San Joaquin County Grand Jury


San Joaquin County Grand Jury Complainant Tiffany Anderson

My Complaint


I was the first and only employee interviewed by the 2009-2010 Grand Jury

The whole work investigation began July 2010-2011

2004-2011 Workers Comp AIMS; Board of Trustees, Manager, Assistant Manager, Fish Hatchery Pond Manager, Supervisor Durham, Supervisor Neinhuis, Assistant Supervisor Scott Andres conspired to spray formalin. 

Employer denied employees right to know they were exposing us to formaldehyde.

110 Gallons of Formalin on site annually at the White Slough Facility.  Must read MSDS/SDS and OSHA Federal and State Regulations:

White Slough 2011

Supervisor Bob Durham’s wives obituary

11-17-05 Obituary | Victoria Durham | Lodi Funeral Home, Inc.

Death Retired Supervisor Duane Bridgewater age 59 January 14, 2009 

01-14-09 Duane-Bridgewater Obituary

03-28-10 Obituary Gina Vignolo’s Obituary by the The Record.

08-26-14 Victoria Burnett-Bridgewater Obituary- …ridgewater’s Obituary by the LodiNews.

January 14, 2009 Duane died “Skip” Bridgewater at age 59. Duane’s son Jake was 15 in high school when his father died. Jake was 21and in college when his mother committed suicide.   

Damages should be awarded to son Jake Bridgewater for the death of both parents total  amount  $20,000,000.00 

Indexed by year are Duane’s union and employee records bargaining for safety measures. Jack Fiori retired mosquito manager and Mike Manna both trustees over 20 years. Jack told me to sue the district.

11-27-01 Duane’s Assigned Anger Management Bullied by Board and Manager 

John Stroh and Eddie Lucheccsi removed Supervisor Bridgewaters’s wife from the Mosquito Trustee Position she was assigned by the Board of Trustees. John Stroh was firm to enforce no conflicts of interest.

Vicki’s Application below

06-01-00 SEIU to Mike Manna wages and Health Care

20 Employees Denied Knowledge and Medical Care For Exposure OSHA: Hazardous by definition of Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200 ) 

Access to Records.
(1) General.
(A) Whenever an employee or designated representative requests access to a record, the employer shall assure that access is provided in a reasonable time, place, and manner, but in no event later that fifteen (15) days after the request for access is made.
Claims handled through carrier AIMS and Defense Firm Stockwell, Harris Lead Attorney Eric Helphrey 


2006-2010 Don Meidinger heart attack verbal assault by Bob Durham

03-23-07 Smart Risk Management Training their smart risk idea was to assign two men to a special training for harassment after Bob assaulted Don inducing a heart attack.

While Don returns to work and fights work comp claims? 

All AIMS, Stockwell , ERMA Risk, manager forced alone with his attacker Bob Durham 

03-24-09 Meidinger vs SJCM&VCD Stockwell Eric Helphrey Objects to QME DR. McHenry

04-01-09 Meidinger vs SJCM&VCD Stockwell Eric Helphrey

2006-2010 Tom Beard;

05-20-09 Tom Beard Compromise Stockwell Helphrey

06-02-09 Tom Beard WCAB Order Approving Compromise And Release

2004-2018 Tiffany Anderson Evidence

01-31-08 Bob Durham Retaliatory Evaluation Tiffany Anderson

01-31-08 Keith Neinhuis Retaliatory Evaluation Tiffany Anderson.

11-13-09 Employees’ Assigned Work Numbers

02-11-09 Mary & my meeting with Phibbs regarding Harassment

03-26-09 Injury Knee expenses

I am ambushed by John Stroh and Eddie Lucchesi who have been retaliating against me since I called ERMA regarding employee violations and hostile working conditions. As I walked out of the meeting I informed John I was going to take action against his retaliation for not lying in Don Meidinger’s assault from Bob Durham. I called the hot line number below and it went straight to John Stroh.

