HomeMy Public PortalAbout7G Response to Grand Jury ReportMANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: September 6, 2016
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Bryan Cook, City Manager
By: Peggy Kuo, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
AGENDA
ITEM ?.G .
SUBJECT: APPROVE TEMPLE CITY'S RESPONSE TO THE 2015-16 LOS
ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ENTITLED "
APPOINTED COMMISSIONS: TRANSPARENCY WILL MAINTAIN THE
PUBLIC TRUST"
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council is requested to:
1. Approve the City's response to the findings and recommendations of the 2015-16
Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report entitled "Appointed Commissions:
Transparency will Maintain the Public Trust"; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to submit the City's response to the Civic Grand Jury.
BACKGROUND:
In July 2016, the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury released a Final Report entitled
"Appointed Commissions: Transparency will Maintain the Public Trust (Attachment "A").
ANALYSIS:
In California, civil grand juries are authorized to "investigate and report upon the
operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, functions, and the method
or system of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such
recommendations as it may deem proper and fit" (Cal. Penal Code §925 (a)). Within 90
days after a grand jury's issuance of the report, the City Council must comment to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations contained in
the report.
---------------------·--------------------------
City Council
September 6, 2016
Page 2 of 3
On June 30 , 2016, the Los Angeles County Civi l Grand Jury issued to all 88 cities in Los
Angeles County including Temple City the attached Grand Jury Report (Report) entitled
"Appointed Commissions: Transparency will Maintain the Public Trust". The Report
focuses on the 88 cities and the County's website at explaining its Commission's
composition, responsibilities and activities. The City has been posting general
information regarding city commissions on its website (i .e., description of specific
commissions, meeting agendas and minutes), but the Report indicated recommended
action the City should take related to comm ission information on the City's website.
At the conclusion of the Report, the Grand Jury requested a response from the City to
Recommendations 5.1 , 5.2, 5.3, and 5.5. In the report, the Grand Jury recommends for
City of Temple City:
Recommendation 5.1: "Los Angeles County and each listed city in Section VI
should add to the "Commission Facts" for each existing commission whether
compensation is paid and in what amount, including whether attendance is
mandatory for payment. If there is no compensation, state that none is
provided."
Recommendation 5.2: "Los Angeles County and each listed city in Section VI
should add to "Commission Facts" for each existing commission whether or not
elected officials may serve on it".
Recommendation 5.3: "Los Angeles County and each listed city should add to
"Commission Facts" for each existing commission whether or not commissioners
are al lowed to serve on more than one commission at the same time."
Recommendation 5.5: "Each listed city should add a conspicuous link to
"Commissions" on the home page or as a menu option under "Departments,"
"Government", or "Services."
In responding to each Grand Jury recommendation , State Law requ ires the City
indicate whether the recommendation (1) has been implemented; (2) has not yet
been implemented, but will be in the future; (3) requires further analysis; or (4)
will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.
CITY STRATEGIC GOALS:
Approval of the City's response to the find ings and recommendations of the 2015-16
Los Angeles County Civi l Grand Jury Final Report entitled "Appointed Commissions:
Transparency will Maintain the Public Trust" and authorizing the City Manager to submit
the City's response to the Civic Grand Jury will further the City's Strategic Goals of
Good Governance and Citizen Education and Communications.
City Council
September 6, 2016
Page 3 of 3
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of this item will not have an impact on the City's budget for Fiscal Year (FY)
2015-16.
ATTACHMENT:
A. Jury Final Report entitled "Appointed Commissions: Transparency will Maintain
the Public Trust".
B. Proposed response to the findings and recommendations of the 2015-16 Los
Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report entitled "Appointed Commissions :
Transparency will Maintain the Public Trust".
. '
ATTACHMENT A
APPOINTED COMMISSIONS:
TRANSPARENCY WILL MAINTAIN
THE PUBLIC TRUST
..
