Alpine County Grand Jury
2008-2009
Findings & Recommendations
55 findings
F1:
There is no evidence of any formalized written policy and procedures manual or similar type of document for use in training or reference for DPW/CDD employees. Specific job knowledge and position training for County operations is currently most often transferred verbally. Alpine is a small County operation with limited staff. Job information is not provided in a consistent written document. This impairs the ability for employees to temporarily cover another job, provide refresher training, and/or train for promotion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The GJ recommends the County develop and adopt a standardized format of written policy and procedures and system of updates for each of its departments. These documents would contain specific job position knowledge and County operations for new employee training, refresher training, and training for promotion. [F1]
F2:
The DPW office building at 50 Diamond Valley Road is at least 50-years old and currently has more assigned employees and contract employees than can comfortably and effectively use the building. This includes, but is not limited to, the lack of adequate space for building plan review, ADA compliance, and public restrooms, outdated and often overloaded electrical system, dedicated break room, and other employee comfort areas found in most modern office spaces.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The GJ recommends the County review and update the Alpine County Strategic Plan – Facilities, 2002, and develop a capital projects funding mechanism. This would include the DPW/CDD office facilities at 50 Diamond Road. The GJ further recommends two short-term alternatives to provide the appropriate modern office space, employee break rooms, restrooms, plan check space, ADA compliance, and public access. 14 a. Lease/purchase option modular office space for the current location (GJ preference), b. Amend the existing BLM patent (lease) to utilize Turtle Rock offices and relocate the Diamond Valley Road “one-stop-shop” services to Turtle Rock. [F2, F3, F4] 2. DPW - Construction Project Management The GJ as part of the overall reviews of DPW and Director-DPW investigated several construction projects. Most of the projects were begun after the arrival of the current Director-DPW hired in November 2005. The GJ fully understands it is the nature of construction that there are events, problems, issues of timing, and even weather, despite the best efforts and qualified experience of those responsible, cannot always be planned for. However, it appeared to the GJ that there were many problems, project delays, budget overruns, disputes within County operations and Departments regarding County construction projects. Additionally, there was false reporting of projects being completed to the BOS and compliance issues. It appeared the Director–DPW failed in his project management responsibilities. The GJ was initially unconcerned with the minor maintenance and repair issues of County buildings and facilities. However, looking at governmental operations, including the use of taxpayers’ money, was of more interest to the GJ, in addition to what was “the usual” and normal way construction projects were managed by the DPW. The DPW is the County department charged with following Federal and State laws, along with County policies and practices in regards to construction work. Following are summaries of the projects the Grand Jury reviewed: Markleeville Library Park Upgrade (Pre-2005 – Present): This project has been reported as complete by the Director-DPW to the BOS; it is not complete. The project was a carry-over from the previous Director-DPW and was assumed by the new Director when he was hired in November 2005. During most of 2006, this project involved a total upgrade to the grass area adjacent to the Markleeville Library. The major aspects of this work included steps to access Laramie Street, the construction of a “ramada” -bandstand/gazebo type structure with electrical service, paver walkway, a child/adult dual height drinking fountain with a pet watering station on the lowest level, topiary and other landscaping upgrade work, upper slope steps with handrails for walking access into the park and a large multiple-station children’s playground with the required safety ground covering. The park upgrade used $175,465 of “Per Capita Grant Program” funding from the State of California – Department of Parks and Recreation. This included a State approved increase from the original grant amount of $121,000 due to added costs for ADA compliance and landscaping. The final anticipated completion of this long-awaited project was visually a tremendous improvement from its previous appearance. It would provide a professionally landscaped park setting that has been enjoyed by many adults, children, and pets including musical and picnic events using the new ramada structure. It also better defined the separation between the Park and the Alpine County District Attorney’s Office. Although this project was largely paid for by State taxpayers’ it was taxpayers’ money none the less. The special use drinking fountain was purchased for approximately $3,500. Due to an improper initial installation, a major repair had to be done within a year. The estimated cost the GJ determined are approximately $4,000-$5,000 for the repair of the water fountain installation which was paid for by the DPW and the County. This repair was completely avoidable if the DPW obtained the appropriate permit, inspections to ensure the installation was done according to the manufacturer’s instructions. These are all responsibilities that come under the category of “project management.” The project requires completion of ADA compliance (parking signs, ramp access, and proper handrail placement in several locations), stairway treads, and a correction to the undersized electrical service and outlet to the ramada. It appears that a higher priority was given to funding over $30,000 of playground equipment, instead of providing ADA accessibility compliance and completing the project. Alpine County Museum – Carriage House/Blacksmith Shop Display (2007- present): This project has been reported as complete by the Director-DPW to the BOS; it is not complete. This project has a deadline with the funding by a State – “Per Capita Grant” which requires completion and inspection by March 30, 2008. As of August and September 2007, the Director-DPW submitted plans that went through two (2) plan reviews by a third-party plan checking firm. The plans were returned as “incomplete” with code required information missing such as “scope of work,” architect/engineer wet-stamps and signatures, title block information, and required ADA compliance measures. As requested by the DPW, the Alpine County Building Department provided a “second opinion” in September 2007 concerning the consultants plan check comments. The Building Department concurred with the consultants’
F3:
The previous use of office space for the former Building and Planning Departments at Turtle Rock Park were not keeping the terms of the Patent (“lease”) of that property with the Bureau of Land Management, hereinafter referred to as BLM. The Turtle Rock Park-BLM Patent #04-70-0212, Document Serial #S1776 would need to be amended and approved by the BLM if the Turtle Rock Park Offices were ever reoccupied.
F4:
The County currently has a facilities plan (Alpine County Strategic Plan – Facilities, 2002) approved by the BOS on August 20, 2002. It set 5 and 10-year facilities goals for the County and each department based upon the evaluation of future needs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The GJ recommends the County review and update the Alpine County Strategic Plan – Facilities, 2002, and develop a capital projects funding mechanism. This would include the DPW/CDD office facilities at 50 Diamond Road. The GJ further recommends two short-term alternatives to provide the appropriate modern office space, employee break rooms, restrooms, plan check space, ADA compliance, and public access. 14 a. Lease/purchase option modular office space for the current location (GJ preference), b. Amend the existing BLM patent (lease) to utilize Turtle Rock offices and relocate the Diamond Valley Road “one-stop-shop” services to Turtle Rock. [F2, F3, F4] 2. DPW - Construction Project Management The GJ as part of the overall reviews of DPW and Director-DPW investigated several construction projects. Most of the projects were begun after the arrival of the current Director-DPW hired in November 2005. The GJ fully understands it is the nature of construction that there are events, problems, issues of timing, and even weather, despite the best efforts and qualified experience of those responsible, cannot always be planned for. However, it appeared to the GJ that there were many problems, project delays, budget overruns, disputes within County operations and Departments regarding County construction projects. Additionally, there was false reporting of projects being completed to the BOS and compliance issues. It appeared the Director–DPW failed in his project management responsibilities. The GJ was initially unconcerned with the minor maintenance and repair issues of County buildings and facilities. However, looking at governmental operations, including the use of taxpayers’ money, was of more interest to the GJ, in addition to what was “the usual” and normal way construction projects were managed by the DPW. The DPW is the County department charged with following Federal and State laws, along with County policies and practices in regards to construction work. Following are summaries of the projects the Grand Jury reviewed: Markleeville Library Park Upgrade (Pre-2005 – Present): This project has been reported as complete by the Director-DPW to the BOS; it is not complete. The project was a carry-over from the previous Director-DPW and was assumed by the new Director when he was hired in November 2005. During most of 2006, this project involved a total upgrade to the grass area adjacent to the Markleeville Library. The major aspects of this work included steps to access Laramie Street, the construction of a “ramada” -bandstand/gazebo type structure with electrical service, paver walkway, a child/adult dual height drinking fountain with a pet watering station on the lowest level, topiary and other landscaping upgrade work, upper slope steps with handrails for walking access into the park and a large multiple-station children’s playground with the required safety ground covering. The park upgrade used $175,465 of “Per Capita Grant Program” funding from the State of California – Department of Parks and Recreation. This included a State approved increase from the original grant amount of $121,000 due to added costs for ADA compliance and landscaping. The final anticipated completion of this long-awaited project was visually a tremendous improvement from its previous appearance. It would provide a professionally landscaped park setting that has been enjoyed by many adults, children, and pets including musical and picnic events using the new ramada structure. It also better defined the separation between the Park and the Alpine County District Attorney’s Office. Although this project was largely paid for by State taxpayers’ it was taxpayers’ money none the less. The special use drinking fountain was purchased for approximately $3,500. Due to an improper initial installation, a major repair had to be done within a year. The estimated cost the GJ determined are approximately $4,000-$5,000 for the repair of the water fountain installation which was paid for by the DPW and the County. This repair was completely avoidable if the DPW obtained the appropriate permit, inspections to ensure the installation was done according to the manufacturer’s instructions. These are all responsibilities that come under the category of “project management.” The project requires completion of ADA compliance (parking signs, ramp access, and proper handrail placement in several locations), stairway treads, and a correction to the undersized electrical service and outlet to the ramada. It appears that a higher priority was given to funding over $30,000 of playground equipment, instead of providing ADA accessibility compliance and completing the project. Alpine County Museum – Carriage House/Blacksmith Shop Display (2007- present): This project has been reported as complete by the Director-DPW to the BOS; it is not complete. This project has a deadline with the funding by a State – “Per Capita Grant” which requires completion and inspection by March 30, 2008. As of August and September 2007, the Director-DPW submitted plans that went through two (2) plan reviews by a third-party plan checking firm. The plans were returned as “incomplete” with code required information missing such as “scope of work,” architect/engineer wet-stamps and signatures, title block information, and required ADA compliance measures. As requested by the DPW, the Alpine County Building Department provided a “second opinion” in September 2007 concerning the consultants plan check comments. The Building Department concurred with the consultants’
R25:
The GJ recommends the County review and update the Alpine County Strategic Plan – Facilities, 2002, to address facilities issues of the County. [F4, F34, F35] 9. Recruitment & Selection of the Director–DPW The GJ concluded during the general department review of the DPW that there was some question regarding the actual job experience and qualifications of the Director-DPW. The GJ researched the recruitment and selection of the Director that was held by Alpine County. The recruitment began in the late summer into the fall of 2005, with the final candidate interviews being held by the BOS on October 4, 2005. The Director-DPW position recruitment and selection in 2005 was managed by the then AB. The AB also had the responsibility as Alpine County Personnel Manager. The AB retired from Alpine County effective January 12, 2009. The AB has declined two (2) documented opportunities with the GJ to provide further information or to discuss this recruiting issue. When Alpine County is recruiting personnel, they are required to advertise the new position for at least two weeks. The job announcement information is distributed to several locations within the County, other government agencies (counties and cities) and publication in the “Record Courier” and “Tahoe Tribune” newspapers. The job announcement provides descriptions of Alpine County, the organization (in this case the Department of Public Works), necessary qualifications, salary/benefits and selection process. The minimum educational requirements and work experience for the position of Director-DPW were advertised as follows: Educational: 1. A bachelor’s degree in civil engineering, public administration or a closely related field. (This minimum college degree requirement was similar to the college education requirements for a director/department head position of the eight (8) other California counties surveyed5.) 2. Be registered as a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil engineer with an endorsement to practice land surveying issued by the California State Board of registration for Professional Engineers. Work Experience: 1. Six years of progressively responsible professional experience in public works or land surveying, 2. Or supplemented by a minimum of three (3) years in a supervisory or administrative capacity”. The recruitment in 2005 resulted in a total of four (4) applicants, including one County employee. Three (3) of the candidates had degrees in Civil Engineering; one of these was a Land Surveyor. The candidate eventually hired as the Director-DPW had a degree in Aerospace Engineering and a Master’s in Business Administration. His construction experience also fell short of the position requirements. It was limited to development and syndication of commercial properties including apartment buildings 5 CALIFORNIA “SNOW” COUNTY SURVEY - For general review and comparison the Grand Jury identified eight (8) small populated counties in Northern California with at least some amount of snow- removal responsibilities to survey for Department of Public Works information that included: budget, department head requirements, Road Unit/Maintenance, staffing and road mileage maintained. These counties included: Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra and Siskiyou. See Appendix C, . 34 (his construction experience is documented as a California State License Board – Class B General Building Contractor, January 1990-1998, September 2008-2010). His civil governmental job experience was thirty-five months as the Assistant Airport Manager for a small county in northern California. He supervised 1-2 part-time employees and did not manage any construction or capital projects. His other governmental service was his service as a reserve military officer. The previously advertised minimum qualifications regarding applicable college degrees and public works job experience seemed to have been liberally interpreted by the AB and BOS. The minimum requirements to be a civil engineer or land surveyor were totally waived by the BOS and the decision was made to move forward with the selection process with only the four (4) original candidates. The GJ was not able to determine from the BOS why the County did not take the opportunity to re-advertise the Director position after the minimum qualifications had essentially been removed. Interviews were held with the candidates and the BOS. The electronic database Lexis- Nexis was utilized for the background information verification. The AB was responsible to complete the reference checks as listed on the job application. The BOS voted at the October 18th meeting and the Director was hired effective November 16, 2005. The Director clearly lacked the originally published minimum requirements for the position and this has hampered the expected performance of the Director. The liberal interpretation of his qualifications by the AB, as the acting Personnel Manager and BOS in 2005 compromised the effective and efficient operation of the DPW for the past three years.
