This was a solid and very substantive year for the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury. It ends with an investigation into the Office of the Ombudsperson at the county’s Child Welfare Services office, a division of the county’s Department of Health and Human Services.

The Office of the Ombusdperson was created in 2018 to settle a lawsuit brought against the county by then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris, and the conclusion of this Grand Jury investigation, which you should read in full, is damning:

The Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury concludes that the Child Welfare Services Office of the Ombudsperson does not fulfill its stated mission and instead serves as an ineffective complaint department. By directing the Ombudsperson to not provide resolutions to complainants, management consistently violates CWS Policies & Procedures, and contradicts the 2018 stipulated agreement. The Office of the Ombudsperson is not independent in any way, and the very structure of the office provides opportunities for conflicts of interests.

This was only one of several meaty reports the GJ released this year.

On behalf of the citizens of Humboldt County: Thank you for your service, 2023-24 Grand Jury members. Full list of reports below. If you’re inspired by this work and you have time on your hands, consider putting your name in for the 2024-25 Grand Jury. They need good people. 

###

DOCUMENT:

• “Humboldt County Child Welfare Services: Office of the Ombudsperson,” Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury, June 2024.

PREVIOUSLY:

• California AG Investigation Concludes With Agreement Requiring Sweeping Changes to Humboldt Child Welfare Services
• Flaws in County System for Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect Triggered a State Investigation. Here’s What’s Changing As a Result.

###

Press release from the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury:

The Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury has released the eighth and final report of their 2023-2024 term, entitled “Child Welfare Services: Office of the Ombudsperson.”

In 2023 the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury received a complaint regarding Child Welfare Services (CWS), a branch of the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services. Among several other issues, the complainant told us that after contacting the CWS Office of the Ombudsperson to lodge a complaint and receive assistance, they never received a reply. The Humboldt County CWS Office of the Ombudsperson was created in 2018 as part of a legal settlement with the State of California that required CWS to establish a complaint office to give a voice to families involved in the Child Welfare Services system.

We investigated the current state of this office and found that it does not follow through on promises made on the CWS website and that current practices violate CWS’s own policies. We found that CWS regularly refers to the Office of the Ombudsperson as “independent” but that in reality it is intricately woven into the CWS structure. We found that CWS is good at keeping records about complaints received but does not provide information about complaint outcomes involving violations of policy, procedure, or civil rights. Moreover, we found that the public has no way to know if these violations have been addressed, individually or systemically.

Crucially, we found that many people who make complaints never learn the outcomes of their complaints from CWS. These complainants are people in difficult situations. They may be at risk of losing their children, may have seen their children be abused by others, or may be abusers themselves. Whatever the case, they contact CWS to find answers, instead finding silence. Our conclusion is that CWS has an Office of the Ombudsperson in name only.

The 2023-2024 term of the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury comes to a close on June 30. We would like to say “thank you” to the hundreds of people who helped us this year, in all ways, large and small. Without you the Civil Grand Jury, your jury, couldn’t do the work we do.The 2024-2025 term for the Civil Grand Jury is approaching quickly. The Superior Court, of which the Grand Jury is an arm, is in desperate need of jurors. This is a very enriching experience and gives you a chance to learn about and give back to your community.

The time commitment is, at minimum, six hours a week, three hours via a Zoom meeting and three hours at an in-person meeting in Eureka. Later in the term more hours are needed but for the most part these extra commitments can work around your schedule. There is a small stipend (equal to $20 per seven hours) and mileage to and from meetings and interviews are paid for. Applications to serve on the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury can be found at this link. Additional information provided by the Civil Grand Jurors Association of California can be found at this link.

###

THE 2024 HUMBOLDT COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY:

• In First Report of the Year, Grand Jury Recommends Civilian Oversight Board for the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office
• Civil Grand Jury: Humboldt County Pays Too Much in Rent and Should Probably Consolidate Services Whenever It Can Afford to Do So
• Civil Grand Jury: Humboldt County’s Jail and Other Facilities Suffer From Under-Staffing. And They’re Old.
• Grand Jury Slams Eureka City Schools For ‘Secretive’ Jacobs Campus Deal
• GRAND JURY SAYS: With Limited Funds and Skyrocketing Buildings, the Arcata Fire District is in Serious Trouble
• Grand Jury Takes Deep Dive on Humboldt County’s Mental Health Crisis Street Teams
• Grand Jury Analysis Shows That County Government Has a Hell of a Time Trying to Hire Qualified Employees and Offers Some Simple Suggestions

Press release from the Arcata Fire District:

On Thursday, June 27 at 11:30 P.M., units from Arcata Fire District, Humboldt Bay Fire Authority, and Westhaven Volunteer Fire Department responded to a reported structure fire (barn on fire) on the 100 Block of Wagon Jack Lane off Fickle Hill Road in Arcata.