08-13-09_General Staff Meeting ERMA HotLine

Timeline_Evidence_Witnesses.2A1-5 011514

QME Report

Documentation of Significant Events (version 1)

Loretta_Documentation Indexes-011414

Anderson Grades

Work Comp Claims Cash

Janine Durham 2007 Neck. Dog Bite. Very hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, . Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant, sensitizer, permeator), of eye contact (corrosive). Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive). Severe over-exposure can result in death. Inflammation of the eye is characterized by redness, watering, and itching.

Joe Sarale 2009 Hospital admittance and stay difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, coughing, sneezing, wheezing rhinitis, chest tightness, pulmonary edema, bronchitis, tracheitis, laryngospasm, pneumonia. Broke Right Arm.

Tiffany Anderson 2011 US Health Works Dr Jon Eck, Manual

03-18-11 Don Meidinger’s second heart surgery released 03-22-11

09-17-09 Chet Somera

04-09-10 Tiffany Anderson Spoke to Scott Fichtner DA office inquired why grand jury hasn’t looked into complaint I filed

04-23-10 Interview San Joaquin County Grand Jury Chet Somera and Trudy Reed at Lodi Police Department to Interview employee #306 Tiffany Anderson of San Joaquin County Mosquito & Vector Control

07-28-10 Memo From John Stroh All Techs Sacramento 20 minute interview with AIMS Stockwell re Don Meidinger and Bob Durham and Janine Esau. Cancelled.

08-26-10 Tiffany Anderson Subpoenaed SJC WCAB Don Meidinger v Mosquito Bob Durham Janine

Work Comp Claims Handled by AIMS Stockwell, Harris Fraud Ignored by District Attorney’s office of Tori Salazar.

Don had met with the Grand Jury prior to his surgery. I know this because his testimony and evidence initiated a criminal investigation by the district attorney’s office.

4/13/11 Gene Andal sends four emails to me in March. Hostility Increases at Work. Grand Jury begins Interviews with Roy, Janine and Emily

05-13-11 Eddie Lucchesi Woodbridge Irrigation District Director files claim

06-29-11 Tiffany Anderson injured on Van Vleit Dairy John Stroh denied DWC-1 for knee or Exposure Grand Jury oblivious

08-02-11 Report to Grand Jury by Martinez

08-15-11 Grand Jury Sheriff-Coronor_Response.pdf

San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District 2009 Investigation 2010 Findings 2018

San Joaquin County Grand Jury

2011/12 Case No. 0311

The Grand Jury investigated a complaint alleging several issues at the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District (District). The complaint alleges verbal sexual harassment, hostile work environment, management retaliation and nepotism. During the investigation other issues were alleged relating to the secret and illegal spraying of a toxic chemical in the mosquito fish ponds, and failure to report the spraying to the proper reporting agencies.

During the investigation, an allegation was made the District was performing illegal spraying of a carcinogenic chemical on the mosquito fish in the ponds at the District Fish Hatchery located at White Slough. The complaint further alleged the District was not reporting the spraying of the pesticide to the proper authorities as was required. Because the allegation was of an illegal nature, the Grand Jury referred this to the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s office for review?

Introduction to Pesticide Labels

Pesticide product labels provide critical information about how to safely and legally handle and use pesticide products. Unlike most other types of product labels, pesticide labels are legally enforceable, and all of them carry the statement: “It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” In other words, the label is the law.

A key function of the pesticide product label is to manage the potential risks from pesticides. In support of that function:

  • state and federal agencies enforce pesticide label requirements;
  • educational programs certify pesticide users; and
  • pesticide users read and follow the label directions.

Rights Denied Notified August 2011 by San Joaquin County Grand Jury Referral to District Attorney Criminal Investigation.

07-06-12 Lodi News Grand Jury Story

07-07-12 GJ Lodi News Sex Haras

07-10-12 GJ Lodi News Board medical


San Joaquin County Grand Jury

Follow-up Report to the
2011-2012 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Case No. 0311 San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District


This report describes the summary from the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report including the background of their investigation. Described herein are the methods the 2012-2013 Grand Jury used to determine if the agency investigated responded appropriately to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury’s recommendations. The 2011-2012 Grand Jury findings and recommendations as well as the agency’s responses are listed in this report and is followed by the 2012-2013 Grand Jury’s follow-up results.