F5:
There is a consistent lack of designated qualified DPW personnel, or contract project managers to oversee County employees and private contractors performing work for the County. The Director-DPW is responsible.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The GJ recommends the County evaluate and implement a specific policy, procedure, and job position (County employee and/or contract manager) for qualified and experienced construction project management for County buildings and facilities. The GJ has a recommended position “facilities superintendent” in a reorganization plan to accomplish this. [F5] (See Appendix B, )
F6:
The Director-DPW demonstrates a trend of not regularly obtaining the legally required permit, plan review, and inspection process mandated by the County and State law. This indifference to the “checks and balance” aspect of project management, construction, and inspection does not benefit the County and its taxpayers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The GJ recommends the County develop a policy and procedure to ensure County departments coordinate permits, plan reviews/approvals, inspections, and “final acceptance” for County construction projects per existing State and County codes and ordinances. [F6]
F7:
The Director-DPW seems to always be in a “rush.” The lack of planning most often causes him to have to seek out “sole source” contractors for goods and services in order to avoid the time required to complete the “formal competitive bid” requirements of the California Public Contract Law, and County Ordinance No. 637-01 (October 2001) Purchasing Ordinance, which specifically addresses the requirements for formal bids and contracts for public works contracts. 20
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The GJ recommends the County review and revise as necessary its existing County ordinances and codes regarding “purchasing” and the County’s compliance with the California public contract law. [F7]
F8:
The Director-DPW failed to oversee and complete the Gansberg Hydrant Project in a manner which would satisfy judicial and public scrutiny. The project has created a liability for the County and the Director-DPW has made no efforts to resolve the issue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The GJ recommends the County resolve the Gansberg Ranch, and Alpine County hydrant project issue to the satisfaction of all parties involved. If there is no resolution or cooperation from the property owner in a timely manner, the County should immediately terminate the existing Memorandum of Understanding, order the hydrant “abandoned” (removed as illegal and unsafe construction) and demand repayment from the property owner to the County of the full $9,210.17 paid to the property owner in 2007 by the County. [F8, F9] 21
F9:
The GJ proposed a resolution for the Gansberg Hydrant Project after discussion and documentation between the DPW, Building Department, and the WVFD to the property for review.
F10:
County Counsel and BOS gave direction for a MOU document to be developed, reviewed, and subsequently approved after the constructionof the Gansberg Hydrant Project, using County funds on private property. The MOU did not contain any details as to who was responsible for the permit, inspections, project management, overall completion, maintenance, and compliance with applicable codes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The GJ recommends the County review its policy and procedures regarding creating and approving legal agreements (MOU’s, easements, contracts, etc.). [F10]
F11:
There may be a childcare program being conducted at the Perry Walther Community Services Building in Bear Valley. This would require a permit and/or license from the County and/or State to authorize use of County facilities according to County policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The GJ recommends the County review and investigate the appearance of a child-care business/operation being conducted at the Perry Walther Community Services Building – Bear Valley to ensure that it is in full compliance with all County and State codes and ordinances including all appropriate permits and licenses. [F11] 3. American with Disabilities Act (ADA) In 1990, President George H. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. This Federal legislation and succeeding individual State versions created a new mandate and requirements for providing a wide-ranging access to public buildings and structures, commercial/business buildings, public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications. Although compliance on a national level has made tremendous progress, there continues to be civil court challenges regarding those public entities and private owners that have been slow or incomplete with the required compliance for ADA access. The County faced a challenge in 2007 with a civil lawsuit regarding the ADA accessibility of the County Courthouse. Despite this lawsuit and the good fortune, to date, of no other ADA related lawsuits, County requires on-going corrective actions regarding ADA compliance of its buildings and structures. The 2001 GJ also recommended corrective action. ADA compliance of County buildings and facilities is the responsibility of DPW and the AB as the designated “ADA Coordinator.” The Building Department is the legally constituted and State-mandated agency responsible for enforcing the State Building Codes as well as Federal, State, and local laws and regulations relating to construction within the County. The Director-DPW clearly lacks the knowledge, and often fails to follow established rules and procedures for compliance of the California Building Code. This has resulted in ADA non-compliance of County buildings and facilities/structures. The 2001 California Building Code 101.17.11 and Government Code Section 4450 states, “Publicly funded buildings, structures, sidewalks, curbs, and related facilities shall be accessible to and useable by persons with disabilities.” The Director-DPW is responsible for several projects requiring some type of improvement work and/or inspection for ADA compliance that includes, but is not limited to: the Markleeville Library Park Upgrade, Alpine County Museum, Bear Valley Public Safety Building, Perry Walther Community Services Building (Bear Valley), Woodfords Volunteer Fire Department Station, and Turtle Rock Park Campground Bathroom Conversion. The GJ was not able to determine whether the Directors’ actions were based on his own opinion and perspective of ADA compliance, or if direction was given by the AB and/or the Board of Supervisors to disregard ADA compliance.
F12:
While responsible for the ADA compliance of County building and structures, the Director-DPW failed to cooperate with the Building Department to complete the required improvements and final inspections on numerous County construction projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The GJ recommends the County develop and implement a plan to complete all active construction projects with emphasis on ADA compliant measures and finalizing these projects. [F12, F13] 4. County Facility Maintenance and Construction Project Oversight One of the responsibilities of the DPW is the maintenance of the various facilities owned by the County. This includes, but is not limited to, all County offices and buildings, Courthouse, Chamber of Commerce, Markleeville and Woodfords Fire Department Stations, the Turtle Rock Park Community Service Building and Campground, all County Bear Valley facilities, and two residential rental buildings. Minor maintenance and limited remodels have traditionally been handled by the former DPW position of “Building & Grounds Supervisor.” This position would typically determine the complexity and ability of the project for DPW to complete this work or to have outside “private” sector contractors complete the projects in whole or in part. The Director-DPW re-titled this position as “Building & Grounds Senior Maintenance Worker.” The Supervisor position at one time supervised one or more “Building Maintenance Worker(s),” part-time and temporary workers, community service workers and outside contractors. During the Workforce Reduction Plan initiated in May/June 2008, several DPW vacancies were left unfilled. The only DPW worker still on staff and able to perform any building maintenance was the Building & Grounds Senior Maintenance Worker. On September 1, 2008, that employee resigned and the position has remained unfilled. Any maintenance needs for the County since September 2008 have attempted to be met either with the use of a handyman service for only approximately 10-hours per 23 week through a temporary help agency located in South Lake Tahoe, or the janitorial service the County has hired.
F13:
After already having a history regarding the lack of ADA compliance, the County is continuing to set itself up for future lawsuits due to a lack of compliance with existing Federal and State ADA regulations and codes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The GJ recommends the County develop and implement a plan to complete all active construction projects with emphasis on ADA compliant measures and finalizing these projects. [F12, F13] 4. County Facility Maintenance and Construction Project Oversight One of the responsibilities of the DPW is the maintenance of the various facilities owned by the County. This includes, but is not limited to, all County offices and buildings, Courthouse, Chamber of Commerce, Markleeville and Woodfords Fire Department Stations, the Turtle Rock Park Community Service Building and Campground, all County Bear Valley facilities, and two residential rental buildings. Minor maintenance and limited remodels have traditionally been handled by the former DPW position of “Building & Grounds Supervisor.” This position would typically determine the complexity and ability of the project for DPW to complete this work or to have outside “private” sector contractors complete the projects in whole or in part. The Director-DPW re-titled this position as “Building & Grounds Senior Maintenance Worker.” The Supervisor position at one time supervised one or more “Building Maintenance Worker(s),” part-time and temporary workers, community service workers and outside contractors. During the Workforce Reduction Plan initiated in May/June 2008, several DPW vacancies were left unfilled. The only DPW worker still on staff and able to perform any building maintenance was the Building & Grounds Senior Maintenance Worker. On September 1, 2008, that employee resigned and the position has remained unfilled. Any maintenance needs for the County since September 2008 have attempted to be met either with the use of a handyman service for only approximately 10-hours per 23 week through a temporary help agency located in South Lake Tahoe, or the janitorial service the County has hired.
