My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2010-10-25
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
AgdaPkt 2010-10-25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2012 12:24:02 PM
Creation date
10/21/2010 6:19:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
10/25/2010
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
204
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
6.1 F <br /> Page 25 <br /> Grand Jury Response <br /> Page 8 <br /> Response: The conclusion is directed towards the San Mateo County Probation <br /> Department. � <br /> 6. Ci Police De arfinent ractices va d�ama�icali across fhe Count . Sharin <br /> P <br /> tY A rY Y Y 9' <br /> and coordinafion of information regarding sexual offenders among the law <br /> enforcement agencies in fhe County is insutficient to effectively control sexual <br /> offender activity. <br /> Response: Previously answered in finding number 5 under "Law Enforcement." <br /> 7. In 2009-2090, if either (a) 1% of fhe County's $80 million con�ribu�ion to the <br /> SherifPs O�ce $160 million budget or (b} 2% of fhe Stafe's Proposition 172 <br /> funding for enhanced law enforcement would have been reprioritized, fhe <br /> Sheriff's O�ce could have operafed a full-time 3-person team dedicated to <br /> sexual offender enforcement. <br /> Response: This conclusion was directed towards the San Mateo County Sheriff's <br /> Office. <br /> RECQMMENDATIQNS: <br /> ?. Coordinafe City Police Department sex offender policies and practices to reach <br /> increased, uniform levels of enforcement throughout the County. <br /> Response: Respondent believes this recommendation is currently in place. As previously stated, <br /> while the number and length of policies may vary by department, the procedures for registering <br /> sex offenders are established within the guidelines of the California Pena1 Code by the California <br /> Department of Justice (DOJ). The standards set forth for registration procedures set by the DOJ <br /> are completely followed by every department within San Mateo County. We agree with the <br /> Grand Jury that the procedures should be consistent and believe the best way to accomplish that <br /> goal is to use the DOJ guidelines. The consistency and coordination of this policy will be <br /> monitored by the County Police Chief's and Sheriff Association. <br /> 2. Reinstafe the SAFE Task Force in par�nership with the San IVlateo Countjr <br /> Sheriff's O�ce by contributing appropriate resources. <br /> This recommendation will not be implemented as it is beyond our control. The San <br /> Mateo County Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Association found great value in the SAFE <br /> Task Force, however that task force was funded and operated by the Department of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.