The legal advisor for the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District submitted the initial response to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report. A copy of the original agency response may be located on the San Joaquin County Grand Jury web-site under Previous Grand Jury Rosters and Reports at


The 2011-2012 Grand Jury investigated the San Joaquin Mosquito and Vector Control District (District) due to a complaint alleging verbal sexual harassment, hostile work environment, management retaliation and nepotism. During the investigation, other issues were alleged relating to the secret and illegal spraying of a toxic chemical in the mosquito fish ponds and failure to report the spraying to the proper reporting agencies.


The San Joaquin Mosquito and Vector Control District is an independent special district that provides many vital programs in the county. The District manages the mosquito population levels that help reduce the spread of viruses to humans and animals.

According to the California Health and Safety Code Section 2002(K), Vector means any insect or animal capable of transmitting the causative agent of human disease or capable of producing human discomfort or injury including, but not limited to, mosquitoes, flies, mites, ticks, other arthropods, rodents and other vertebrates.

The governing body of the District is composed of 11 Board of Trustee members; seven members are appointed by and represent each incorporated city in the county and four members are appointed by the County Board of Supervisor’s and represent the county at large. The Board employs a manager who oversees program functions, hires and supervises staff. The major funding sources to the District are derived from property taxes and assessments. On- going real estate foreclosures have resulted in an increased workload of neglected properties for the District to maintain.

Method of Follow-Up Investigation

The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report and the files regarding this investigation, conducted interviews, requested additional information and conducted a site visit to determine if the District responded appropriately to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury recommendations.

Findings/Recommendations/Responses 2012-2013 Grand Jury Results

2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F1: Sexual harassment had been committed in the form of rude, vulgar, and lewd remarks. These remarks were made on several occasions in the presence of several employees and met the criteria as specified in the District Policy #2210.

Agency response: “The District disagrees in part with this finding. Management received a report that an employee had told lewd jokes to other employees. The reporting person was not present at the time of the alleged incident and the incident was reported to have occurred well before the report was made. No one present at the alleged incident ever reported it or complained to management. Because no complaint was ever made by those present, the alleged incident, if it did in fact occur, does not appear to have risen to the level of creating an ‘intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment’. However, such behavior, regardless of whether it created a hostile working environment, is in violation of Policy No. 2210 and the alleged violator was counseled not to engage in such behavior. Management did report to the Grand Jury a separate incident involving inappropriate banter. Those involved were counseled and to management’s knowledge no further instances have occurred.”

2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R1 – Review the effectiveness of the District’s current Sexual Harassment Policy and take appropriate steps to improve the training.

2011-2012 Grand Jury Recommendation R2 – The District’s annual prevention of Sexual Harassment training be given as a separate program.

Agency response to Recommendations R1 and R2: “Management considers the current Sexual Harassment Policy to be sufficient. Regarding training, the District complies with California law by sending all employees in a supervisorial role to attend 2 hours of Sexual Harassment Training on a biennial basis and provides annual in-house training to each employee on Harassment in the Workplace, which includes Sexual Harassment Prevention and Sexual Discrimination. Management is aware of one actual case of inappropriate sexual bantering and one reported case of inappropriate sexual comments and jokes over a period of 20 years. Currently management trains its employees on Sexual Harassment Prevention training in conjunction with other mandated safety/policy training subjects. Management will provide its next scheduled Sexual Harassment Prevention training as a stand-alone program.”

The 2012-2013 Grand Jury reviewed the District’s current sexual harassment training program and reviewed documentation indicating its training program is approved by an organization specializing in sexual harassment training. The District provided information documenting their training program. The Grand Jury also reviewed documentation showing the District’s stand-alone training program had been completed, who attended and who conducted the training. The Grand Jury requires no further action.