The first arriving Arcata Fire unit found a fully involved 20 foot by 30 foot barn. The residents of the property indicated that there were no people inside the building. The structure had already collapsed before fire personnel arrived. Firefighters engaged in a defensive operation, protecting nearby residences.

While fighting this fire, Arcata Fire District, Samoa Fire Protection District, and Humboldt Bay Fire Authority were dispatched to a reported residential structure fire in the Manila area. Some units involved in the barn fire on Fickle Hill were immediately released and responded to the residential fire in Manila.

Samoa Fire Protection District arrived on scene first and reported a fully involved manufactured home with the occupants outside. Humboldt Bay Fire and Arcata Fire District units arrived next and secured a water supply. Units protected nearby structures from radiant heat from the now collapsed manufactured home. While fighting the fire, personnel were advised that the occupant of the home was suffering from smoke inhalation. An ambulance was requested to the scene. Fire personnel rendered aid and evaluated the patient. The patient denied any additional medical treatment. As fire personnel got the fire under control, the scene was investigated for the cause.

During the investigation, firefighters learned that the occupant’s dogs had alerted him to the fire that had started in the kitchen area. The occupant was able to get out, however, his dogs were not and perished in the blaze.

Due to the extent of the damage at both fires, investigators were unable to determine a precise cause for either fire.

Both structure fires were total losses. The estimated loss to the barn on Fickle Hill is approximately $40,000. The loss to the residence in Manila was approximately $90,000. Arcata Fire District extends our thoughts to both families for the losses they suffered as fires can be emotionally traumatic- especially with the loss of pets. Smoke alarms are the best way to be alerted to a fire, allowing occupants to escape.

Thank you to our allied partners Samoa Fire District, Humboldt Bay Fire Authority and Westhaven Volunteer Fire Department who responded to both fires.

###
UPDATE: A GoFundMe for the victim has been set up here.

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted cities more power to arrest, cite and fine people who sleep outside in public places — overturning six years of legal protections for homeless residents in California and other western states.

In Grants Pass v. Johnson, the court sided with Grants Pass – ruling an ordinance passed by the Oregon city that essentially made it illegal for homeless residents to camp on all public property was not unconstitutional.

The much-anticipated decision overturns a prior influential Ninth Circuit appellate ruling, and means cities no longer are prohibited from punishing unhoused residents for camping if they have nowhere else to go. It will have major ramifications for how California leaders and law enforcement handle homeless encampments.

Activists supporting the civil rights of unhoused people decried the ruling, saying it could result in people getting arrested simply for being homeless.

“It will make homelessness worse, in California and Grants Pass and across the country,” said Jesse Rabinowitz, spokesperson for the National Homelessness Law Center. “We know that throwing people in jail and giving them thousands of dollars in tickets makes it harder for them to find jobs, harder for them to find housing and harder for them to exit homelessness.”

But groups representing cities, counties, law enforcement organizations and business interests cheered the decision, saying it would finally allow for the removal of unsafe, unsanitary encampments. Even Gov. Gavin Newsom weighed in, filing a “friend of the court” brief in which he wrote: “Hindering cities’ efforts to help their unhoused populations is as inhumane as it is unworkable.”

“Homelessness is a crisis in California. The misguided 9th Circuit decision has tied the hands of local officials, allowing encampments to multiply unchecked,” California Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley of Rocklin said in an email to CalMatters. “Cities need to be able to act to protect public health and safety, while at the same time connecting those in need with services.”

Those who are or have been homeless are worried about what happens now. Anita De Asis Miralle, who goes by “Needa Bee,” was homeless for about eight years before finding housing in Oakland earlier this year. De Asis Miralle, who advocates for other unhoused people through her grassroots group The Village, worries the ruling will lead to cities disregarding their rights. Already, she said, she’s seen Oakland clear encampments without offering occupants adequate shelter. To her, those sweeps rip apart communities and take away people’s precarious sense of stability.

“The big fear is not only how bold they’re going to be,” De Asis Miralle said, “but how much deeper into instability and trauma and homelessness it will drive people.”

How we got here

The case stems from a 2018 lawsuit against Grants Pass, a small city in Southern Oregon that banned camping throughout its jurisdiction. The lower courts sided with homeless residents who argued that because humans need to sleep somewhere, the Grants Pass ordinance made it illegal to be homelessness.