. ,
APPOINTED COMMISSIONS:
TRANSPARENCY WILL MAINTAIN THE PUBLIC TRUST
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The primary purpose of this investigation was to examine the degree of transparency
provided by Los Angeles County and city governments for the commissions they have
authorized in their jurisdictions. The 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury
(CGJ) studied the county and 88 city websites for information provided to the public
regarding each commission's:
• membership,
• mission statement,
• term, and
• compensation or lack thereof.
Each website should additionally inform the public:
• whether elected officials are allowed to serve,
• whether citizens are allowed to serve on more than one commission, and
• whether agendas and minutes of each meeting are published.
The website should be genera lly easy to use.
The CGJ review shows that many local government websites in this example yield less
transparency than citizens expect. The CGJ believes that providing this, and other,
information in an accurate and accessible manner is a legitimate public interest and is
an important aspect of maintaining the public trust.
Recommendations are made for individual entities to improve the public information
about commissions on their websites.
II. BACKGROUND
This investigation was prompted by the scandals in Bell1 and Compton.2 City council
members and other officials there were appointed to commissions and then
compensation for commission members was raise d to unrealistic amounts.
Subsequently, multiple meetings were held in which little or no work was done. This
' Gottlieb, Jeff, Winton, Richard, and Vives, Ruben, "Bell Council was Paid for Boards that Seldom Met." Los Angeles T1mes. August
25, 2010 htto //oaasb pgarchiver.comllatimes/doct746642334.htmi?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS FT&t
2 Jennings, Angel. "City Officials Take Extra Pay." Los Angeles nmes August 21. 2015
http://oaasb oaarchiver comllatimes/doc/1705694136.htmi?FMT,.ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT
2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 93
scheme allowed the perpetrators to amass thousands and in some cases tens of
thousands of dollars in unearned income.
If information was readily available to citizens about these cities' commissions, it is likely
that concerned citizens would have noticed, and these scandals could have been
shortened or avoided entirely. Websites that do not include information, such as
compensation (if any), whether elected officials are allowed to serve, whether service on
more than one commission at the same time is permissible, and do not publish agendas
and minutes, are not serving the public interest. Although a person determined to
defraud will find a way, an informed public can be a formidable barrier.
A. Accessibility to Relevant Information about Commissions
Records pertaining to the creation and operation of the commissions are a matter of
public record and explanatory information about each commission, along with pertinent
records, such as relevant ordinances, agendas, and minutes of public meetings, should
be available in an easily accessible form. Websites must be easy for users to navigate
as well. A website publishing all facts and minutes with 1 00% transparency is worthless
if citizens cannot find the information.
A commission may be authorized by a county or city government to investigate and/or
handle an issue in a timely manner and, further, to advise the appointing authority.
Commissions provide a valuable service and many citizens serve without
compensation . Others rece ive a small monthly stipend, capped at $150 by state law
unless superseded by a statute specifying a different amount. Some commissions, like
South Pasadena's "Fourth of July/Festival of Balloons," promote civic pride and
community spirit and others, like Planning Commissions, are created to provide a
valuable service and ease the workload that could otherwise burden elected officials.
Regardless, an interested citizen should be able to find the published information on
commissions in one or two clicks on a website. The Los Angeles County website was
one of the better that the CGJ examined . It was easy to navigate, but even it omitted
relevant facts in some cases.
Many of the city websites examined by the CGJ were comparable to the Los Angeles
County site but some were difficult, and a few were impossible, to navigate. Most
websites omitted information that ought to be readily available to the public. A common
omission, for example, was the failu re to mention whether compensation was paid, in
any amount, for membership on a comm ission. If no compensation is provided the
"Commission Facts" should state this explicitly.
Easy navigation will present a website user with a selection for "Commissions," either
on the main page or under a heading such as "Services" or "Government." Clicking on
this choice should contain an up-to-date list of all of the existing commissions, and also
have choices or lin ks under each for "Commission Facts" and "Agenda/Minutes."
Commissions that are inactive and likely to remain so should be deleted.