2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F2: The Grand Jury found no evidence to support a claim of retaliation against the complaining employee.

Agency response: “The District agrees with the finding.”

2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F3: The Nepotism Policy #2230 applies to new applicants only.

Agency response: “The District agrees with the finding.”

2011-2012 Grand Jury Finding F4: There was no evidence of criminal violations occurring based on the review by the District Attorney’s Office.

Agency response: “The District agrees with the finding.”


The 2012-2013 Grand Jury determined there was sufficient evidence and documentation confirming that the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District met all of the recommendations made by the 2011-2012 Grand Jury.


Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929).

07-20-12 Response re SJC Mosquito and Vector Control District_072012

Follow Up Report 2012-2013

11-20-12 Lodi News Ross Farrow trustee health benefits

2012-2013 Case No. 1112 District Board Ignores the Peoples’ Right to be informed

Mosquito District Board of Trustees Ignores the People’s’ Right to be Informed 2012-2013 Case No. 1112 Summary

In 1953 the California State Legislature recognized the public’s right to know what actions legislative bodies were voting on before the actual vote took place. The Legislature enacted the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.) which, among other provisions, required legislative bodies to post agendas not less than 72 hours before a meeting with descriptions of all proposed actions in sufficient detail so that the public could understand what was being voted on. This requirement applies to all local governments in the State, including all special districts.

When a legislative body circumvents the requirements of the Brown Act, when actions are taken that are not clearly explained to the public, and when legislative members themselves do not understand what they are voting on, the public’s trust of honest governance begins to collapse. By observation, review of documents and sworn testimony the actions of the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District (District) and its Board of Trustees (District Board) bring into question its commitment to transparency and compliance with this State law. The 2012-2013 San Joaquin County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) suggests that the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors (Board of Supervisors)exercise all pertinent authority to impose requirements upon the District to permit the public greater access to the District’s meeting agendas and reports. In addition, the appropriate authorizing bodies should consider adopting term limits to ensure that fresh ideas are brought before the District Board. The Grand Jury also has concerns about whether having a separate district with a separate board as the legislative body is the most effective structure for the present and future needs of the County.

2013 Grand Jury (2012-2013) Informational Report Case No. 0212  

The Great Unwatched – San Joaquin County’s Special Districts 2012-2013 Case No. 0212 – Informational Report Summary

Special Districts are authorized by the by the State of California and/or the Local Agency Formation Commission; after their creation, special districts become independent and, seemingly, unwatched. An initial review by the 2012-2013 Grand Jury (Grand Jury) was intended to verify that all independent special districts within the county were operating in a manner that was in the best interests of the tax payers and their respective constituents. The Grand Jury was unable to meet this goal because of the complexity of the task and its limited term of service. Although there are administrative agencies that address the technical aspects of each district’s operation, there remains a need for greater oversight of these independent special districts to ensure their policies and procedures are complete, current, transparent and in compliance with applicable laws. The Grand Jury began the investigative process but quickly realized that it knew little about special districts. Much of its initial effort was directed towards becoming familiar with what special districts were, why they existed, how they provided services, how they were funded and what forms of oversight special districts received. This informational report is the result of a survey completed by all San Joaquin County independent special districts, document reviews as well as interviews conducted with eight districts by the Grand Jury.

05-28-13 Mosquito_district_criticized_by_grand_jury_News_10_TV

Channel 10 destroyed the video

07-17-13 San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District board responds to grand jury – Lodi News.pdf

05/28/14 USCF  Aunt Gloria My Mom  Me Loretta

05/29/14 UCSF Loretta Moore and I stayed. John said he could not come. When I call him he reveals a lie he attended his grandsons graduation.

07/01/14 UCSF Me and Mom alone

07/02/14 UCSF Testing for Mom

07/03/14 UCSF Testing for Mom

07/04/14 UCSF Testing for Mom

07/05/14 Left mom at  grandma’s

07/16/14 UCSF Me and Mom alone

07/17/14 UCSF Testing for Mom

07/18/14 UCSF Testing for Mom



02-02-15 SJ Mosquito Dist response to 1112

02-02-15 SJ Mosquito Dist response to 1112 Districts Financial Audit

April 7, 2015 at 6:51pm

Kathleen if u know how to post today’s BOS meeting can you tag Tracy Espinosa Sue Kizer Tiffany Anderson and me?