That decision was in line with an earlier Ninth Circuit appellate ruling – Martin v. Boise – which determined that punishing an unhoused person for camping in public, if they have nowhere else to go, violates the Constitution’s 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The 2018 Boise ruling changed how cities respond to homeless encampments. Many interpreted the court decision to mean that they could not clear an encampment unless they had a shelter bed available for every displaced resident. Local courts have hit several California cities, including San Francisco, Sacramento, Chico and San Rafael, with orders halting or delaying encampment clean-ups due to lack of adequate shelter.

An encampment covers a sidewalk near a freeway entrance in downtown San Diego on March 22, 2024. Photo by Kristian Carreon for CalMatters

The COVID pandemic made the situation more complex. In 2020, federal health regulations recommended that cities not clear any encampments, in order to limit the spread of the virus and protect vulnerable homeless residents. Encampments in many California cities grew and became more entrenched, with residents building make-shift shacks out of scraps of wood and metal.

When vaccines arrived and concern about the pandemic gradually died down, it left in its wake a growing discontent over the proliferation of homeless encampments in public open spaces. With that came a chorus of complaints from city leaders and law enforcement that the Boise ruling stripped them of the power to enforce rules regarding homeless residents.

It’s an issue that’s particularly crucial in California, which is home to nearly a third of the country’s homeless population. More than 180,000 unhoused people live in the Golden State, including more than 123,000 people who sleep in encampments or other places not meant for habitation.

Multiple California cities already are cracking down on those homeless camps. Some are getting around the Boise ruling by banning camps in certain areas rather than throughout the entire city. San Diego recently started enforcing a controversial ordinance that prohibits camps near schools, shelters and transit hubs, in parks, and – if shelter beds are available – on all public sidewalks. At the same time, the city opened two sanctioned tent campsites where about 500 unhoused people can sleep.

San Diego’s ordinance has led to a noticeable decrease in the number of homeless residents camping downtown. But camping is just as prevalent – if not more so – along highway on- and off-ramps, and along the San Diego River.

State Senate Bill 1011 by GOP leader Brian Jones would have imposed a statewide camping ban similar to San Diego’s. But the bill died in its first committee hearing, suggesting a lack of appetite for a statewide crackdown.

Activists who provide homeless services, as well as researchers who study the population, say cities should not be able to break up encampments with impunity. Encampment sweeps cause homeless residents to lose important belongings and documents, push them farther away from their sources of food, medicine and other services, and – especially if arrests or citations are involved – make it harder for them to find jobs and housing, according to experts.

“The enforcement of laws criminalizing homelessness has been shown to have wide-ranging and lingering negative impacts on those experiencing homelessness, which create significant barriers to exiting homelessness,” a group of more than 50 social scientists specializing in homelessness wrote in a “friends of the court” brief in the Grants Pass case.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April. In their comments and questions, the justices appeared divided along ideological lines, with the liberal justices more sympathetic to the arguments of the homeless residents. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Underscoring the importance of the case, more than three dozen elected officials and organizations weighed in by filing “friend of the court” briefs.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

California will play a more active role in ensuring school districts don’t discriminate against students with disabilities, English learners and Black students, under a legal settlement announced this week.

The agreement between the state and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California requires state authorities to visit schools, interview teachers, look at individual students’ records and take more hands-on steps to see if a school has a pattern of discriminating. Specifically, the state will examine whether schools disproportionately suspend Black students or English learners, or deny services to students with disabilities.

“Are we happy? Absolutely. For the first time, the state will now be required to strengthen its monitoring of school districts to prevent discrimination,” said Linnea Nelson, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU.

When CalMatters asked for a comment on the settlement, the California Department of Education sent CalMatters another copy of the settlement. But it has already begun implementing some of the requirements in the settlement, and has set up a hotline for families and students to report discrimination, harassment, intimidation or bullying.

Discrimination is illegal in California schools, but the state has not always taken an aggressive approach to tracking it at individual schools, according to the lawsuit. Instead, reviews focused on broad data such as discipline rates for Black students or other groups, not specific incidents or patterns affecting individual students.

“Now, instead of just looking at the data, we’ll be able to get to the crux of the issue,” said Malhar Shah, an attorney for the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, who also worked on the suit. “There’s going to be increased accountability, and practices that went under the radar will now come out in the open.”