94 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
. I
B. Statutory Basis for Commissions
(1) Government Code Section 37112 provides authority for the establishment of
commissions by cities. It states that " ... a legis lative body may perform all acts
necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this title."3
(2) Government Code Section 65100 states that "the legislative body shall by
ordinance assign functions of a planning agency to a planning department, one
or more planning commissions" or some combination of appropriate and
necessary entities. In the absence of this assignment, the legislative body shall
carryout the functions of the planning agency. Sections 65001 through 65007
define the rules for creating a planning commission.
(3) The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 and following,
requires that commission meetings, agendas, and minutes shall be open and
available to the public and , further, establishes strict rules for closed meetings.
Closed meetings generally are necessary when discussing personnel evaluation ,
compensation issues, employee discipline, and pending litigation, among other
topics.
(4) Government Code Section 36516 authorizes the maximum compensation for
serving on a commission as $150 per month unless another statute specifies a
different amount. Unfortunately, a few officials have used this procedure to enrich
themselves at the expense of the general public.
(5) Government Cod e Section 54952.3 requires that a commission meeting being
held simultaneously or in serial order with that of any other legislative body
meeting must announce the compensation amount or stipend that each member
of the commission is to receive.
(6) The Maddy Act, Government Code Sections 54970 and 54972, requires public
posting in December of all commission vacancies that will be occurring in the
next calendar year. This "Local Appointments List" also shall include the
qualifications required for each position.
Ill. METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The CGJ examined county and city websites for information, finding it usually under the
heading "Commission Facts." It looked specifically for information about the
commissions in each jurisdiction, including the date created, the purpose of the
commission, the membership requirements, length of term , compensation facts, how
often each was scheduled to meet, attendance req uirements, agendas and minutes of
each meeting , and whether the website contained up-to-date information.
, Title 4: Government of Cities, Section 3400 et seq., California Government Code.
2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 95
Much website information was incomplete so the CGJ sent an email with the
appropriate questions to each of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County.4 A second email
was sent to non-responders of the first one, followed by telephone requests to any city
that had still not complied . Interestingly, many of the failures to reply were caused by
invalid or out of date email addresses that the CGJ took directly from the July 2015 Los
Angeles County Roster of City Officials. The email responses provided the missing
information and after analysis allowed the CGJ to make its recommendations.
The CGJ then compiled and analyzed the information. A decision was made to grade
the websites for clarity and ease of use. A website was graded as satisfactory if facts
about the commission were accessible from the home page.
A second analysis was done for content, concentrating on matters of compensation,
membership requirements, and whether minutes were published.
IV. FINDINGS
1. CGJ queries to the 88 cities in the county elicited 86 responses with only Compton,
and Monterey Park failing to respond.
2. Two cities, Bell and Westlake Village, have no commissions.
3. The Los Angeles County website lists 17 4 commissions and compensation amounts
that range from $0 to $300, with the higher amounts paid for serving on
commissions requiring special expertise. "Commission Facts" provided on the
county website document the history for each of its commissions, including the
establishing ordinance, purpose, membership, duties, compensation, and minutes of
all meetings. The data appears to be updated in a timely manner and can be
displayed to any interested party.
4. Some cities publish agendas for commission meetings but not the minutes.
5. In lieu of publishing minutes, many cities post video recordings of commission
meetings on their web site. This is acceptable and after the initial cost of the video
equipment is absorbed, the process is relatively free.
6. Many cities are not current in publishing minutes of commission meetings. Some are
many months behind.
7. The websites of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County most commonly omitted
information pertaining to compensation. Other common omissions were whether
elected officials are allowed to serve and whether a commissioner can serve on
' The quest1onna1re 1s attached. See Appendix
96 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
I,.
..
. I
multiple commissions simultaneously. This information was provided in responses to
our e-mail queries.
8. Of all the cities reporting compensation for service on a commission, only two
currently report this on their websites in "Commission Facts."
9. Stipends are not always provided for commiss ion service. While the CGJ applauds
the 34 cities whose commissioners serve without pay, it notes that stipends provided
to commissioners in 50 cities, which ranged from $10 to $250, is not a major
concern.