05-08-15 Eley SJ Mosquito Dist amended response to 1112

06-19-15 San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District distributing free mosquitofish – News

San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District distributing free mosquitofish By Christina Cornejo/News-Sentinel Staff Writer | Posted: Friday, June 19, 2015 10:53 pm

The San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District will be distributing free mosquitofish to the residents of Lodi, Stockton, Tracy, Manteca, Escalon, Lathrop, Ripon and the surrounding San Joaquin County areas between June 23 and 26.

The giveaway in Lodi will take place from 12:45 to 2:45 p.m. June 23 at the Softball Complex parking lot at 401 N. Stockton St.

Residents will be asked to provide a name, address and location where fish will be placed. A maximum of 15 fish will be provided to each resident while supplies last. Ideal places to use mosquitofish are in ornamental ponds, neglected swimming pools and animal water troughs.

For more information, call the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District at 209-982- 4675 or visit

09-22-15 Tori Salazar 2 N Avena prevent real estate fraud 09:18:15

Mosquitofish help vanquish mosquitoes, disease in San Joaquin County

San Joaquin County Self-Governing Special Districts

Who is Watching the Cookie Jar?

San Joaquin County Self-Governing Special Districts Mosquito and Vector Control District 2016:17 Case No. 0416 Amended Report

2016-2017 Case No. 0416

0416 amended report

There are over 200 special districts in San Joaquin County, including 106 independent self- governing special districts. The remaining districts fall under the authority of the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors with specific financial requirements and mandated guidelines.

Independent self-governing special districts are agencies within the county performing governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. These districts can include a county service area, a maintainance district or area, an improvement district or zone, or any other area where a property tax rate is levied to pay for a service or improvement benefitting that region.

Funding for special districts in San Joaquin County is primarily acquired through property tax apportionment. These are public funds and should be guarded from potential fraud and abuse. Although financial protections are in place, misuses can and have taken place. Dishonesty cannot be totally prevented but can be anticipated and safeguarded against. Using best practices and good financial oversight can mitigate theft. The Grand Jury investigation focused on audits, fraud and best practices in financial oversight and management.

The Grand Jury expanded its research to include a sampling of self-governing special districts’ policies/procedures to find other instances of misuse of funds.

The San Joaquin County independent self-governing special districts and their functions are listed below:

Type of District

Number of Districts`

Function of District



Levee maintenance



Fire suppression



Water provision

Water Agencies


Provide potable water



Flood control



Cemetery maintenance

Community Services


General services



Sewer services



Flood control

Mosquito Abatement Stockton Port Resource Conservation Storm Drainage Miscellaneous Districts

1 Vector control    Fund_20Position_20Risk_20Pool_15-16

1 Port administration
1 Conservation promotion 1 Flood control
6 Variety of services

10-30-08 districts_reports_0607specialdistricts


0416 County Auditor Controller Response.pdf

03-21-16 San Joaquin County Self-Governing Special Districts Mosquito and Vector Control District  2016:17 Case No. 0416 Amended Report



04-12-17 LAFCo response to 2015-16 follow up report

03-15-17 MARCH 2017 BOT adj

08-22-17 San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors’ Response to the 2016-2017 Final Report copy

San Joaquin County Sheriff Continues to Deny Allegations Made in ……/san-joaquin-county-sheriff-continues-to-deny-allegations-made-in-path… 

Dec 11, 2017 – SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY — San Joaquin County Sheriff Steve Moore continues to deny allegations that he tried to influence pathologists’ work in the coroner’s office. Doctors Susan Parsonand Bennet Omalu both sent their letters of resignation in the last month, accusing Moore of acting unethically.”

12-15-17 Frank Gayaldo DA Sheriff



Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *