HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05011990 - FC.3 FC.3
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: Finance Committee Costa
DATE: May 1, 1990 �`o= County
rr� c'uri -
SUBJECT: COURTHOUSE SECURITY
Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Accept report from the County Administrator on Courthouse security measures
taken to date;
2. Accept report on additional alternatives proposed;
3. Direct the County Administrator to develop more information on the various
financing options of building acquisition, particularly option 2.c. , and
report to the/Budget Committee.
4. Direct the County Administrator to pursue funding for court security
through the state for new or enhanced court fines or fees.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
On January 26, 1990 the Board of Supervisors received a report from the County
Administrator and Sheriff-Coroner on various security measures taken to date or
proposed, which include but are not limited to:
- assigning each facility a resident Sheriff's Sergeant referred to as a
"Facility Security manager", to work closely with the presiding judge of
each facility to coordinate and maximize the security effort in that
facility;
- all Deputy Sheriffs and Sergeants assigned to the Court Security Bureau are
issued, and must carry at all times, a two-way radio and alarm pager;
- all Deputy Sheriffs and Sergeants assigned to the Court Security Bureau are
issued a hand-held searching wand; each Facility Security Manager
(Sergeant) holds a mandatory deputy training meeting on a monthly basis;
- a security manual has been prepared by the Sheriff's Court Services
Division and issued to each judge, referee and commissioner;
- each judge, referee and commissioner is regularly sent security bulletins;
- each judge, referee, and commissioner, and his or her respective bailiff
has met with the Facility Security Manager and reviewed the Bench Security
Manual;
- policy dictates that the bailiffs and transportation deputies are not
otherwise busy, they patrol the common area in their facility;
- signs reading "Subject to Search" have been placed in each of the court
facilities;
- random searches are being conducted in court facilities within the limits
permitted by civil liberties rights, which preclude indiscriminate
searches;
CONTINUED ON ATTACH14R T: X YES Signature:
o
Recommendation of County Administrator
Recommendation of Board Committee
Approve Other
Signature(s):
Action of Board on: May 1, 1990 Approved as Recommended X Other
Vote of Supervisors: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
X Unanimous (Absent I ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Absent• Abstain:
Attested: *Z4,ti /, /190
cc: County Administrator Phil Bab9helor, Clerk of
Superior Court the Board of Supervisors
Municipal Court and County Administrator
Sheriff-Coroner
By: 'AL Y , DEPUTY
Page Two
- the Court Security Bureau of the Court Services Division has assumed the
responsibility for emergency evacuation in case of fire, earthquake, bomb
threat, and hostage situations in all court facilities in the County;
- emergency evacuation training has been received and coordinated;
- evacuations are held in cooperation with Risk Management;
- court security training officers have been identified and trained;
- all Deputy Sheriffs transferred into the Court Services Division must
complete five weeks of training;
two holidays observed as Court Holidays (but not County holidays) ,
Lincoln's Birthday and Admissions Day, have been identified as Court
Security Training Days;
eight hours on February 12, 1990 was blocked for emergency evacuation
training in the Bray Court Building;
the Assistant Sheriff - Court Services Division, is currently developing a
40-hour court security course in conjunction with Los Medanos College and
the California State Sheriff's Association; alarms have been installed in
all courtrooms;
alarms are checked routinely; new defendant-restraint equipment has cut
down on escape attempts;
liaison has been developed wit local police departments to provide for a
coordinated response in case of any incident;
magnetometers are used when a court hearing has been identified as
high-risk;
the role of the Court Services Oversight Committee has been formalized;
a Committee on Justice Facility Planning was created last year to develop a
workplan and schedule for the preparation of a justice facilities master
plan;
regularly scheduled meetings are held between the Court Services Oversight
Committee and the Assistant Sheriff-Cburt Services Division;
- a close relationship has been established with each jurisdiction regarding
recommendations regarding remodeling of existing facilities;
- a policy regarding the use of the security tunnel joining the Martinez
Detention Facility and the Bray Court Building has been formalized; and
- last November, the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, Superior Court
Administrator, Assistant Sheriff-Coroner Services Division and Court
Services Division Commander recently attended a three day court security
seminar for court managers.
