Grand Jury to Again Cast Ideas Before Government : Public service: County officials rejected most of last year’s recommendations. A 1989-90 member says reports help ‘keep power-holders in line.’

After a year of studying every aspect of county government, from animal control to zoning, the Ventura County Grand Jury will release its final report and recommendations today.

But judging by the response to last year’s grand jury report, many of the suggestions will go nowhere.

For example, one of the most publicized recommendations of the 1989-90 grand jury was its call for random alcohol and drug testing of county employees. The panel estimated that 18% to 20% of county employees may have substance-abuse problems.

Most county department heads scoffed at that estimate, and they opposed the idea on both practical and philosophical grounds. The county did not act on the proposal and has maintained a policy of providing counseling to employees who need it.

Another major recommendation in last year’s report was a proposal to share sales tax revenue equally among the county’s cities, instead of the current system where each city keeps the sales tax generated within its boundaries.

County officials studied the idea and agreed that there were disparities. Ventura, for example, earns about $148 per resident in sales taxes because of its many commercial outlets, while mostly residential Moorpark earns just $29. But the officials did not propose any changes.

The 1989-90 grand jury also recommended that the county agriculture commissioner’s office be elevated to full “agency” status within county government, in keeping with agriculture’s position as the county’s largest industry.

One year later, the office is still a lowly “department” in the county’s organization charts. Instead of reporting directly to Chief Administrative Officer Richard Wittenberg, Agriculture Commissioner W. Earl McPhail reports to one of Wittenberg’s assistants.

“Not much has happened. There hasn’t been much discussion about it,” said McPhail, who added that he supports the idea. “We’re still working on it.”

Not all of last year’s recommendations were rejected.

The Ventura County Community College District did conduct a management audit, as recommended by the grand jury after disclosures of widespread problems in the district.

A gang-control committee involving sheriff’s deputies, deputy district attorneys, school officials and others was established, as proposed by the panel. Many other ideas were adopted in some form.

L. Edward Shuck, chairman pro tem of last year’s grand jury, said it’s not surprising that some of the panel’s recommendations were ignored.

“That’s the democratic process. We are not experts,” he said. “There obviously are weaknesses in having laymen analyze what professionals are doing.”

But he defended the system as a way to “keep the power-holders in line.”

“Every government needs somebody looking over its shoulder to keep it honest,” he said, adding that many county officials welcome the scrutiny.

“If they are doing their jobs and are conscientious, they want kudos and criticism,” said Shuck, who lives in Thousand Oaks.

In many states, grand juries are used mainly to hear criminal cases and determine whether a suspect should be bound over for trial. Typically, a California grand jury also issues indictments, but its main function under the state Constitution is to act as a watchdog on county and local government.

Every July 1, before it disbands and a new panel is selected, the 19-member grand jury issues a report examining each city in the county as well as every county department. By law, the agencies scrutinized must respond within 90 days, although they do not have to adopt the panel’s proposals.

Grand jury members are nominated by the Superior Court judges and are chosen by lot. They serve one-year terms and earn $20 per day when in session. In the fiscal year that ended Sunday, the system cost taxpayers $148,000 a year.

Ventura County Public Defender Kenneth I. Clayman said he thinks the grand jury is worth it. “To have 19 people sit down and look at problems as ombudsmen, it’s a healthy thing,” Clayman said. “I mean, who else is doing it?” Not everyone agrees.

Last year, the head of the county employees’ union, Barry L. Hammitt, denounced the grand jury report as “the usual waste of taxpayer dollars on an archaic body that has outlived its relevance to today’s society.” Hammitt termed the grand jury system “a soapbox for gadflies.”

Sometimes the grand jury pokes into the most minute aspects of county government. After witnessing a medical emergency outside their third-floor office at the Hall of Justice, members urged that override keys be installed on all elevators at the Government Center to speed the arrival of emergency personnel.

That idea was politely rejected by Peter S. Pedroff, director of the county’s General Services Agency. He noted that such changes would cost $48,000 per elevator. He promised instead to improve emergency procedures at the center.

Perhaps the most unusual response to last year’s report came from Kay Martin, the county’s director of solid waste management. After answering the grand jury’s proposals for her department, Martin shot back with a proposal of her own to reduce waste at county landfills.

In the future, she said, grand jury reports should be printed on recycled paper, using both sides of each page.

Lyle Wray, foreman of the 1990-91 grand jury, said Martin’s suggestions have been adopted in the report being released today.

FYI

The 1990-91 Ventura County Grand Jury will issue its final report at 2 p.m. today. After jury foreman Lyle Wray presents the report to Presiding Judge Edwin Osborne, the panel will be disbanded and a new grand jury will be selected by lot. The 19 new grand jurors will then be sworn. The ceremony will take place in Courtroom 22 of the Hall of Justice. Copies of the report will be available at the jury services office on the first floor of the Hall of Justice.