8 th F loo r Pa l o Alto. CA June 25, 2015 VIA HAND DELIVERY Elaine K. Larson Foreperson Civil Grand Jury 191 North First Street San Jose, CA Dear Ms. Larson: We received your Final Report, Protecting Our Most Vulnerable Residents dated June 15, There appears to be an error in the cover letter, which di rects the City of Palo Alto to respond to the Presiding Judge on the findings and recommendation s within 60 ~.a'i.s of receipt of the report (August 17, 2015). Penal Code section 933(c) requires that county agencies respond to the Presiding Judge within 60 days, and al lows all other public agencies 90 days to respond. The Palo Alto City Council will return from the summer legislative break in late August, more than 60 days after receipt of the Grand Jury's report. The Council intends to con sid er the response on August 241h, wh ich is within the 90 day time period for non-county agencies set by Section 933(c). Staff will forward the response to the Presiding Judge promptly thereafter. We trust this will be acceptable to the Court. If the Court has questions or concerns about this proposal, ple ase contact me at the number below. Very truly yours, 4:Jld: City Attorney MSS:sh Attachment cc: Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager 150(.23 ~ h 0 I.JO 136

?luço çk aþaltu) ùut- flrujffi'?ùoyt -àaà. " +tr þuwt fl% ',n^r*r.,1 l.l I OlLl.

*?luço çk aþaltu) ùut- flrujffi'?ùoyt -àaà. +tr þuwt fl%* ',n^r*r.,1 l.l I OlLl. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM Report Title: Get the Picture? Audiovisual Technoloqv and Marin Law Enforcement Report Date: February 11.2014 Public Release Date: February 18.2014 Response by: May 12.2014