F14:
The County currently does not have any DPW personnel to complete any type of routine or emergency maintenance or repairs to County buildings and facilities. The GJ recognizes that in an emergency that Road Crew personnel may be possibly accessed; however that would be based on their availability and general building maintenance knowledge of the particular employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The GJ recommends the County review and assesses the current practice regarding the maintenance and emergency repair of County buildings and facilities, to develop and implement a corrective plan and/or County employee and act accordingly. [F14, F15, F16]
F15:
The County is currently deferring maintenance to buildings and facilities. Additionally, there remain numerous incomplete projects, large and small throughout the County as a result of decreased staffing and lack of facilities oversight by the DPW.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The GJ recommends the County review and assesses the current practice regarding the maintenance and emergency repair of County buildings and facilities, to develop and implement a corrective plan and/or County employee and act accordingly. [F14, F15, F16]
F16:
The practice of preventative and regular maintenance and inspections in regular intervals is a proven “best management practices” to maintain buildings and systems. This practice most often prevents the need for emergency repairs and catastrophic failure thereby reducing the availability of facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The GJ recommends the County review and assesses the current practice regarding the maintenance and emergency repair of County buildings and facilities, to develop and implement a corrective plan and/or County employee and act accordingly. [F14, F15, F16]
F17:
The currently vacant “Building & Grounds Senior Maintenance Worker” position had been most often the only DPW person to oversee and perform project management of work by private contractors. The current job description is too vague in addressing the qualifications regarding credible building contractor and/or field project management.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The GJ suggests the County evaluate the current staffing and configuration of the DPW, including the need for the Director/Department Head position. In this evaluation, the County should consider the proposal to combine the existing DPW and the Community Development Department to the renamed, “Community Development and Services Department.” In addition, the GJ recommends a new “Facilities Superintendant” position and an entry level “Front Desk Clerk” Position. [F17, F18] (See Appendix B,
F18:
The County does not have any designated or specified method to have field project management at any level of complexity to be completed. This failure does not provide prudent use of taxpayer dollars for maintenance, remodel, refurbishment, and major construction work to ensure quality of materials and labor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The GJ suggests the County evaluate the current staffing and configuration of the DPW, including the need for the Director/Department Head position. In this evaluation, the County should consider the proposal to combine the existing DPW and the Community Development Department to the renamed, “Community Development and Services Department.” In addition, the GJ recommends a new “Facilities Superintendant” position and an entry level “Front Desk Clerk” Position. [F17, F18] (See Appendix B,
F19:
The County is not utilizing the common practice of governmental units such as cities, counties, special districts, etc. to have “agreement vendors” or “master agreement contracts.” This practice allows for private vendors and contractors to provide goods and services at a cost savings. 24
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The County needs to assess and develop a plan as appropriate to utilize a commonly used governmental goods and services procurement practice of “agreement vendors” or “master agreements” contracts process to obtain value for taxpayers. [F19] 5. County Road Crew The Road Crew functions under the Director-DPW. It is currently staffed with a Road Superintendent, one (1) Lead Maintenance Worker and Road Maintenance Workers. At the closure of the Fiscal Year, June 30, 2009, there will be a total of four (4) Road Maintenance Workers (Grades I, II, & III) assigned to the East Slope, in addition to a fulltime DPW employee located in Bear Valley as the “Bear Valley Maintenance Coordinator”. This is a total Road Crew staffing level of only seven (7). In 1977, 32- years ago the Road Crew had a staffing level of 14-employees with many less miles than the current 80-miles of paved, maintained and “accepted” private roads for County maintenance and snow-removal. This severe staffing shortage and excessively aged heavy-duty equipment, three (3) heavy snowplow/sander units, presents problems of balancing safety with the division of workload assignments. This affects both the winter snow-removal months and the warm-weather “summer” months of road maintenance. Snowplow operations are considered a very dangerous part of the Road Crew duties and it is not uncommon to get a snowplow stuck causing another snowplow unit and personnel to come to assist. During snow-removal operations the staffing for the Markleeville, Mesa Vista, and Woodfords areas has to be such that, if necessary, plowing can be done at all hours of the day. Even with extended hours of plowing, enough personnel have to be available in case of a vehicle emergency with one of the County snowplows. The large snowplow/sander trucks require a California Class “A” Drivers License and specialized training provided by the Road Crew. Although temporary workers can be brought in with a Class “C” Drivers License to drive pick-up trucks and other small equipment, it is almost impossible to hire temporary workers with Class “A” License and snowplow experience. During the summer road maintenance schedule, safety requires that the often seen “flagger,” signs, and traffic controls are in place. Staffing does not even consider the absence of any employee due to time off for vacations, sick time or any workers’ compensation illness/injuries. With an Eastern Slope Road Crew staffing of only 6- employees including the Superintendent, there are severe limits to the amount of road maintenance that can be completed. The total available road maintenance employees’ ratio per paved road miles for Alpine County is very poor. The previously mentioned “ California (8) County Survey”3 revealed that for only 80-miles of paved roadway, Alpine County has one of the lowest ratios. Though Mono and Sierra Counties have lower ratios than Alpine County, they have minimum staff levels for a given project. COUNTY MODOC LASSEN INYO NEVADA SISKIYOU PLUMAS ALPINE MONO SIERRA Paved Miles 988 879 550 413 870 469 80 182 104 Workers 22 24 23.5 26 55 38 7 18 13.5 (Ratio) (44.9) (36.7) (23.4) (15.9) (15.8) (12.3) (11.4) (10.1) (7.7) (Large to Small) The funding for the Alpine County Road Crew is only from Federal and State revenues. None of the funding comes from the County General Fund. In comparison, of the eight counties surveyed, only one county (Siskiyou) used any General Fund monies for their road budget. For their Approved Budget 2008-09, they transferred $530,000 to Roads for only 8.8% of the total Roads Budget. The State of California revenues come from gasoline taxes, road taxes, and grants. Some Federal funding comes from one-time grants and monies such as the recent Tax Extender Financial Stimulus Package approved by Congress and signed by the 3 CALIFORNIA “SNOW” COUNTY SURVEY - The Grand Jury identified and surveyed eight (8) northern California counties with snow-removal responsibilities. Information requested included: budget, department head requirements, Road Unit/Maintenance, staffing and road mileage maintained. These counties included: Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra, and Siskiyou. See Appendix C, . President in October 2008. The major Federal funding is from the “Secure Rural Schools and Communities Act, hereinafter referred to as SRSCA. The SRSCA was formally known as the Forest Reserves Receipts Act. Originally based on the Forest Reserve Act Proclamation in 1891 by President Benjamin Harrison, this funding source has had many changes over the years. Most recently this payment program to certain “rural” counties throughout the United States that had at one time or currently have timber cutting is in the extension of the 2000 SRSCA law. SRSCA-2008 is based on a series of formulas of payment, and the current legislation states that revenues will be reduced approximately 10% each year. The Act is set to expire in the Federal Fiscal Year 2011, unless it is reauthorized or replaced by entirely new legislation. At this time there is no assurance or guarantee there will be this Federal funding source past 2011. The SRSCA current formula for affected California counties provides that 15% is allotted to the SRSCA – Resources Advisory Committee for funding of local resource related projects, the remaining 85% of the County’s allotment is split 50/50 between the County (Roads Crew Budget) and the Alpine County School District. The 2008 allotment to the County for the Road Crew Budget is $382,716. This SRSCA funding is now approximately 20% of the Roads Budget. An issue raised in the complaint concerns a possible inappropriate use of Road Funds. California counties are permitted to move certain funds through their accounts as a convenience in consideration of their cash flow needs. This means certain predetermined expenditures can be made before the actual revenues are received. This allowance is to be backed up with the procedures of the California State Controller County Budget Act – 1985.
F20:
For staffing, safety, and various Road Crew assignments, the County Road Crew as part of the DPW is severely understaffed. There are only a total of 7-Road Crew Personnel including the Road Superintendent until the end of the current fiscal year, June 30, 2009. This includes the need for the Road Crew to maintain the combination of properly licensed, trained, and experienced personnel. This is a very low staffing level when compared with small populated counties in other California with snow-removal responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
Immediately review the staffing of the DPW road crew and develop a plan to retain the total 7-personnel (including Bear Valley). The GJ suggests an increase of at least two (2) more personnel for a total of (9) nine staff. This increase will provide for safety and a higher level of work productivity. [F20]
F21:
The Road Crew is only funded by State and Federal revenues. At this time no General Fund monies are used for the Road Crew Budget.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The GJ proposes the County review the State and Federal revenue sources that are used to fund 100% of the Road Crew Budget (Public Works – Fund #220) to ensure that all possible funding is being accessed from these sources. The Federal SRSCA is scheduled to be reduced by 10% over the next 3-years and expire in 2011. [F21, F22, F23] 6. County Fleet Operations & Mechanical Services Most of the entire motorized fleet of vehicles, tractors, fire apparatus, motorcycles, trailers, and assorted other power equipment owned by the County is maintained by the current single employee, the County Equipment Mechanic/Shop Coordinator. The only exceptions are the all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles that are serviced by the Search- And-Rescue hereinafter referred to as SAR personnel. The County fleet4 includes over 52 vehicles (sedans, SUV’s, pick-up trucks, EMS ambulances, Library Bookmobile), 18 tractors and large trucks (backhoes, road graders, dump trucks, large snowplow/sanders), over 16 types of fire apparatus and over 66 assorted specialized motorized equipment (brush chipper, generators, snowmobiles, quads, SnowCat). Most all of the preventive maintenance and emergency repairs are completed at the Fleet Shop located behind the fenced-in DPW road yard. The Equipment Mechanic does have the ability to affect some field repairs with one of two mobile units if necessary. The Fleet Shop is fairly well equipped and kept in a clean and orderly condition by the County Equipment Mechanic/Shop Coordinator. On a few occasions, when more than one-person is needed, the Equipment Mechanic requests the physical assistance of DPW/CDD office staff to “help” him with vehicle repairs and maintenance in the Shop. Per Alpine County – DPW “Vehicle and Equipment Listing” – Fiscal Year 2009. The Equipment Mechanic is available to provide technical information and recommendations for replacement of fleet vehicles. The current practice is for each County Department to determine what vehicles (sedans, Sport Utility Vehicles hereinafter referred to as SUV, pick-up trucks) and type to replace. The County more recently has adopted a replacement mileage limit of these vehicles to approximately 150,000, the Sheriff Department to a mileage of 130,000. The assessment by the GJ is that the general vehicle fleet used by the County (all departments) is in a general “good” condition with regards to mileage and age. The various fire apparatus of the County (Woodfords, Markleeville, Kirkwood, Bear Valley) including fire engines, water tenders, and small response apparatus such as the Heavy Rescue, brush engines, and command vehicles are in general, in “fair” to “very good” condition in regards to years and mileage. The County should be complimented on its efforts in recent years to provide new replacement fire engines to the Woodfords and Markleeville Stations. The more specialized power equipment of the County, specifically, the heavy-duty equipment of the fleet including tractors, backhoes, snowplows/sanders, and trucks has issues. The three (3) large snowplow/sanders are 21-years old (2-plows) and 29 years old, with respective mileages of 52,000; 55,000, and 57,000. The service life of these vehicles is normally divided into first-line service of 10-15 years plus a reserve service life. Other significant aged specialized equipment in the fleet includes a 1983 (26-yrs. old) water truck with 737,269 miles, a 1979 (30-yrs. old) loader/snow blower, and a 1979 (30-yrs. old) backhoe/loader.