Black students, English learners and students with disabilities all have suspension rates higher than the California average, according to state data. Black students are particularly affected. They had a suspension rate of almost 9% last year, compared to the state average of 3.6%.

East Bay district at the center of discrimination complaint

The ACLU settlement stems from a 2021 lawsuit against the state and Pittsburg Unified School District in Contra Costa County, centering on the experiences of a Black student who struggled to receive special education services and was repeatedly suspended.

The girl was traumatized and suffered academically because of the experiences, her mother, Jessica Black, said.

“After a while she felt there was something wrong with her. I would have taken her out (of school), but I didn’t have the resources,” said Black, a single mother.

“For the first time, the state will now be required to strengthen its monitoring of school districts to prevent discrimination.”
— Linnea Nelson, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU

Pittsburg Unified did not respond to an email request for comment. Its portion of the lawsuit is still pending.

Problems for Black’s daughter, identified as L.G. in the lawsuit, started almost immediately after she enrolled in the district in third grade, Black said. In one incident, a white student teased L.G. because of her Afro-style hair, leading L.G. to throw an apple at him and get suspended.

By the time L.G. was in fourth grade, the school placed her in a special class for students with emotional challenges, even though she did not have an Individualized Education Plan for special education. The girl felt isolated from her friends and floundered academically.

As a result, she was poorly equipped to handle middle school, Black said. The girl was suspended at least 20 times in sixth grade, and at one point the school had her involuntarily detained (or “5150ed”) due to a perceived psychiatric emergency.

By seventh grade, L.G. was enrolled in special education and began receiving services to help with executive functioning skills. In high school she transferred to another school district, graduated early, and is now thriving, Black said.

Even though L.G. is doing well now, she missed out on years of services Black believes she was entitled to, such as counseling. The ordeal took a toll on the entire family, Black said.

“It was a complete strain. I was getting calls nearly every day at work, and I didn’t know what to do,” said Black, who works as a community organizer in Oakland. “Psychologically, spiritually, mentally it really weighed on me. I was exhausted.”

“There’s going to be increased accountability, and practices that went under the radar will now come out in the open.”
— Malhar Shah, an attorney for the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

While Black is pleased with the settlement, she wishes it went further. She’d like to see the complaint process expedited, so families can get responses sooner if they feel their child is being discriminated against; regular reports to school boards on discipline rates; and more involvement by parents whose children are subject to discrimination “so the people most impacted are part of the accountability process and can help devise solutions.”

She still harbors distrust of the public school system in general, saying it’s too often failed children like her daughter.

“The settlement sounds great, but what’s the follow-up?” Black said. “How does the next generation of kids not go through the same thing my daughter went through? Basically, schools need to treat Black students with humanity.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

A flurry of dealmaking, largely brokered by the office of Gov. Gavin Newsom, is radically transforming the November ballot at the last minute, with agreements to withdraw a record number of measures before a key deadline this week and potentially even more changes yet to come next week.

Against a backdrop of Democratic anxiety over voter turnout and campaign resources for the November election — where California could play a crucial role in helping Democrats win back control of the U.S. House — Newsom and legislative leaders have maneuvered to reshape the swath of issues that voters will decide this fall.

Over the past week, the governor’s office and lawmakers announced five deals with the proponents of qualified ballot measures to remove them in exchange for legislative action — on employer liability, pandemic preparedness, children’s health care, high school finance classes and oil drilling. That’s more than in any previous election.

Their work may not yet be done. Though very little time remains, Newsom and legislative leaders continue to negotiate over several other proposals that could be added to the ballot next week — before it must be finalized by the Secretary of State’s Office — including bonds for school facilities and climate programs and an alternative to a tough-on-crime measure that progressives detest.

A spokesperson for Newsom refused to answer questions about why the governor’s office has been so involved this year crafting deals on ballot measures.

But there are a range of financial and political considerations for negotiating proposals off the ballot: How an initiative, which lawmakers have little power to amend, might affect the state budget; whether interest groups truly want to spend the millions necessary to wage a fierce campaign battle; and even what the most controversial proposals might mean for other races across the state.

“It has been very active, in part because voters expect their elected leaders to make tough decisions and take action,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Salinas Democrat, said in a statement. “The Governor and my Assembly colleagues have done a lot of work bringing groups together and finding consensus, and this will benefit Californians when they weigh-in on important matters at the ballot box.”

This is a relatively new phenomenon in California politics. Before a decade ago, citizen-initiated measures could not be removed once they qualified for the ballot.