10. Higher stipends were generally reserved for service on Planning Commissions,
whose members are usually req uired to have more specialized knowledge and
experience.
11 . Only the City of Industry exceeded the $250 upper threshold and pays members on
two of its commissions $680 per meeting. Attendance is not mandatory for
compensation.
12. Many cities' "Commission Facts" mentioned the Brown Act and/or the Maddy Act
and appeared to follow the rules outlined in them, but Government Code section
36516, which authorizes a maximum compensation of $150, was conspicuous by its
absence.
13.1t was impossible to reach the Lom ita website, even as we tried many variations of
the web address.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
The CGJ recommends th at local government web sites be improved in the five following
ways:
5.1. Los Angeles County and each listed city in Section VI should add to the
"Commission Facts" for each existing commission whether compensation is paid
and in what amount, including whether attendance is mandatory for payment. If
there is no compensation, state that none is provided .
5.2. Los Angeles County and each listed city should add to "Commission Facts" for
each existing commission whether or not elected officials may serve on it.
5.3. Los Angeles County and each listed city should add to "Commission Facts" for
each existing commission whether or not commissioners are allowed to serve on
more than one commission at the same time."
2015·2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 97
5.4. Each listed city should publish or provide a link to the current agenda and timely
meeting minutes for each meeting of each existing commission on the website.
5.5. Each listed city should add a conspicuous link to "Commissions" on the home
page or as a menu option under "Departments," "Government," or "Services."
VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE
California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all
recommendations contained in this report. Such responses shall be made no later than
ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of
the Court). Responses shall be made in accord with Penal Code Sections 933.05 (a)
and (b).
All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be
submitted on or before September 30, 2016, to:
Presiding Judge
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center
210 West Temple Street
Eleventh Floor-Room 11 -506
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Responses are required from:
I THESE WEBSITES WERE JUDGED SATISFACTORY FOR EASE OF USE.
Location Web Address Recommendation
Agoura Hills www.ci.aaoura-hills.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3
Artesia www.citvofartesia.us 5.1 5.2 5.3
Avalon www.citvofavalon.com 5.1 5.2 5.3
Bellflower www. bellflower. orq 5.1 5.2 5.3
Beverly Hills www.beverlvhills.orq 5.1 5.2 5.3
Burbank www.burbankca.aov 5.2 5.4
Carson www. ci . carson. ca . us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Cerritos www.cerritos.us 5.1 5.2 5.3
Claremont www. ci. claremont. ca. us 5.1 5.2 5.3
Commerce www.ci.commerce.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Cudahy www.citvofcudahv.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Gardena www.ci.aardena.ca .us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Glendale www.ci.qlendale.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3
Hawaiian Gardens www.hqcitv.orq 5.1 5.2 5.3
Hermosa Beach www.hermosabch.orq 5.1 5.2 5.3
98 201 5-2016 LOS AN GELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
\.
..