F22:
The former Forest Reserve Receipts Act, now the SRSCA, has been providing decreasing funding since its inception. This Federal funding act is only authorized to 2011 and is formulated to decrease at a 10% per year. The Federal Fiscal Year 2008 amount to the Alpine County – Road Crew Budget is $382,716, now approximately 20% of the Road Crew Budget. 27
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The GJ proposes the County review the State and Federal revenue sources that are used to fund 100% of the Road Crew Budget (Public Works – Fund #220) to ensure that all possible funding is being accessed from these sources. The Federal SRSCA is scheduled to be reduced by 10% over the next 3-years and expire in 2011. [F21, F22, F23] 6. County Fleet Operations & Mechanical Services Most of the entire motorized fleet of vehicles, tractors, fire apparatus, motorcycles, trailers, and assorted other power equipment owned by the County is maintained by the current single employee, the County Equipment Mechanic/Shop Coordinator. The only exceptions are the all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles that are serviced by the Search- And-Rescue hereinafter referred to as SAR personnel. The County fleet4 includes over 52 vehicles (sedans, SUV’s, pick-up trucks, EMS ambulances, Library Bookmobile), 18 tractors and large trucks (backhoes, road graders, dump trucks, large snowplow/sanders), over 16 types of fire apparatus and over 66 assorted specialized motorized equipment (brush chipper, generators, snowmobiles, quads, SnowCat). Most all of the preventive maintenance and emergency repairs are completed at the Fleet Shop located behind the fenced-in DPW road yard. The Equipment Mechanic does have the ability to affect some field repairs with one of two mobile units if necessary. The Fleet Shop is fairly well equipped and kept in a clean and orderly condition by the County Equipment Mechanic/Shop Coordinator. On a few occasions, when more than one-person is needed, the Equipment Mechanic requests the physical assistance of DPW/CDD office staff to “help” him with vehicle repairs and maintenance in the Shop. Per Alpine County – DPW “Vehicle and Equipment Listing” – Fiscal Year 2009. The Equipment Mechanic is available to provide technical information and recommendations for replacement of fleet vehicles. The current practice is for each County Department to determine what vehicles (sedans, Sport Utility Vehicles hereinafter referred to as SUV, pick-up trucks) and type to replace. The County more recently has adopted a replacement mileage limit of these vehicles to approximately 150,000, the Sheriff Department to a mileage of 130,000. The assessment by the GJ is that the general vehicle fleet used by the County (all departments) is in a general “good” condition with regards to mileage and age. The various fire apparatus of the County (Woodfords, Markleeville, Kirkwood, Bear Valley) including fire engines, water tenders, and small response apparatus such as the Heavy Rescue, brush engines, and command vehicles are in general, in “fair” to “very good” condition in regards to years and mileage. The County should be complimented on its efforts in recent years to provide new replacement fire engines to the Woodfords and Markleeville Stations. The more specialized power equipment of the County, specifically, the heavy-duty equipment of the fleet including tractors, backhoes, snowplows/sanders, and trucks has issues. The three (3) large snowplow/sanders are 21-years old (2-plows) and 29 years old, with respective mileages of 52,000; 55,000, and 57,000. The service life of these vehicles is normally divided into first-line service of 10-15 years plus a reserve service life. Other significant aged specialized equipment in the fleet includes a 1983 (26-yrs. old) water truck with 737,269 miles, a 1979 (30-yrs. old) loader/snow blower, and a 1979 (30-yrs. old) backhoe/loader.
F23:
Although a forensic accounting study was not completed, the GJ finds no inappropriate use of the Road Crew Budget specific to the complaint. The cash flow and accounting seems consistent with the established practices of the County Auditor, the State Controller County Budget Act, and the required outside audits of the County fiscal procedures. Additionally, all expenditures and transfers between accounts are ultimately approved by the BOS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The GJ proposes the County review the State and Federal revenue sources that are used to fund 100% of the Road Crew Budget (Public Works – Fund #220) to ensure that all possible funding is being accessed from these sources. The Federal SRSCA is scheduled to be reduced by 10% over the next 3-years and expire in 2011. [F21, F22, F23] 6. County Fleet Operations & Mechanical Services Most of the entire motorized fleet of vehicles, tractors, fire apparatus, motorcycles, trailers, and assorted other power equipment owned by the County is maintained by the current single employee, the County Equipment Mechanic/Shop Coordinator. The only exceptions are the all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles that are serviced by the Search- And-Rescue hereinafter referred to as SAR personnel. The County fleet4 includes over 52 vehicles (sedans, SUV’s, pick-up trucks, EMS ambulances, Library Bookmobile), 18 tractors and large trucks (backhoes, road graders, dump trucks, large snowplow/sanders), over 16 types of fire apparatus and over 66 assorted specialized motorized equipment (brush chipper, generators, snowmobiles, quads, SnowCat). Most all of the preventive maintenance and emergency repairs are completed at the Fleet Shop located behind the fenced-in DPW road yard. The Equipment Mechanic does have the ability to affect some field repairs with one of two mobile units if necessary. The Fleet Shop is fairly well equipped and kept in a clean and orderly condition by the County Equipment Mechanic/Shop Coordinator. On a few occasions, when more than one-person is needed, the Equipment Mechanic requests the physical assistance of DPW/CDD office staff to “help” him with vehicle repairs and maintenance in the Shop. Per Alpine County – DPW “Vehicle and Equipment Listing” – Fiscal Year 2009. The Equipment Mechanic is available to provide technical information and recommendations for replacement of fleet vehicles. The current practice is for each County Department to determine what vehicles (sedans, Sport Utility Vehicles hereinafter referred to as SUV, pick-up trucks) and type to replace. The County more recently has adopted a replacement mileage limit of these vehicles to approximately 150,000, the Sheriff Department to a mileage of 130,000. The assessment by the GJ is that the general vehicle fleet used by the County (all departments) is in a general “good” condition with regards to mileage and age. The various fire apparatus of the County (Woodfords, Markleeville, Kirkwood, Bear Valley) including fire engines, water tenders, and small response apparatus such as the Heavy Rescue, brush engines, and command vehicles are in general, in “fair” to “very good” condition in regards to years and mileage. The County should be complimented on its efforts in recent years to provide new replacement fire engines to the Woodfords and Markleeville Stations. The more specialized power equipment of the County, specifically, the heavy-duty equipment of the fleet including tractors, backhoes, snowplows/sanders, and trucks has issues. The three (3) large snowplow/sanders are 21-years old (2-plows) and 29 years old, with respective mileages of 52,000; 55,000, and 57,000. The service life of these vehicles is normally divided into first-line service of 10-15 years plus a reserve service life. Other significant aged specialized equipment in the fleet includes a 1983 (26-yrs. old) water truck with 737,269 miles, a 1979 (30-yrs. old) loader/snow blower, and a 1979 (30-yrs. old) backhoe/loader.
F24:
The County does not currently have sufficient reserve or contingency funds for fleet replacement commensurate with the variety and number of vehicles and specialized power equipment in the County Fleet. This also includes the accelerated fleet replacement needs due to the California Air Resources Board requirements to upgrade or replace certain diesel-powered road equipment and tractors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
The GJ suggests the County review and revise its existing funding process (Internal Service Fund [ISF]), and develop a fleet replacement plan for the entire County fleet. [F24]
F25:
The three (3) County large snowplow/sanders have exceeded the industry- standard of years in service as first-line equipment of usually 10-15 years. The years of service of the current County plows are two (2) at 21-years, and one (1) at 29-years. Each of these units new would be valued at approximately $160,000 each to replace.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
The GJ suggests the County address the immediate need to replace the three (3) large snowplow/sander units. The minimum target the GJ is recommending is to replace one (1) within one-year, the other two (2) at a 3-year interval each for the result of three (3) new units within 7-years (by 2016). [F25]
F26:
The County does not currently use the “lease/purchase option” funding mechanism to maintain its fleet, especially the need to have a regular fleet replacement program of its heavy equipment and off-road operations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
The County reviews all possible fiscal options for fleet replacement including “lease/option to buy.” [F26]
F27:
There are currently no “agreement vendors” or “master vendor” contracts of private sector mechanic services to provide back-up, preventive maintenance, or 29 major repair services to augment or replace the current single County Equipment Mechanic in the event of an unexpected events or activity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
The County review and develop a plan for using “agreement vendors/master vendor” contracts to provide back-up, preventative maintenance, and/or major repair services to augment or substitute for the unavailability of the single County Equipment Mechanic in case of unexpected events or activity. [F27]
F28:
The workload of the single County Equipment Mechanic at over 110- vehicles/tractors/heavy-duty specialized fleet is well above any industry- standards ratio for fleet maintenance operations. There is no plan currently to accommodate or provide for additional staffing for this single employee to perform the routine and scheduled maintenance of the fleet, while having to remain available, including after-hours for winter snowplow operations and/or fire apparatus needs during extended fire operations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
The County consider and implement as possible a new position, “Mechanic Helper,” or similar position to augment the current single County Equipment Mechanic/Shop Coordinator” position. [F28, F29] (See Appendix B, )
F29:
A dangerous situation of potential injury is recurring by the Equipment Mechanic utilizing DPW/CDD office staff for assistance with vehicle repairs in the Shop. This is not only a severe case of “out-of-class” work by administrative office personnel; it is a violation of CAL-OSHA regulations.
Related Recommendations (2)
R19:
The County consider and implement as possible a new position, “Mechanic Helper,” or similar position to augment the current single County Equipment Mechanic/Shop Coordinator” position. [F28, F29] (See Appendix B, )
R20:
The County should immediately cease the practice of DPW/CDD office personnel assisting the Equipment Mechanic to affect repairs on vehicles. [F29] 30
F30:
The County Mechanic Shop does not have the equipment to raise larger vehicles in the fleet such as fire engines and larger trucks to perform preventive or repair maintenance. The lack of this specialized equipment hampers the Equipment Mechanic in his ability to more easily and safely complete required maintenance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R21:
The County review and purchase a mobile/portable high-capacity lift system to enable the County Shop to better and more safely affect repairs to large trucks and fire apparatus based on the recommendation of the County Equipment Mechanic/Shop Coordinator. [F30] 7. DPW – Office Staffing & Training Issues The general review of DPW concerned some management style and office workload assignments directed by the Director-DPW. There was evidence of some unprofessional and inappropriate comments and in some cases very unprofessional memos and correspondence by the Director-DPW. Although not excusable, these were most likely due to the Director-DPW not being experienced in a civil governmental setting. There is an issue of workload assignment for DPW employees regarding the period of time and the type of work employees have been asked to perform. The issue raised is what is considered “too long” a period of time to be working out-of-class before additional compensation is required to be paid. The GJ was unable to determine if this was specific to the Director-DPW, or a common past practice of County. Although the matter of out-of-class work assignments and compensation is addressed in County Ordinance 533 sec. 8.03, 1991 – Article VII Chapter 2.88.710 – “Temporary Departmental Promotions,” there seems to be an inconsistency at least within the DPW of the proper assignments of employees. During this review of the DPW, the County initiated and is in the process of completing a personnel study titled “Position Description Questionnaire”, hereinafter referred to as PDQ. The PDQ involves an employee completed questionnaire and an individual interview with the consultant. This study is to assess and provide a statistical and comparative analysis of daily duties and responsibilities of the DPW administrative staff. The results of the PDQ will determine if the post-relocation and consolidation of DPW and CDD staffs are meeting the workloads of employees at their current job titles. Possible results could change employee job titles and grades, reduce or eliminate employees working out-of-class, and/or possibly suggest other changes in staffing and the number of positions needed. Another specific staff assignment issue was the decision by the Director-DPW to offer a specialized training program to a temporary help agency employee instead of the current fulltime permanent employee of the County. The specialized training was in the use of the computer software program, “Cost Accounting Management Systems”, hereinafter referred to as CAMS that is used by the DPW, and many other government agencies within the State of California. The use of this program required training both on and off-site. The temporary employee expressed an interest in learning the program while an existing County employee was never offered the opportunity. The Director-DPW bypassed promoting a fulltime County 31 employee and disregarded the training opportunity for employee advancement. The Director-DPW expected the temporary worker to eventually be hired as a fulltime County employee; that did not occur.