But in 2014, the Legislature created a process where proposed initiatives and constitutional amendments could be withdrawn up to 131 days before an election. It was expanded last year to referendums. That opened up a whole new system of policymaking in Sacramento, with lawmakers offering to pass compromise legislation to avert expensive or politically perilous campaign fights.

Some interest groups have figured out how to exploit the rules to their advantage, qualifying sweeping initiatives as leverage to win more modest changes — as in 2018, when soda companies spent millions to place a major anti-tax proposal on the ballot, then negotiated instead for a decade-long moratorium on new local taxes on sugary drinks.

Prior to this year, nine measures had been withdrawn from the ballot after qualifying, according to the political resource guide Ballotpedia. The most for any single election was three in 2018, when initiatives related to consumer data privacy and lead paint remediation were also withdrawn following legislative compromises.

The whirlwind of changes to this year’s ballot began last week, when organized labor agreed to support modifications to a unique state law that allows workers to sue their bosses over alleged workplace violations if business groups withdrew a measure to repeal the law completely. Separately, the California Supreme Court took the rare step of removing a sweeping anti-tax measure from the ballot following a legal challenge by Newsom and legislative leaders.

The governor’s office announced two more deals on Tuesday, with the proponents of initiatives to fund pandemic preparedness through a millionaires tax and expand state funding for health care for critically ill children. In exchange for pulling their measures from the ballot, Newsom agreed to expand the scope of a state medical research program to include technologies related to pandemic prevention and to include more money for children’s hospitals in the state budget.

An association of petroleum companies said Wednesday that it would abandon its referendum seeking to overturn a recent California law creating a 3,200-foot setback for oil and gas wells around homes and schools and challenge it in court instead.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Culver City Democrat with a large oil field in his district, negotiated the retreat. He told CalMatters that, in return, he agreed to scale back another bill he’s carrying about plugging low-producing wells — which he introduced in part to apply pressure to the oil companies.

“The ballot is often weaponized by those who are losing touch with both the people of California and the people’s representatives,” Bryan said. “That’s where we’re stepping in. We’re doing the people’s business. We’re making sure we’re trying to craft policy solutions that answer the real problems across California.”

The state Senate and Assembly spent several hours yesterday, the final day for proponents to withdraw an initiative, passing bills to fulfill their end of various bargains. After the Legislature approved a measure to require financial literacy as a high school graduation requirement, a personal finance nonprofit executive announced he would pull his similar proposal from the ballot.

Minutes later, lawmakers sent a proposed constitutional amendment to voters that would prohibit forced labor, an anti-slavery policy recommended by the state reparations task force that would primarily affect inmates in California prisons. They also approved changes to another that was already on the ballot, which would make it easier for local governments to win voter approval for infrastructure and housing bonds, reflecting a deal with the real estate industry.

As many as four more measures could be added to the ballot next week as well, if legislators can work through contentious debates that are taking place behind the scenes.

Rivas told reporters that Newsom and legislative leaders are still trying to finalize the details of two $10 billion bonds, one for climate programs and another for school facilities. The extremely narrow victory of a mental health bond pushed by the governor in the March primary has shaken confidence in Sacramento about voter appetite for additional financing measures, but there is tremendous pressure from interest groups that would benefit from the money amid a bleak state budget environment.

“We’ve got to get that work done, so that way we can engage with members to see if we can build support to get these bonds on the ballot,” Rivas said.

After failing to get the proponents of an initiative that would increase penalties for some drug and property crimes to reconsider, the governor and legislative leaders are considering putting forward a competing ballot measure focused on retail theft — though there has been deep division among Democrats at the Capitol about how to proceed as they face rising concerns from voters about crime.

A long-delayed proposal to overhaul California’s statewide recall system, by forgoing the selection of a replacement unless an official has actually been recalled, is also advancing.

And lawmakers are now discussing delaying until 2026 a measure they placed on the ballot to undermine the anti-tax initiative that was recently removed by the Supreme Court. With that fight over, the unions that would have funded the campaign would rather spend their money elsewhere this election cycle.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Above: President Joe Biden and his predecessor, former President Donald Trump meet in the key battleground state of Georgia for their first debate of the 2024 election cycle, moderated by CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.

Press release from the Eureka Police Department:

On May 28th a prowler made access to a home on the 2800 block of Harrison Avenue in Eureka and was chased out by the homeowner. On June 21st the same prowler attempted entry at the same location. Once more, on June 27th the same prowler rang the victim’s doorbell at midnight/1am.

The Eureka Police Department is asking for help in identifying the prowler. Video is attached. If you have any information regarding this person, please contact Carly Michael at 707-441-4308.