[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6470137,"mediaKeyId","5780042-fe6d776a785f3b4f99e98cbc3e13de15","parentId",5780042,"title","Zoom commenter accuses district attorney; county staff remind public of legal limits on case discussion","audioSeconds",226,"startMs",978000,"endMs",1204000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5780042-fe6d776a785f3b4f99e98cbc3e13de15&start=978&end=1204","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5780042-fe6d776a785f3b4f99e98cbc3e13de15/thumbnail_978000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6470137/Santa-Clara-County/California/Zoom-commenter-accuses-district-attorney-county-staff-remind-public-of-legal-limits-on-case-discussion","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6470137-bb9611599cfd89404fe3f4a860cb8645/orig.mp4?Expires=1775405517&Signature=Rkre1~kD-DYhO2A7p8Mbg0NeTZkLF~lYcs7v0qJUbtvmi7-YguOHc4igaRDsRZPWerfWIPezi4Xb63Met1QYC9kg3fR45BeBgU2KKv~HDRkvUdoNbuF7AhFiv8cdGwp9a2vBcciY05g5qyuo3APN1BdpKOicBWmzl1EMo0Zl~31nvBLFZnFocnrepB7REHmd5A82ZW-UqomIeI5PYNNleWwB1~ibuU1g1k2oS5CNd8ZsRziAFKueuf1B-B~MXkNA1oP4jetU9hVOUP4IhypFt9QXRN9CqTyrRZTsPD7NBtQiTGLao5rAsAnb0uEyp-EJ6SconAV8uQM2OSNa1ARIHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Santa Clara County","date","2025-09-13T06:19:16Z","article","During the meeting’s public‑comment period on Sept. 12, a Zoom participant identified as “Parent” accused District Attorney Jeff Rosen by name of using criminal charges to retaliate against a parent and said Rosen’s office created a “culture of fear.” The speaker suggested a petition search term: “d a Jeff Rosen petition *** trafficking.”

The commenter said the district attorney’s tagline “safety and justice for all” was not accurate and alleged the DA’s actions had led to further assaults against the commenter and a cover‑up of abuse of the commenter’s children. “He filed charges against me in such a way that it further incentivized more assaults against me, and it also covered up the ****** abuse of my children,” the speaker said on Zoom.

County staff responded with a general statement describing legal limits on public discussion of individual child‑abuse investigations. A county representative told the committee that California law prohibits disclosure of information related to investigations of suspected child abuse and neglect and that child‑welfare departments must immediately cross‑report abuse to law enforcement and the district attorney. The county statement said the county takes allegations seriously and conducts cross‑agency responses through the Department of Family and Children Services, local law enforcement, the child‑advocacy system and the district attorney’s office.

The county also notified the speaker that the subject could not be discussed further at that meeting under statutory confidentiality rules and that the speaker would not be permitted to speak again on the same topic during that session.

The committee did not take any formal action in response to the public comment during the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","County of Santa Clara Public Safety and Justice Committee September 12, 2025 10:00 a.m.","oneSentenceSummary","A public commenter accused District Attorney Jeff Rosen of mishandling abuse allegations and called for his removal; county staff responded that California law limits disclosure about child‑abuse investigations and described mandatory cross‑reporting procedures.","taxTitle","Santa Clara County, California","taxId",2855,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6470142,"Probation reports grievances data for Jan–Jun 2025; two youths accounted for majority of filings",355,3258000,3613000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5780042-fe6d776a785f3b4f99e98cbc3e13de15&start=3258&end=3613","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5780042-fe6d776a785f3b4f99e98cbc3e13de15/thumbnail_3258000.jpg","/articles/6470142/Santa-Clara-County/California/Probation-reports-grievances-data-for-JanJun-2025-two-youths-accounted-for-majority-of-filings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6470142-c536fad5cb60f6f7ec7170d8b787186d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775405517&Signature=LFvhLNKnVYHtVZKIuVqtLzHipHHmFmekw8e9r-vbIz-r5kN~kREWqdhNxLvKY4F3zdlAp79qZG-IjK3SSp6BGstFYa5oiBF59EE1o6AnGkr8JIOvkBLQaI1S8eHTFg4lQC0ooUX34D7deV4H1VXi-9HgLbCpWmi~N2jdzs-m0CKA7v2XnjssxSMl6WALX~lBeK~SuFXP04362VGD2nFu139rdZts2VNH9cRHIt15vN7rtks6LWJysCcZs3qODd07fQM2vcY21N1WV3bwEXudyrNTXigO3r8Xzi2Kpvb0c4RNsg9mdhom76XD0JmQTvt-F40f7Tzo20GNGkRbR-a95A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Probation department staff told the Public Safety and Justice Committee on Sept. 12 that between Jan. 1 and June 30, 2025, county juvenile facilities received 83 grievances from 28 unique youths and that two youths submitted the bulk of those filings.

Li Weiwei, a senior research and evaluation specialist, said the reporting period covered 72 grievances at Juvenile Hall and 11 at William James Ranch, filed by 21 unique youths at Juvenile Hall and seven at James Ranch. “In total, we have 28 unique youth who submitted either 1 or multiple grievances,” Li said.

Presenters explained the formal grievance process: youth are given instructions, a video and a handbook on arrival; grievance forms are available in every unit; submissions may be made to staff or a locked box; supervisors must provide an initial response within three days and managers provide final resolution within 10 days (with extensions and immediate handling for health/safety items).

Probation managers described the distribution of complaints. Daniel Cortez, institutions manager for Juvenile Hall, summarized categories and noted that two youths accounted for most filings: “At juvenile hall, we had 1 youth who submitted 30 grievances … and another youth that submitted 16 grievances,” Cortez said. Staff said many top complaint categories were “felt mistreated,” services (for example, missed phone calls or missed therapist availability) and staffing concerns (including conflicts with assigned staff). At James Ranch, the top categories were “felt mistreated” and loss of privilege.

Resolution metrics: The department reported 57 percent of grievances at Juvenile Hall were resolved at the supervisor level and 43 percent at the manager level. Average time from submission to initial response was reported as 0 days at Juvenile Hall (median/mean not specified) and 5 days at James Ranch; trainers clarified the James Ranch averages were influenced by school‑related investigations that were paused until school staff could respond. Removing those cases, the James Ranch averages would be within expected timelines (initial response 1 day, final resolution 2 days).

Follow‑up and supports: Managers said staff routinely follow up with youths who file grievances — even when a case is deemed unfounded — to check on safety and connect youths to services, behavioral health, school staff or community‑based organizations. Staff said referrals to behavioral health, school liaisons or mentors are used for youths who require further support.

Committee requests: Members asked staff to include additional breakdowns in future reports, including (1) which grievance categories resulted in corrective actions, (2) whether length of stay correlates with grievance filings and (3) more demographic context for repeat filers. Vice Chairperson Lee asked for attention to female youth because the two highest‑filing youths were female and female youth make up a small portion of the custody population; staff said both high‑filing youths were female and agreed to include additional detail in future reports.

Action: The committee voted to receive the juvenile custodial grievances report and asked probation to expand future reporting to include the requested breakdowns; recorded votes showed Vice Chairperson Lee and Chairperson Ellerberg voting in favor and the motion carried.","The probation department reported 83 total grievances submitted at juvenile facilities between Jan. 1 and June 30, 2025, detailed the grievance process, and described follow‑up supports; the committee asked for deeper breakdowns of founded corrective actions and demographic context for repeat filers.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6470147,"County receives annual restorative justice update; DA cautions limits for domestic and child‑abuse cases",942,2189000,3131000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5780042-fe6d776a785f3b4f99e98cbc3e13de15&start=2189&end=3131","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5780042-fe6d776a785f3b4f99e98cbc3e13de15/thumbnail_2189000.jpg","/articles/6470147/Santa-Clara-County/California/County-receives-annual-restorative-justice-update-DA-cautions-limits-for-domestic-and-childabuse-cases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6470147-1bf0428ed4cd79b556f5dda8fbb53604/orig.mp4?Expires=1775405517&Signature=XxuXGQyKNQQSLwYJ470BsSL3-ytDYMpZg~wcS2CtetUKaL2MQKXsgbuTll2HLlQW3Tx~x2Q24ZLWYFnnSXwN-jMpIz4DQCJa1pVQqcW8fmzKdLhrIpx1oiMa0d2wOJ~eo9NMWhWZSqehoN~Ga~oEBDtumjMPb-qLymeppydqS01fGjA2KRLeZXtURcEDDqR~dqtdSNWQOADUjrP4bCnba~1z3j7JaIGvY2FGRbaQy~woHegdv1mkkTPHKTeigfF4y96pdvGA-KeFt3EOdnoUi5HiGa7JRF1pWiAT74JmfXOxCfZxY5kVGSBaoiBGnjFiLKnt5Ezd2XYso0Lz~ENusw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County officials presented an annual summary of Santa Clara County restorative justice programs on Sept. 12 and the committee approved receipt of the report with two off‑agenda follow‑up requests: recidivism impact data and a breakdown of funding sources and potential vulnerability to proposed federal legislation (referred to as HR 1).

Casey Halkin, deputy county executive, described restorative justice programs across probation, reentry services, the sheriff’s office, county counsel’s Victim Offender Mediation (VOM) program, the South County Youth Task Force and the district attorney and public defender offices. “What restorative justice really functions on is the accountability between the person who experienced the harm and the person who committed the harm in order to bring another level of healing,” Halkin said.

The report included summary metrics for several programs. County staff said the VOM mediators engaged 242 victims, offenders and other parties referred by probation; approximately 60 people participated in mediation sessions. The South County Youth Task Force reported an 87 percent graduation rate from its diversion program and that 92 percent of graduates were offense‑free after one year; committee members described those figures as evidence the model may reduce youth recidivism and foster restorative practices in schools.

District Attorney Jeff Rosen cautioned the committee that restorative justice is generally appropriate in cases where both parties are willing and that it is often used in less‑serious cases. “They tend to be cases that are, less serious, frankly,” Rosen said, and he urged caution about applying restorative approaches to domestic violence or child‑abuse cases, noting historical misuses of family‑reunification strategies in other systems.

Committee action: A member moved to receive the report and requested two off‑agenda reports: (1) recidivism impact data and (2) identification of funding sources — including which federal grants might be affected by HR 1, state grants and county general‑fund reliance. Vice Chairperson Lee seconded; the committee recorded affirmative votes by Vice Chairperson Lee and Chairperson Ellerberg and the motion carried.

Next steps: County staff agreed to return with the requested materials and to provide more detailed program data as available. The report’s authors noted restorative services are supported by a mix of private, state and federal grants and county general fund allocations and are not universally mandated by statute.","The committee received an annual report summarizing restorative justice programs across county departments, heard impact figures from South County programs and asked staff for off‑agenda reports on recidivism data and funding vulnerability tied to federal legislation.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6470152,"County details CGL technical and operational assessments as part of jail transformation plan",945,1281000,2226000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5780042-fe6d776a785f3b4f99e98cbc3e13de15&start=1281&end=2226","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5780042-fe6d776a785f3b4f99e98cbc3e13de15/thumbnail_1281000.jpg","/articles/6470152/Santa-Clara-County/California/County-details-CGL-technical-and-operational-assessments-as-part-of-jail-transformation-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6470152-726d4caf04ca06b6ce8400e8556a6df9/orig.mp4?Expires=1775405517&Signature=RB~tsD-LIoKDBwSCrlhmxTc5Ysq1lRsuA7i~UnwC7X5cmri6fs4uEO0eq25KLnr8X0jSbGMVleaLVlunsbRekiLBcirQjtK7xM75Ul31KH9bQbaRJgmiVRQRKjfcYx0gzY5MiWzAjl0f9drS~LvduIE~Xcki4k7ZRN4OiJcQ1J1qUingwUvpcf9aZpFXBvhflYBYTvwCuDNpDhZ0nddqqV4kYZz7RCWk3360X-waulXFVK6u7BJB7EEWA-nDQJX57wZjb76EYqKqub1qxxF-bos9f4SIm5~mfM5ICfYxZeNP0HU0~Z5T7xY0L4ynfSr25M9baXZRzhr1KUZtjCYymw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Santa Clara County officials on Sept. 12 told the county Public Safety and Justice Committee that a consultant-led technical and operational assessment of county jail facilities is under way and is scheduled to produce phased recommendations by May 2026.

The deputy county executive’s office said the county’s contract with CGL includes two parts: a technical assessment of building condition and an operational assessment of how custody, health and court functions operate across facilities. “The technical assessment … looked at the actual facility in terms of its condition,” Consuelo Hernandez, deputy county executive, told the committee. “The second component … is the operational assessment.”

The county emphasized the operational work involved tours, two-day assessments at individual sites and one-on-one interviews with staff. Hernandez said the Elmwood site’s assessment included a six-hour tour and interviews with representatives from custody health services, facilities and fleet, the sheriff’s custody bureau, county counsel and others. She said the technical inspections concluded at the end of July and a draft technical report is expected later this year.

Why it matters: County leaders said the work will frame a phased plan for facility upgrades or replacement and inform staff and community expectations about timing and scope. The committee was told a final set of recommendations, including suggested phasing for any demolition or remodel work, is expected in May 2026.

Officials said CGL will also hold confidential interviews with roughly 15 to 20 stakeholder groups, including people with lived experience, faith-based providers, service providers, probation and juvenile-probation staff, pretrial services, public defender and district attorney offices, court administrators, and sheriff’s office leaders. “They will also be conducting interviews with about 15 or 20 different stakeholder groups,” Hernandez said. County staff said some interviews will be conducted without county staff present to provide a “safe space.”

Committee members asked for specifics on timeline and phasing. Supervisor Lee and others pressed for clarity on when a recommended phasing plan might be available; county staff reiterated that the May 2026 report will include options (for example, “demo this building or we should remodel this building”) and suggested that each recommended project would have a separate implementation timeline.

Committee members also raised operational constraints tied to facility footprints. Hernandez noted Elmwood’s 62-acre campus and described how dispersed facilities require more staffing and transport to courts and medical appointments, limiting opportunities to consolidate services. The committee discussed historic-preservation considerations: staff said one or two Elmwood buildings may be designated cultural resources and that designation will be addressed in the report.

Action: The committee voted to introduce the county executive’s report on the jail facility transformation process. The roll call recorded Vice Chairperson Lee and Chairperson Ellerberg voting in favor; the motion carried.

What’s next: County staff said the CGL contract work will continue through the fall and that a fuller community-engagement summary will be provided to the full board in November, with the project concluding in May 2026 with recommendations and a phased plan for next steps.","Santa Clara County staff described a two-part contract with consultant CGL to assess jail facilities’ physical condition and operations, outlined stakeholder interviews and a May 2026 recommendation timeline, and received a motion to introduce the report.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Zoom commenter accuses district attorney; county staff remind public of legal limits on case discussion

Probation reports grievances data for Jan–Jun 2025; two youths accounted for majority of filings

County receives annual restorative justice update; DA cautions limits for domestic and child‑abuse cases

County details CGL technical and operational assessments as part of jail transformation plan