F31:
The County currently has County Ordinance 533 sec. 8.03, 1991 – Article VII Chapter 2.88.710 – “Temporary Departmental Promotions,” which addresses the use of employees for usually no more than 90-days, in a higher salary range position, with an increased amount of compensation beginning on the 21st working day for the duration of the temporary appointment. There seems to be an inconsistency at least within the DPW of the proper use of employees, their job duties or specific criteria as to the type of work and length of time employees are being asked to work in “out-of-class” work assignments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
The County implements the results as appropriate of the PDQ process to address the workload division and “out-of-class” issues currently existing. [F31,
F32:
The PDQ process is being completed by the County to better assess the work duties of DPW employees.
F33:
The County does not have a policy regarding extraordinary expenditure for training of temporary employees. The decision and practice appears to be department by department and ultimately that of the director/department head.
Related Recommendations (1)
R23:
The County review and develop as necessary a clarification to the County policy and practice to prevent extraordinary training expenses being paid out for County temporary workers. [F33] 8. Radon Gas Element Issue - Sheriff Department & Public Works Office The GJ discovered issues with Radon gas of unacceptable levels within the offices of the Alpine County Sheriff Offices located in the lower level of the County Courthouse, and the DPW offices on Diamond Valley Road. Some type of Radon testing was completed approximately 15-years ago in the Sheriff Offices. The GJ was unable to determine what initiated this testing; however, the Radon level throughout the Sheriff Offices was apparently found to be at a measureable and significant level. Radon gas is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring gas formed from the decay of radium. It is one of the heaviest substances that remains a gas under normal conditions and is considered a health hazard. Radon gas from natural sources can accumulate in buildings, especially in confined areas such as the basement creating contaminated interior air quality. It is a heavier-than-air gas. According to the United States 32 Environmental Protection Agency (1999), Radon is reportedly the second most frequent cause of lung cancer, after cigarette smoking; and Radon-induced lung cancer is the 6th leading cause of cancer death overall. Remedies include, but are not limited to, sealing building joints, surfaces, and ventilation of affected buildings. At some point after the initial testing, some efforts were made to improve ventilation of the offices. There has been a lack of direct information to the GJ to determine the specifics of the ventilation efforts or its affect. There was testing completed a second time in February 2001. The GJ was unable to obtain documentation of a third test that was completed. The GJ had been referred to the AB for missing records and documents of this Radon issue. The AB has refused to provide information to the GJ.
F34:
There is evidence of a Radon gas issue within the lower level offices of the County Courthouse where the Sheriff Department is located. There were at least three (3) tests completed in the last 15-years, reporting unacceptable levels. Testing at the DPW offices is also reported at unacceptable levels.
Related Recommendations (2)
R24:
The GJ recommends the County review and take immediate action to assess and mitigate the Radon gas issue at the Sheriff Department Offices at the lower level of the County Courthouse and DPW Office. [F34, F35]
R25:
The GJ recommends the County review and update the Alpine County Strategic Plan – Facilities, 2002, to address facilities issues of the County. [F4, F34, F35] 9. Recruitment & Selection of the Director–DPW The GJ concluded during the general department review of the DPW that there was some question regarding the actual job experience and qualifications of the Director-DPW. The GJ researched the recruitment and selection of the Director that was held by Alpine County. The recruitment began in the late summer into the fall of 2005, with the final candidate interviews being held by the BOS on October 4, 2005. The Director-DPW position recruitment and selection in 2005 was managed by the then AB. The AB also had the responsibility as Alpine County Personnel Manager. The AB retired from Alpine County effective January 12, 2009. The AB has declined two (2) documented opportunities with the GJ to provide further information or to discuss this recruiting issue. When Alpine County is recruiting personnel, they are required to advertise the new position for at least two weeks. The job announcement information is distributed to several locations within the County, other government agencies (counties and cities) and publication in the “Record Courier” and “Tahoe Tribune” newspapers. The job announcement provides descriptions of Alpine County, the organization (in this case the Department of Public Works), necessary qualifications, salary/benefits and selection process. The minimum educational requirements and work experience for the position of Director-DPW were advertised as follows: Educational: 1. A bachelor’s degree in civil engineering, public administration or a closely related field. (This minimum college degree requirement was similar to the college education requirements for a director/department head position of the eight (8) other California counties surveyed5.) 2. Be registered as a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil engineer with an endorsement to practice land surveying issued by the California State Board of registration for Professional Engineers. Work Experience: 1. Six years of progressively responsible professional experience in public works or land surveying, 2. Or supplemented by a minimum of three (3) years in a supervisory or administrative capacity”. The recruitment in 2005 resulted in a total of four (4) applicants, including one County employee. Three (3) of the candidates had degrees in Civil Engineering; one of these was a Land Surveyor. The candidate eventually hired as the Director-DPW had a degree in Aerospace Engineering and a Master’s in Business Administration. His construction experience also fell short of the position requirements. It was limited to development and syndication of commercial properties including apartment buildings 5 CALIFORNIA “SNOW” COUNTY SURVEY - For general review and comparison the Grand Jury identified eight (8) small populated counties in Northern California with at least some amount of snow- removal responsibilities to survey for Department of Public Works information that included: budget, department head requirements, Road Unit/Maintenance, staffing and road mileage maintained. These counties included: Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra and Siskiyou. See Appendix C, . 34 (his construction experience is documented as a California State License Board – Class B General Building Contractor, January 1990-1998, September 2008-2010). His civil governmental job experience was thirty-five months as the Assistant Airport Manager for a small county in northern California. He supervised 1-2 part-time employees and did not manage any construction or capital projects. His other governmental service was his service as a reserve military officer. The previously advertised minimum qualifications regarding applicable college degrees and public works job experience seemed to have been liberally interpreted by the AB and BOS. The minimum requirements to be a civil engineer or land surveyor were totally waived by the BOS and the decision was made to move forward with the selection process with only the four (4) original candidates. The GJ was not able to determine from the BOS why the County did not take the opportunity to re-advertise the Director position after the minimum qualifications had essentially been removed. Interviews were held with the candidates and the BOS. The electronic database Lexis- Nexis was utilized for the background information verification. The AB was responsible to complete the reference checks as listed on the job application. The BOS voted at the October 18th meeting and the Director was hired effective November 16, 2005. The Director clearly lacked the originally published minimum requirements for the position and this has hampered the expected performance of the Director. The liberal interpretation of his qualifications by the AB, as the acting Personnel Manager and BOS in 2005 compromised the effective and efficient operation of the DPW for the past three years.
F35:
There is currently no Radon monitoring or actively managed mitigation program being done in the Sheriff Department Offices located in the lower level of the Alpine County Courthouse.
Related Recommendations (2)
R24:
The GJ recommends the County review and take immediate action to assess and mitigate the Radon gas issue at the Sheriff Department Offices at the lower level of the County Courthouse and DPW Office. [F34, F35]
R25:
The GJ recommends the County review and update the Alpine County Strategic Plan – Facilities, 2002, to address facilities issues of the County. [F4, F34, F35] 9. Recruitment & Selection of the Director–DPW The GJ concluded during the general department review of the DPW that there was some question regarding the actual job experience and qualifications of the Director-DPW. The GJ researched the recruitment and selection of the Director that was held by Alpine County. The recruitment began in the late summer into the fall of 2005, with the final candidate interviews being held by the BOS on October 4, 2005. The Director-DPW position recruitment and selection in 2005 was managed by the then AB. The AB also had the responsibility as Alpine County Personnel Manager. The AB retired from Alpine County effective January 12, 2009. The AB has declined two (2) documented opportunities with the GJ to provide further information or to discuss this recruiting issue. When Alpine County is recruiting personnel, they are required to advertise the new position for at least two weeks. The job announcement information is distributed to several locations within the County, other government agencies (counties and cities) and publication in the “Record Courier” and “Tahoe Tribune” newspapers. The job announcement provides descriptions of Alpine County, the organization (in this case the Department of Public Works), necessary qualifications, salary/benefits and selection process. The minimum educational requirements and work experience for the position of Director-DPW were advertised as follows: Educational: 1. A bachelor’s degree in civil engineering, public administration or a closely related field. (This minimum college degree requirement was similar to the college education requirements for a director/department head position of the eight (8) other California counties surveyed5.) 2. Be registered as a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil engineer with an endorsement to practice land surveying issued by the California State Board of registration for Professional Engineers. Work Experience: 1. Six years of progressively responsible professional experience in public works or land surveying, 2. Or supplemented by a minimum of three (3) years in a supervisory or administrative capacity”. The recruitment in 2005 resulted in a total of four (4) applicants, including one County employee. Three (3) of the candidates had degrees in Civil Engineering; one of these was a Land Surveyor. The candidate eventually hired as the Director-DPW had a degree in Aerospace Engineering and a Master’s in Business Administration. His construction experience also fell short of the position requirements. It was limited to development and syndication of commercial properties including apartment buildings 5 CALIFORNIA “SNOW” COUNTY SURVEY - For general review and comparison the Grand Jury identified eight (8) small populated counties in Northern California with at least some amount of snow- removal responsibilities to survey for Department of Public Works information that included: budget, department head requirements, Road Unit/Maintenance, staffing and road mileage maintained. These counties included: Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra and Siskiyou. See Appendix C, . 34 (his construction experience is documented as a California State License Board – Class B General Building Contractor, January 1990-1998, September 2008-2010). His civil governmental job experience was thirty-five months as the Assistant Airport Manager for a small county in northern California. He supervised 1-2 part-time employees and did not manage any construction or capital projects. His other governmental service was his service as a reserve military officer. The previously advertised minimum qualifications regarding applicable college degrees and public works job experience seemed to have been liberally interpreted by the AB and BOS. The minimum requirements to be a civil engineer or land surveyor were totally waived by the BOS and the decision was made to move forward with the selection process with only the four (4) original candidates. The GJ was not able to determine from the BOS why the County did not take the opportunity to re-advertise the Director position after the minimum qualifications had essentially been removed. Interviews were held with the candidates and the BOS. The electronic database Lexis- Nexis was utilized for the background information verification. The AB was responsible to complete the reference checks as listed on the job application. The BOS voted at the October 18th meeting and the Director was hired effective November 16, 2005. The Director clearly lacked the originally published minimum requirements for the position and this has hampered the expected performance of the Director. The liberal interpretation of his qualifications by the AB, as the acting Personnel Manager and BOS in 2005 compromised the effective and efficient operation of the DPW for the past three years.
F36:
The AB had a previous knowledge and acquaintance with the candidate who was hired as the Director-DPW. This was through the activities of the Sierra Business Council including meetings, workshops and a 6-weekend training course. With or without the knowledge and/or cooperation of the 2005 Board of Supervisors, this previous knowledge of the AB of the hired Director-DPW had at least an influence, if not a direct outcome on the selection of the candidate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R26:
Review and document County recruitment and selection policy and procedures for all future employees, particularly management positions to ensure that the County completes due diligence and makes every effort to find and hire the best qualified and capable candidate(s). [F36, F37, F38, F39, F40, F41, F42, F43, F44] 36 10. Current & Future Organization of the DPW The DPW has undergone significant changes in its staffing levels and organization of administrative and shared services. These changes occurred due to many factors including the hiring of a replacement Director-DPW after the retirement of the previous Director of 35-years, budget restrictions, Workforce Reduction Plan of 2008, and the physical relocation and consolidation of administrative services with the Building and Planning Departments to form the new Community Development Department in 2008. Due to the downsizing of positions within DPW, existing vacancies and the questionable management of contract resources, the DPW is not accomplishing all of its workload within the County. In 1995, the BOS initiated a restructuring plan for the County that created: The Building Department under a Director/Department Head, the “Building Official”. The Planning Department under the Director/Department Head, the “County Planner”. Retained the Department of Public Works under the Director/Department Head, the “Director of Transportation” (later renamed “Director – Public Works/Surveyor”). This Department retained its responsibilities of County Transportation, the Road Unit, Airport, Buildings and Grounds, and Bear Valley Services. Previous to this reorganization in 1995, all the responsibilities were all under a single DPW; the County did not have a CAO. The BOS dealt directly with the County departments. The 1995 reorganization resolved many issues that had developed over the years including span of control issues of supervision and management. It also began the substantial increase of the County employee workforce. The GJ conducted a survey6 of eight (8) Northern California counties for comparison and use in its review of the DPW. This included Sierra County with a 2000 Census population of 3,555. The 2000 Census population of Alpine County was 1,208. Sierra County is organized so there is not a stand-alone public works department or public works department head, and has operated that way since 1982. CALIFORNIA “SNOW” COUNTY SURVEY - The Grand Jury identified and surveyed eight (8) northern California counties with snow-removal responsibilities. Information requested included: budget, department head requirements, Road Unit/Maintenance, staffing and road mileage maintained. These counties included: Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra and Siskiyou. See Appendix C, . 37
F37:
There was a very liberal assessment of the qualifications for the college degrees and job work experience of the candidate that was eventually hired as the Director-DPW. This assessment had a measureable impact on favoring this candidate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R26:
Review and document County recruitment and selection policy and procedures for all future employees, particularly management positions to ensure that the County completes due diligence and makes every effort to find and hire the best qualified and capable candidate(s). [F36, F37, F38, F39, F40, F41, F42, F43, F44] 36 10. Current & Future Organization of the DPW The DPW has undergone significant changes in its staffing levels and organization of administrative and shared services. These changes occurred due to many factors including the hiring of a replacement Director-DPW after the retirement of the previous Director of 35-years, budget restrictions, Workforce Reduction Plan of 2008, and the physical relocation and consolidation of administrative services with the Building and Planning Departments to form the new Community Development Department in 2008. Due to the downsizing of positions within DPW, existing vacancies and the questionable management of contract resources, the DPW is not accomplishing all of its workload within the County. In 1995, the BOS initiated a restructuring plan for the County that created: The Building Department under a Director/Department Head, the “Building Official”. The Planning Department under the Director/Department Head, the “County Planner”. Retained the Department of Public Works under the Director/Department Head, the “Director of Transportation” (later renamed “Director – Public Works/Surveyor”). This Department retained its responsibilities of County Transportation, the Road Unit, Airport, Buildings and Grounds, and Bear Valley Services. Previous to this reorganization in 1995, all the responsibilities were all under a single DPW; the County did not have a CAO. The BOS dealt directly with the County departments. The 1995 reorganization resolved many issues that had developed over the years including span of control issues of supervision and management. It also began the substantial increase of the County employee workforce. The GJ conducted a survey6 of eight (8) Northern California counties for comparison and use in its review of the DPW. This included Sierra County with a 2000 Census population of 3,555. The 2000 Census population of Alpine County was 1,208. Sierra County is organized so there is not a stand-alone public works department or public works department head, and has operated that way since 1982. CALIFORNIA “SNOW” COUNTY SURVEY - The Grand Jury identified and surveyed eight (8) northern California counties with snow-removal responsibilities. Information requested included: budget, department head requirements, Road Unit/Maintenance, staffing and road mileage maintained. These counties included: Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra and Siskiyou. See Appendix C, . 37
F38:
There was no evidence of any substantial or notable public works job experience of the selected candidate that could be substituted for the candidate’s lack of a 35 civil engineering degree. The candidate was also not a civil engineer or land surveyor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R26:
Review and document County recruitment and selection policy and procedures for all future employees, particularly management positions to ensure that the County completes due diligence and makes every effort to find and hire the best qualified and capable candidate(s). [F36, F37, F38, F39, F40, F41, F42, F43, F44] 36 10. Current & Future Organization of the DPW The DPW has undergone significant changes in its staffing levels and organization of administrative and shared services. These changes occurred due to many factors including the hiring of a replacement Director-DPW after the retirement of the previous Director of 35-years, budget restrictions, Workforce Reduction Plan of 2008, and the physical relocation and consolidation of administrative services with the Building and Planning Departments to form the new Community Development Department in 2008. Due to the downsizing of positions within DPW, existing vacancies and the questionable management of contract resources, the DPW is not accomplishing all of its workload within the County. In 1995, the BOS initiated a restructuring plan for the County that created: The Building Department under a Director/Department Head, the “Building Official”. The Planning Department under the Director/Department Head, the “County Planner”. Retained the Department of Public Works under the Director/Department Head, the “Director of Transportation” (later renamed “Director – Public Works/Surveyor”). This Department retained its responsibilities of County Transportation, the Road Unit, Airport, Buildings and Grounds, and Bear Valley Services. Previous to this reorganization in 1995, all the responsibilities were all under a single DPW; the County did not have a CAO. The BOS dealt directly with the County departments. The 1995 reorganization resolved many issues that had developed over the years including span of control issues of supervision and management. It also began the substantial increase of the County employee workforce. The GJ conducted a survey6 of eight (8) Northern California counties for comparison and use in its review of the DPW. This included Sierra County with a 2000 Census population of 3,555. The 2000 Census population of Alpine County was 1,208. Sierra County is organized so there is not a stand-alone public works department or public works department head, and has operated that way since 1982. CALIFORNIA “SNOW” COUNTY SURVEY - The Grand Jury identified and surveyed eight (8) northern California counties with snow-removal responsibilities. Information requested included: budget, department head requirements, Road Unit/Maintenance, staffing and road mileage maintained. These counties included: Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra and Siskiyou. See Appendix C, . 37
F39:
Although a California Licensed Contractor, the Director–DPW had no applicable or real “boots in the dirt” construction or project management experience. The extent of his contractor experience was predominantly administrative.
Related Recommendations (1)
R26:
Review and document County recruitment and selection policy and procedures for all future employees, particularly management positions to ensure that the County completes due diligence and makes every effort to find and hire the best qualified and capable candidate(s). [F36, F37, F38, F39, F40, F41, F42, F43, F44] 36 10. Current & Future Organization of the DPW The DPW has undergone significant changes in its staffing levels and organization of administrative and shared services. These changes occurred due to many factors including the hiring of a replacement Director-DPW after the retirement of the previous Director of 35-years, budget restrictions, Workforce Reduction Plan of 2008, and the physical relocation and consolidation of administrative services with the Building and Planning Departments to form the new Community Development Department in 2008. Due to the downsizing of positions within DPW, existing vacancies and the questionable management of contract resources, the DPW is not accomplishing all of its workload within the County. In 1995, the BOS initiated a restructuring plan for the County that created: The Building Department under a Director/Department Head, the “Building Official”. The Planning Department under the Director/Department Head, the “County Planner”. Retained the Department of Public Works under the Director/Department Head, the “Director of Transportation” (later renamed “Director – Public Works/Surveyor”). This Department retained its responsibilities of County Transportation, the Road Unit, Airport, Buildings and Grounds, and Bear Valley Services. Previous to this reorganization in 1995, all the responsibilities were all under a single DPW; the County did not have a CAO. The BOS dealt directly with the County departments. The 1995 reorganization resolved many issues that had developed over the years including span of control issues of supervision and management. It also began the substantial increase of the County employee workforce. The GJ conducted a survey6 of eight (8) Northern California counties for comparison and use in its review of the DPW. This included Sierra County with a 2000 Census population of 3,555. The 2000 Census population of Alpine County was 1,208. Sierra County is organized so there is not a stand-alone public works department or public works department head, and has operated that way since 1982. CALIFORNIA “SNOW” COUNTY SURVEY - The Grand Jury identified and surveyed eight (8) northern California counties with snow-removal responsibilities. Information requested included: budget, department head requirements, Road Unit/Maintenance, staffing and road mileage maintained. These counties included: Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra and Siskiyou. See Appendix C, . 37
F40:
The BOS did not re-advertise or “re-fly” the job announcement of the “Public Works Director” after waiving the civil engineer and land surveyor requirements. This eliminated any opportunity to expand the applicant pool from the original four (4) applicants.
Related Recommendations (1)
R26:
Review and document County recruitment and selection policy and procedures for all future employees, particularly management positions to ensure that the County completes due diligence and makes every effort to find and hire the best qualified and capable candidate(s). [F36, F37, F38, F39, F40, F41, F42, F43, F44] 36 10. Current & Future Organization of the DPW The DPW has undergone significant changes in its staffing levels and organization of administrative and shared services. These changes occurred due to many factors including the hiring of a replacement Director-DPW after the retirement of the previous Director of 35-years, budget restrictions, Workforce Reduction Plan of 2008, and the physical relocation and consolidation of administrative services with the Building and Planning Departments to form the new Community Development Department in 2008. Due to the downsizing of positions within DPW, existing vacancies and the questionable management of contract resources, the DPW is not accomplishing all of its workload within the County. In 1995, the BOS initiated a restructuring plan for the County that created: The Building Department under a Director/Department Head, the “Building Official”. The Planning Department under the Director/Department Head, the “County Planner”. Retained the Department of Public Works under the Director/Department Head, the “Director of Transportation” (later renamed “Director – Public Works/Surveyor”). This Department retained its responsibilities of County Transportation, the Road Unit, Airport, Buildings and Grounds, and Bear Valley Services. Previous to this reorganization in 1995, all the responsibilities were all under a single DPW; the County did not have a CAO. The BOS dealt directly with the County departments. The 1995 reorganization resolved many issues that had developed over the years including span of control issues of supervision and management. It also began the substantial increase of the County employee workforce. The GJ conducted a survey6 of eight (8) Northern California counties for comparison and use in its review of the DPW. This included Sierra County with a 2000 Census population of 3,555. The 2000 Census population of Alpine County was 1,208. Sierra County is organized so there is not a stand-alone public works department or public works department head, and has operated that way since 1982. CALIFORNIA “SNOW” COUNTY SURVEY - The Grand Jury identified and surveyed eight (8) northern California counties with snow-removal responsibilities. Information requested included: budget, department head requirements, Road Unit/Maintenance, staffing and road mileage maintained. These counties included: Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra and Siskiyou. See Appendix C, . 37
F41:
The County does not have layers of hierarchy of managers, supervisors, and line/field employees within its various departments. This means that the directors/department heads must possess the professional and technical knowledge of their field. They also need the skill-set necessary for success in effective decision-making, policy and planning development, and management for the good of the taxpayers and residents of the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R26:
Review and document County recruitment and selection policy and procedures for all future employees, particularly management positions to ensure that the County completes due diligence and makes every effort to find and hire the best qualified and capable candidate(s). [F36, F37, F38, F39, F40, F41, F42, F43, F44] 36 10. Current & Future Organization of the DPW The DPW has undergone significant changes in its staffing levels and organization of administrative and shared services. These changes occurred due to many factors including the hiring of a replacement Director-DPW after the retirement of the previous Director of 35-years, budget restrictions, Workforce Reduction Plan of 2008, and the physical relocation and consolidation of administrative services with the Building and Planning Departments to form the new Community Development Department in 2008. Due to the downsizing of positions within DPW, existing vacancies and the questionable management of contract resources, the DPW is not accomplishing all of its workload within the County. In 1995, the BOS initiated a restructuring plan for the County that created: The Building Department under a Director/Department Head, the “Building Official”. The Planning Department under the Director/Department Head, the “County Planner”. Retained the Department of Public Works under the Director/Department Head, the “Director of Transportation” (later renamed “Director – Public Works/Surveyor”). This Department retained its responsibilities of County Transportation, the Road Unit, Airport, Buildings and Grounds, and Bear Valley Services. Previous to this reorganization in 1995, all the responsibilities were all under a single DPW; the County did not have a CAO. The BOS dealt directly with the County departments. The 1995 reorganization resolved many issues that had developed over the years including span of control issues of supervision and management. It also began the substantial increase of the County employee workforce. The GJ conducted a survey6 of eight (8) Northern California counties for comparison and use in its review of the DPW. This included Sierra County with a 2000 Census population of 3,555. The 2000 Census population of Alpine County was 1,208. Sierra County is organized so there is not a stand-alone public works department or public works department head, and has operated that way since 1982. CALIFORNIA “SNOW” COUNTY SURVEY - The Grand Jury identified and surveyed eight (8) northern California counties with snow-removal responsibilities. Information requested included: budget, department head requirements, Road Unit/Maintenance, staffing and road mileage maintained. These counties included: Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra and Siskiyou. See Appendix C, . 37
F42:
The job application for a director/department head for the County is the same one used for ALL employees. As such, the reference check of the selected candidate by the AB was limited to the three (3) spaces on the “references” section of the job application.
Related Recommendations (1)
R26:
Review and document County recruitment and selection policy and procedures for all future employees, particularly management positions to ensure that the County completes due diligence and makes every effort to find and hire the best qualified and capable candidate(s). [F36, F37, F38, F39, F40, F41, F42, F43, F44] 36 10. Current & Future Organization of the DPW The DPW has undergone significant changes in its staffing levels and organization of administrative and shared services. These changes occurred due to many factors including the hiring of a replacement Director-DPW after the retirement of the previous Director of 35-years, budget restrictions, Workforce Reduction Plan of 2008, and the physical relocation and consolidation of administrative services with the Building and Planning Departments to form the new Community Development Department in 2008. Due to the downsizing of positions within DPW, existing vacancies and the questionable management of contract resources, the DPW is not accomplishing all of its workload within the County. In 1995, the BOS initiated a restructuring plan for the County that created: The Building Department under a Director/Department Head, the “Building Official”. The Planning Department under the Director/Department Head, the “County Planner”. Retained the Department of Public Works under the Director/Department Head, the “Director of Transportation” (later renamed “Director – Public Works/Surveyor”). This Department retained its responsibilities of County Transportation, the Road Unit, Airport, Buildings and Grounds, and Bear Valley Services. Previous to this reorganization in 1995, all the responsibilities were all under a single DPW; the County did not have a CAO. The BOS dealt directly with the County departments. The 1995 reorganization resolved many issues that had developed over the years including span of control issues of supervision and management. It also began the substantial increase of the County employee workforce. The GJ conducted a survey6 of eight (8) Northern California counties for comparison and use in its review of the DPW. This included Sierra County with a 2000 Census population of 3,555. The 2000 Census population of Alpine County was 1,208. Sierra County is organized so there is not a stand-alone public works department or public works department head, and has operated that way since 1982. CALIFORNIA “SNOW” COUNTY SURVEY - The Grand Jury identified and surveyed eight (8) northern California counties with snow-removal responsibilities. Information requested included: budget, department head requirements, Road Unit/Maintenance, staffing and road mileage maintained. These counties included: Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra and Siskiyou. See Appendix C, . 37
F43:
The GJ was not present during the interviews of the candidates for the position, so what was stated by the candidates is unknown to the GJ. Not considering the interview, the candidate who was hired as the Director–DPW appears to not have committed any fraud with the information he provided during the recruitment and selection process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R26:
Review and document County recruitment and selection policy and procedures for all future employees, particularly management positions to ensure that the County completes due diligence and makes every effort to find and hire the best qualified and capable candidate(s). [F36, F37, F38, F39, F40, F41, F42, F43, F44] 36 10. Current & Future Organization of the DPW The DPW has undergone significant changes in its staffing levels and organization of administrative and shared services. These changes occurred due to many factors including the hiring of a replacement Director-DPW after the retirement of the previous Director of 35-years, budget restrictions, Workforce Reduction Plan of 2008, and the physical relocation and consolidation of administrative services with the Building and Planning Departments to form the new Community Development Department in 2008. Due to the downsizing of positions within DPW, existing vacancies and the questionable management of contract resources, the DPW is not accomplishing all of its workload within the County. In 1995, the BOS initiated a restructuring plan for the County that created: The Building Department under a Director/Department Head, the “Building Official”. The Planning Department under the Director/Department Head, the “County Planner”. Retained the Department of Public Works under the Director/Department Head, the “Director of Transportation” (later renamed “Director – Public Works/Surveyor”). This Department retained its responsibilities of County Transportation, the Road Unit, Airport, Buildings and Grounds, and Bear Valley Services. Previous to this reorganization in 1995, all the responsibilities were all under a single DPW; the County did not have a CAO. The BOS dealt directly with the County departments. The 1995 reorganization resolved many issues that had developed over the years including span of control issues of supervision and management. It also began the substantial increase of the County employee workforce. The GJ conducted a survey6 of eight (8) Northern California counties for comparison and use in its review of the DPW. This included Sierra County with a 2000 Census population of 3,555. The 2000 Census population of Alpine County was 1,208. Sierra County is organized so there is not a stand-alone public works department or public works department head, and has operated that way since 1982. CALIFORNIA “SNOW” COUNTY SURVEY - The Grand Jury identified and surveyed eight (8) northern California counties with snow-removal responsibilities. Information requested included: budget, department head requirements, Road Unit/Maintenance, staffing and road mileage maintained. These counties included: Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra and Siskiyou. See Appendix C, . 37
F44:
The BOS were responsible for completing the due diligence process of recruiting and selecting the best qualified and experienced candidate for the position of Director. The BOS did not act in the best interests of the residents and taxpayers of Alpine County during this recruitment and selection.
Related Recommendations (1)
R26:
Review and document County recruitment and selection policy and procedures for all future employees, particularly management positions to ensure that the County completes due diligence and makes every effort to find and hire the best qualified and capable candidate(s). [F36, F37, F38, F39, F40, F41, F42, F43, F44] 36 10. Current & Future Organization of the DPW The DPW has undergone significant changes in its staffing levels and organization of administrative and shared services. These changes occurred due to many factors including the hiring of a replacement Director-DPW after the retirement of the previous Director of 35-years, budget restrictions, Workforce Reduction Plan of 2008, and the physical relocation and consolidation of administrative services with the Building and Planning Departments to form the new Community Development Department in 2008. Due to the downsizing of positions within DPW, existing vacancies and the questionable management of contract resources, the DPW is not accomplishing all of its workload within the County. In 1995, the BOS initiated a restructuring plan for the County that created: The Building Department under a Director/Department Head, the “Building Official”. The Planning Department under the Director/Department Head, the “County Planner”. Retained the Department of Public Works under the Director/Department Head, the “Director of Transportation” (later renamed “Director – Public Works/Surveyor”). This Department retained its responsibilities of County Transportation, the Road Unit, Airport, Buildings and Grounds, and Bear Valley Services. Previous to this reorganization in 1995, all the responsibilities were all under a single DPW; the County did not have a CAO. The BOS dealt directly with the County departments. The 1995 reorganization resolved many issues that had developed over the years including span of control issues of supervision and management. It also began the substantial increase of the County employee workforce. The GJ conducted a survey6 of eight (8) Northern California counties for comparison and use in its review of the DPW. This included Sierra County with a 2000 Census population of 3,555. The 2000 Census population of Alpine County was 1,208. Sierra County is organized so there is not a stand-alone public works department or public works department head, and has operated that way since 1982. CALIFORNIA “SNOW” COUNTY SURVEY - The Grand Jury identified and surveyed eight (8) northern California counties with snow-removal responsibilities. Information requested included: budget, department head requirements, Road Unit/Maintenance, staffing and road mileage maintained. These counties included: Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra and Siskiyou. See Appendix C, . 37
F45:
The current organization and staffing levels of the DPW is not fully meeting the needs of the County and there is no expectation that its current organization and staffing will meet future needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R27:
The County may consider the elimination of the Director-DPW and reorganize the DPW and Community Development Department into a new Community Development and Services Department. (See Proposed Reorganization in Appendix B, and County Survey Table in Appendix C, ) [F45,
F46:
There is a strong financial motivation for the County government to evaluate the need for the current organization of, the need for the existence of the DPW, and the need for a Director-DPW position. This includes, but is not limited to, the elimination of the Director-DPW position and a reorganization/elimination of the DPW as it currently exists.