The Board of Supervisors received a letter from Ron Romo on March 5, 1990
(attached) requesting answers to several questions. The following are specific
answers to his inquiries:
1. The actual costs of closing off all entrances to the main courthouse
building except two (this would involve two screening stations) are $80,000
for hardware (one time only), $421,500 for personnel (yearly) , and $16,000
for courthouse modifications. Required modifications would be replacing
two glass doors with solid doors alarmed for emergency exit only. These
doors would be video monitored.
2. We are unaware of how the entire Bray building could be secured without
increased costs. There is enough money currently budgeted to complete one
of the courtroom on the third floor of the Bray building, however, not as
a high security courtroom.
3. A memo was sent to all department heads in December 1987 asking them to
make an assessment of their security needs. In February 1988 a
questionnaire was sent to all County employees to identify their security
concerns. Feedback from the questionnaire was sent to department heads,
asking them to consider the input from their employees in preparing
security plans for their departments. This memo was accompanied by a
security survey check list prepared by the Sheriff's Department.
Department Security Training was announced to all Department Heads in March
1988 by staff from Risk Management and the Sheriff's Department on the
emergency action plan and activities of emergency response personnel and
specifically what to do in case of a shooting. A report on security and
safety issues in county building was made to the Board of Supervisors on
April 4, 1990. In April 1988 two comprehensive training programs were
presented to Safety Coordinators and security trainees covering profiles of
the potentially violent, the assault cycle interventions, emergency
protocol, personnel and facility security. The training included a take
home package of class outline visuals and handouts needed to present the
program to fellow employees. Thirty-five participants from 24 departments
attended the training. In February 1989, Risk Management communicated with
all departments regarding additional needs they might have for security
Page Three
3. (continued) training. Since February 1989 emergency action plans were
developed for both the Delta and Bay Court. In February 1990 the Sheriff's
department had security training. In April 1990 64 employees of the County
Clerk and 3 employees from the Superior Court attended "Recognition of
Assaultive Behavior Training".
The Board of Supervisors requested that the County Administrator work with the
Sheriff's department and the Municipal and Superior Courts to develop additional
security measures and a security system for the various county court facilities.
In discussion with the Sheriff's department and the Superior and Municipal
Courts several short-term and long-term options were identified, as discussed
below.
1. Single Metal Detector -X Ray System This system could accommodate all
anticipated levels of pedestrian traffic into the courthouse, and it would
be adequate for most situations, such as highly publicized trials, etc.
Manpower for this system would be minimal. The accuracy in detecting
weapons, explosives, etc. , is superior to any alternative entry screening
concept. The cost for the old courthouse would include two screening
stations - $80,000 for hardware (one time only) , $421,500 for personnel
(yearly) , and $16,000 for courthouse modifications. Required modifications
would be replacing two glass doors with solid doors alarmed for emergency
exit only. These doors would be video monitored. The cost for the Bray
Building would include one screening station - $40,000 for hardware,
$210,750 for personnel, and $15,000 for courthouse modifications.
Courthouse modifications would include restricted exit with video
monitoring. The cost for the Municipal court would include one mobile
screening team - $35,000 for hardware and $210,750 for personnel. This
system would not include an X Ray machine, but would involve random
searches, or searches dictated by special circumstances. The total
one-time costs for this option is $186,000 for hardware, yearly salary
costs are $843,000.
This option has the advantage of covering both court buildings in the
Superior Court and offers Municipal Court security also. The Municipal
Court, however, would receive a lower level of security than Superior and
actually hears more criminal cases.
2. Isolate Family Court This alternative would involve isolating the Family
Court. Three options are: finishing the two courtrooms in the Bray
Building; Refinishing the Health Building on Ward Street; and converting 50
Douglas Drive. All three of these options would involve separate security
access.
a. Bray Building security would involve screening all people who wish to
enter the two back courtrooms. Because most security problems arise
in Family Law, there is little need to provide this level of security
for the entire courthouse. The two unfinished courtrooms in the Bray
Building could be designed as "high security courtrooms". The cost of
finishing both courtrooms in a non-secure fashion is $1.2 million.
The cost of making one of the courtrooms "high security" would be an
additional $400,000. The Judges are not convinced that this option
leaves enough room in the corridors.
b. Health Building security would also involve screening stations. This
option would cost approximately $1,700,000 for five courtrooms.
Security costs are $211,000 yearly for safety personnel and $40,000
for hardware per screening station. A problem with this idea is the
high costs of moving the Health Department employees currently working
in that building, approximately $400,000 per year.
C. 50 Douglas Drive is currently the Judges preference. The entire
building can be secured with one screening station at a cost of
$40,000 for equipment and $211,000 yearly for safety personnel. Five
courtrooms could be completed in less than one year for approximately
$2,100,000. It would provide a big enough space to house all juvenile
courts in one facility. The County Administrator is currently
researching a purchase option for this facility.
These options have the advantage of putting the solution where the problem
is. Security problems have been identified with Family Law and these
options address that problem.
r
' HAR-106-"90 TUE 10:07 I D:MM BEN I C I A TEL NO:707 747-5643 ##408 P02
/• f'o /
3-5-90 : RECEIVED ,
W,.d -7:00" I .
To. Contra Coria County Hoard of Supervisors MAR ! 61990
PHa BATCHELOR
Subject: Courthouse security measures CLECK SOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CO`....: A OSTA CO.
e ....... ...
Request: This letter and subject matter be placed on the calendar f March
13, 1990
Through Inquiries, it has come to our attention that the final say
regarding security measures within the county courthouse system Is solely
In the hands of the judges, Both Ron and myself have, in fact, met with
fudges Phalen and Spellberg in an attempt to determine the progress. if any,
regarding tighter.security, as well as to discern their overall approach and
attitudes regarding this matter. We both came away with the feeling that, in
their opinion, aH that could be done has been done. We in no way
want to imply that there is a lack of concern on the part of the judges, but
we are just as convinced that, especially now after a second death, the
necessary research and follow-through Is not taking Piave.
Although there is an entire laundry list of questions , the following are
just a few that we feel are Io the point":
1. What are the actual costs and feasibility of closing off all entrances
to the main courthouse building except the main and handicap entrances (all
other doors used as emergency exits only)? We've heard that this is not
practical, and yet we have not seen any actual numbers to support this
opinion.
i
2. We have been told by the judges that there are funds in the budget
to secure the last three courtrooms on the third floor of the Bray building.
Since then, it has been brought to our attention that it may be possible to
secure the entire Bray building without increased costs and, in fact, with
less difficulty. Has this option been reviewed and, if not, why not?
3. Shortly after Jayne's death, the County issued a questionnaire/poll
to all county employees asking for their opinions and input regarding
security measures. Although we have, on several occasions, rcaueited the
results of that poll, to date we have not received them, nor to our knowledge
have they been made public.
It is not our desire. at this time. to cover old around. On the other
hand,we are adamantly convinced that the right hand has no Idea khat the
left hand is doing. It seems as If the Board of Supervisors are continually
deferring to the Sheriff's Office,while the Sheriff`s Office Is deferring to the
Board of Supervisors, and both are, in some fashion, deferring to the judges
(and where does the Grand Jury investigations fit into the picture?).
It is clearly evident that a committee of some sort that is more
responsive to the public and their needs should have the final say. We
acknowledge that a great deal of research has been done, especially on the
part of Roger Davis and staff, but we believe that much of this effort Is either
not reaching the right people or just not bung followed up on -- and many
good intentions and ideas fall between the cracks.
For the above reasons (and more),we respectfully request that the
oversight of securlty measures be turned over to either the Finance
Committee or the Internal Operations Committee and that this maiter be
plaoed on the Board agenda. Furthermore, if possible,we would like to be at
least informally involved in some fashion. It's not as if we have the right
answers, but we know that, after almost two and a half years, the present
Inquiry system just doesn't work and is not getting the job done.
Thank you for your timet
/ --
Ron Romo Steve Ridge