. I
Hidden Hills 'WWW.hiddenhillscitv.orQ 5.1 5.2 5.3
Huntington Park 'WWW.hpca.Qov 5.1 5.2 5.3
City of Industry \NWW.citvofindusLrv_.orQ 5.1 5.2 5.3
Inglewood 'WWW.citvofinqlewood.oro 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Irwindale 'WWW.ci.irwindale.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
La Canada Flintridge 'WWW.Icf.ca.oov 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Lakewood 'WWW.Iakewoodcitv.oro 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
La Mirada www.citvoflamirada.orq 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
La Puente www.lapuente.orq 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Lawndale www.lawndalecitv.oro 5.1 5.2 5.3
Malibu 'WWW.ci.malibu.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3
Manhattan Beach www.ci.manhattan-beach.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Maywood www.citvofmavwood.com 5.1 5.2 5.3
Monterey Park 'WWW.ci.monter~I{:Qark.ca .us 5.1 5.2 5.3
Palos Verdes Estates www.pvestates.oro 5.1 5.2 5.3
Paramount \NWW. oaramou ntcitv. com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Pasadena www.citvofpasadena. net 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Pico Rivera www.oico-rivera .oro 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Pomona www.ci.pomona.ca.us 5.1 5.3
Redondo Beach 'WWW.redondo.orq 5.1 5.2
Rolling Hills Estates www.ci.rollinq-hills-estates.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
San Dimas www.citvofsandimas.com 5.1 5.2 5.3
San Gabriel 'WWW.sanqabrielcitv.com 5.1 5.2 5.3
Santa Clarita 'WWW.santa-clarita.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Santa Monica \NWW.smoov.net 5.1 5.3
Sierra Madre \NWW.citvofsierramadre.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Signal Hill www.citvofsionalhill.oro 5.1 5.2 5.3
South Gate \NWW. citvofsouthoate. oro 5.1 5.2 5.3
South Pasadena www.ci.south-oasadena.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Torrance 'WWW.torranceca.oro 5.2 5.3
Vernon \NWW.citvofvernon.oro 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
West Covina \NWW. westcovina.oro 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
West Hollywood www.weho.oro 5.1 5.3
Los Angeles County \NWW. bos. co .Ia. ca . us 5.1 5.2 5.3
I THESE WEBSITES WERE JUDGED UNSATISFACTORY FOR EASE OF USE. j
Location Web Address Recommendations
Alhambra 'WWW.citvofalhambra.oro 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Arcadia \NWW.ci.arcadia.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Azusa \NWW.ci.azusa.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Baldwin Park 'WWW.baldwinoark.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Bell Gardens 'WWW.belloardens.oro 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 99
\,'
Bradbury vvww.citvofbradbu_ry.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Calabasas vvww.citvofcalabasas.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Compton vvww.comotoncitv.ora 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Covina vvww.covinaca.aov 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Culver City vvww.culvercitv.ora 5.1 5.4 5.5
Diamond Bar vvww.ci.diamond-bar.ca .us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Downey vvww.downevca.ora 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Duarte vvww.accessduarte.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
El Monte www.ci .el-monte.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
EISegundo www.elseaundo.ora 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Glendora vvww.ci.Qiendora.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5
Hawthorne vvww.citvofhawthorne.ora 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
La Habra Heights www.la-habra-heiahts.ora 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5
Lancaster www.citvoflancasterca.ora 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5
La Verne www.ci.la-verne.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Lomita vvww.lomita.com/citvhall 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Long Beach vvww .lonabeach .aov 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Los Angeles www.lacitv.ora 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Lynwood vvww.lvnwood.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Monrovia vvww.citvofmonrovia.ora 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Montebello vvww.citvofmontebello.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Norwalk vvww.ci.norwalk.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Palmdale vvww.citvofoalmdale.ora 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Ra ncho Palos Verdes www.mvca.Qov 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5
Rolling Hills vvww. rollina-hills.ora 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Rosemead vvww. citvofrosemead. ora 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
San Fernando vvww.ci.san-fernando.ca .us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
San Marino vvww.ci.san-marino.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5
Santa Fe Springs vvww.santafesprinas.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
South El Monte vvww.ci .south-el-onte.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Temple City vvww.ci.temole-citv.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5
Walnut vvww.ci.walnut.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Whittier vvww.citvofwhittier.ora 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
VII. ACRONYMS
BOS Board of Supervisors
CGJ Civil Grand Jury
100 2015-201 6 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
..
'I
VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS
George Zekan
Lorraine Stark
Edna McDonald
Molly Milligan
Chair
Secretary
20 15-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 101
,..------------
APPENDIX
Dear City Manager,
The 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury is gathering information on city-appointed
commissions. We have examined many official city web sites and found some information useful to
citizens but many sites lack essential facts and others are in com plete.
Please respond to us no later than December 21, 2015. If your city has committees, agencies, and/or
boards that function in the same capacity as commissions we ask that you treat them as such when
answering the fo llowing questions.
1. How many commissions exist in your city?
2. Are commission members compensated in any way?
a. If so, what is the compensation amount?
b. Is attendance at commission meetings ma ndatory to receive compensation?
c. Is t here a maximum amount of compensation a member may receive?
d. Does your city have term limits on a commissioner's service?
3. Are elected officials in your city allowed to serve on commissions?
4. Are commission members permitted to simultaneously serve on more than one commission?
5. Are the agendas and minutes of all commissions published on your city's web site?
6. Do the above answers apply to all of your city's commissions?
Thank you very much.
2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury
civilgrandjurv@lacourt.org (213) 628-7914
102 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
'.
California Penal Code
Section 933.05(a) and (b)
(a) For purposes of 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 find ing, in which case
the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall
include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury
recommendation, the responding person 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 study, and a timeframe for the matter to
be prepared for 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 therefor.
September 7, 2016
Presiding Judge
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center
210 West Temple street
Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506
Los Angeles, CA 90012
ATTACHMENT 8
Re: Response to Recommendations Contained in the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury's Report on
the Transparency of the City's Appointed Commissions
Dear Presiding Judge:
On June 30, 2016, the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury issued its report entitled "Appointed
Commissions: Transparency will Maintain the Public Trust." At the conclusion of the Report, the Grand
Jury req uested a response from the City to Recommendations 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.5. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide the following responses to these recommendations.
In the City of Temple City, there are four appointed bodies: The Planning Commission, the Parks and
Recreation Commission, the Transportation and Public Safety Commission and the Public Arts
Commission. Each consists of five residents appointed and approved by a majority vote of the City
Council. The members of each commission se rve without compensation for a two-year term.
The City's municipal code governs the authority of each commission. For example, the Planning
Commission advises on programs, policies and issues relating to planning, development and land use
regulation. The Parks and Recreation Commission make recommendations on the development and
oversight of the City's parks facilities and recreational programming. The Transportation and Public
Safety Commission makes decisions on administrative and parking citations, and develops
recommendations regarding the administration of public safety programs. And the Public Arts
Commission provides recom mendations on the development and oversight of the public arts in the City.
The Grand Jury's report refers to "Commission Facts" as the portion of a city website where information
about commissions and committees can be found. The City of Temple City's website, under the City Hall
tab, City Commissions and Boards and Committees, provides detailed information about each of the
City's commissions and committees, including their roles and responsibilities, the name of current
commissioners and their terms, and the regularly scheduled meeting dates and time.
The City's response to the specific recommendations in the Request is as follows:
Recommendation 5.1: "Los Angeles County and each listed city in Section VI should add to the
"Commission Facts" for each existing commission whether compensation is paid and in what amount.
including whether attendance is mandatory for payment. If there is no compensation. state that none is
provided."
As with recommendation 5.1 , the City of Temple City's municipal code specifically provides that no person
serving on a City Commission is compensated for their service. However, the City has updated its
Commission Facts to advise prospective commissioners that there is no compensation for serving on a
City Commission.
Recommendation 5.2: "Los Angeles County and each listed city in Section VI should add to "Commission
Facts" for each existing commission whether or not elected officials may serve on it".
The City of Temple City does not appoint elected officials to the City's commissions or board. The City
has updated the Commissioner Facts to advise that Election Officials may not serve simultaneously on a
City Comm ission.
Recommendation 5.3: "Los Angeles County and each listed city should add to "Commission Facts" for
each existing commission whether or not commissioners are allowed to serve on more than one
commission at the same time."
The Temple City City Council does not appoint City commissions to serve on more than one commission
at the same time. The City has updated the Commissioner Facts to advise that no commissioners are
allowed to serve on more than one commission at the same time.
Recommendation 5.5: "Each listed city should add a conspicuous link to "Commissions" on the home
page or as a menu option under "Departments," "Government". or "Services."
A link to "Commissions" has been published on the homepage of the City's website. We thank you for the
opportunity to respond to the Report. Should you have any further questions or desire any further
information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Bryan Cook
City Manager