Related Recommendations (1)
R27:
The County may consider the elimination of the Director-DPW and reorganize the DPW and Community Development Department into a new Community Development and Services Department. (See Proposed Reorganization in Appendix B, and County Survey Table in Appendix C, ) [F45,
F47:
There is a substantial interview history and documentation of continual vindictive, demoralizing, and unethical behavior towards County work force by the AB.
Related Recommendations (1)
R28:
In that the AB is no longer employed by the County, any recommendation for no- rehire, or the like is now moot. [F47, F48, F49, F50, F51] 12. Interview Issues with the Alpine County Board of Supervisors The GJ elected to interview members of the BOS as part of its general review of the DPW. Four members were selected based on their official capacity as Supervisors prior to 2009. The purpose of these interviews was to gather additional information for the GJ’s General review of the DPW and its Director, not an investigation of the BOS. However, the GJ was aware that, although very limited, there were certain topics that the BOS could not be expected to address. Examples of these topics include personnel matters involving personal health information and/or disciplinary issues and actions, and any pending litigation. Once the initial interviews were scheduled, a series of events occurred that surprised the GJ and demonstrated a lack of cooperation with and respect for the GJ process by the BOS and County Counsel, hereinafter referred to as CC. The four individual interviews were confirmed to take place at the close of a regularly scheduled BOS meeting. Prior to the first interview, CC unexpectedly entered the room identifying himself and saying he would be sitting in with each of the BOS member interviews. He advised the GJ’s Committee Chairperson that this was to “protect” the BOS members and the County against any violations of the “Ralph M. Brown (Meeting) Act”7, and to advise the BOS members what questions they could or could not answer. The GJ Committee Chairperson responded that legal representation of an individual giving testimony before any civil, criminal and Federal GJ is not permitted. Further, this would be a breach of the basic operating tenants of the GJ process and function of secrecy and confidentiality. As a result, the Chairperson cancelled the interviews for that evening. Prior to the individual interviews, one member of the BOS verbally confronted a member of the GJ in a public place of business in Alpine County. This Supervisor was rude, loud and threatening to the Juror in front of members of the public, because the Juror would not discuss the pending interviews or business of the GJ. With a unanimous vote the GJ decided that this behavior by any resident would be unacceptable, let alone by an elected official. A letter of admonishment was sent to the offending BOS member and copied to the Alpine County Superior Court Judges, County Chief Administrative Officer, CC and the Alpine County District Attorney, hereinafter referred to as DA. The CC went to the defense of the BOS creating an immediate conflict of interest. The CC did not confer in private with the assigned Superior Court Judge prior to taking action on behalf of the BOS member interviews, nor did CC discuss the matter with the GJ. This action by the CC immediately created the following legal situation: (1) The CC was eliminated as one of the legal advisors to the GJ per California Penal Code, (2) Any future legal service by the CC to the GJ would have to be replaced and would require the Supervising Judge to hire a separate and independent legal advisor attorney at additional cost to the County. The immediate posturing of the BOS members not to be interviewed and unacceptable behavior of one Supervisor, established a lack of cooperation by the BOS with the GJ. It also created the perception that there was an attempt by the BOS to conceal pertinent information from the GJ. Elected officials should never feel or have the opinion that they are above the law. Ultimately, the GJ was able to interview the four BOS members individually and without County Counsel present. The interviews provided some basic information, but for the most part the Supervisors were reluctant, indifferent, and at times hostile in their responses. Ralph M. Brown (Meeting) Act – California Government Code, Section 54950-54963. Legislation that provides for public commissions, boards, councils and other public agencies that meet to conduct the people’s business is done in such a manner that their actions and deliberations be conducted openly. This Act sets forth criteria for advanced notice of meetings of public bodies including but not limited to a 72-hour notice, a written agenda, discussion and presentation of information, and actions (votes) to be taken in public. 42
F48:
Always an issue of confusion by County employees if the AB was working on specific direction and authority of the BOS, inferred authority by the BOS, and/or the AB’s own personal agenda and style of intimidation (described by others as “bullying”). 40
Related Recommendations (1)
R28:
In that the AB is no longer employed by the County, any recommendation for no- rehire, or the like is now moot. [F47, F48, F49, F50, F51] 12. Interview Issues with the Alpine County Board of Supervisors The GJ elected to interview members of the BOS as part of its general review of the DPW. Four members were selected based on their official capacity as Supervisors prior to 2009. The purpose of these interviews was to gather additional information for the GJ’s General review of the DPW and its Director, not an investigation of the BOS. However, the GJ was aware that, although very limited, there were certain topics that the BOS could not be expected to address. Examples of these topics include personnel matters involving personal health information and/or disciplinary issues and actions, and any pending litigation. Once the initial interviews were scheduled, a series of events occurred that surprised the GJ and demonstrated a lack of cooperation with and respect for the GJ process by the BOS and County Counsel, hereinafter referred to as CC. The four individual interviews were confirmed to take place at the close of a regularly scheduled BOS meeting. Prior to the first interview, CC unexpectedly entered the room identifying himself and saying he would be sitting in with each of the BOS member interviews. He advised the GJ’s Committee Chairperson that this was to “protect” the BOS members and the County against any violations of the “Ralph M. Brown (Meeting) Act”7, and to advise the BOS members what questions they could or could not answer. The GJ Committee Chairperson responded that legal representation of an individual giving testimony before any civil, criminal and Federal GJ is not permitted. Further, this would be a breach of the basic operating tenants of the GJ process and function of secrecy and confidentiality. As a result, the Chairperson cancelled the interviews for that evening. Prior to the individual interviews, one member of the BOS verbally confronted a member of the GJ in a public place of business in Alpine County. This Supervisor was rude, loud and threatening to the Juror in front of members of the public, because the Juror would not discuss the pending interviews or business of the GJ. With a unanimous vote the GJ decided that this behavior by any resident would be unacceptable, let alone by an elected official. A letter of admonishment was sent to the offending BOS member and copied to the Alpine County Superior Court Judges, County Chief Administrative Officer, CC and the Alpine County District Attorney, hereinafter referred to as DA. The CC went to the defense of the BOS creating an immediate conflict of interest. The CC did not confer in private with the assigned Superior Court Judge prior to taking action on behalf of the BOS member interviews, nor did CC discuss the matter with the GJ. This action by the CC immediately created the following legal situation: (1) The CC was eliminated as one of the legal advisors to the GJ per California Penal Code, (2) Any future legal service by the CC to the GJ would have to be replaced and would require the Supervising Judge to hire a separate and independent legal advisor attorney at additional cost to the County. The immediate posturing of the BOS members not to be interviewed and unacceptable behavior of one Supervisor, established a lack of cooperation by the BOS with the GJ. It also created the perception that there was an attempt by the BOS to conceal pertinent information from the GJ. Elected officials should never feel or have the opinion that they are above the law. Ultimately, the GJ was able to interview the four BOS members individually and without County Counsel present. The interviews provided some basic information, but for the most part the Supervisors were reluctant, indifferent, and at times hostile in their responses. Ralph M. Brown (Meeting) Act – California Government Code, Section 54950-54963. Legislation that provides for public commissions, boards, councils and other public agencies that meet to conduct the people’s business is done in such a manner that their actions and deliberations be conducted openly. This Act sets forth criteria for advanced notice of meetings of public bodies including but not limited to a 72-hour notice, a written agenda, discussion and presentation of information, and actions (votes) to be taken in public. 42
F49:
The majority of BOS during the past eighteen years failed to take actions by “ignoring” witnessed accounts, first hand observations, employee grievances, letters to the BOS, and other sources of reliable information which clearly established an unacceptable trend of the AB’s unethical and unprofessional behavior. Finally, the AB’s overall decision-making was not in the best interests of the Alpine County government, residents and taxpayers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R28:
In that the AB is no longer employed by the County, any recommendation for no- rehire, or the like is now moot. [F47, F48, F49, F50, F51] 12. Interview Issues with the Alpine County Board of Supervisors The GJ elected to interview members of the BOS as part of its general review of the DPW. Four members were selected based on their official capacity as Supervisors prior to 2009. The purpose of these interviews was to gather additional information for the GJ’s General review of the DPW and its Director, not an investigation of the BOS. However, the GJ was aware that, although very limited, there were certain topics that the BOS could not be expected to address. Examples of these topics include personnel matters involving personal health information and/or disciplinary issues and actions, and any pending litigation. Once the initial interviews were scheduled, a series of events occurred that surprised the GJ and demonstrated a lack of cooperation with and respect for the GJ process by the BOS and County Counsel, hereinafter referred to as CC. The four individual interviews were confirmed to take place at the close of a regularly scheduled BOS meeting. Prior to the first interview, CC unexpectedly entered the room identifying himself and saying he would be sitting in with each of the BOS member interviews. He advised the GJ’s Committee Chairperson that this was to “protect” the BOS members and the County against any violations of the “Ralph M. Brown (Meeting) Act”7, and to advise the BOS members what questions they could or could not answer. The GJ Committee Chairperson responded that legal representation of an individual giving testimony before any civil, criminal and Federal GJ is not permitted. Further, this would be a breach of the basic operating tenants of the GJ process and function of secrecy and confidentiality. As a result, the Chairperson cancelled the interviews for that evening. Prior to the individual interviews, one member of the BOS verbally confronted a member of the GJ in a public place of business in Alpine County. This Supervisor was rude, loud and threatening to the Juror in front of members of the public, because the Juror would not discuss the pending interviews or business of the GJ. With a unanimous vote the GJ decided that this behavior by any resident would be unacceptable, let alone by an elected official. A letter of admonishment was sent to the offending BOS member and copied to the Alpine County Superior Court Judges, County Chief Administrative Officer, CC and the Alpine County District Attorney, hereinafter referred to as DA. The CC went to the defense of the BOS creating an immediate conflict of interest. The CC did not confer in private with the assigned Superior Court Judge prior to taking action on behalf of the BOS member interviews, nor did CC discuss the matter with the GJ. This action by the CC immediately created the following legal situation: (1) The CC was eliminated as one of the legal advisors to the GJ per California Penal Code, (2) Any future legal service by the CC to the GJ would have to be replaced and would require the Supervising Judge to hire a separate and independent legal advisor attorney at additional cost to the County. The immediate posturing of the BOS members not to be interviewed and unacceptable behavior of one Supervisor, established a lack of cooperation by the BOS with the GJ. It also created the perception that there was an attempt by the BOS to conceal pertinent information from the GJ. Elected officials should never feel or have the opinion that they are above the law. Ultimately, the GJ was able to interview the four BOS members individually and without County Counsel present. The interviews provided some basic information, but for the most part the Supervisors were reluctant, indifferent, and at times hostile in their responses. Ralph M. Brown (Meeting) Act – California Government Code, Section 54950-54963. Legislation that provides for public commissions, boards, councils and other public agencies that meet to conduct the people’s business is done in such a manner that their actions and deliberations be conducted openly. This Act sets forth criteria for advanced notice of meetings of public bodies including but not limited to a 72-hour notice, a written agenda, discussion and presentation of information, and actions (votes) to be taken in public. 42
F50:
The AB caused inappropriate, unnecessary and excessive costs to the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R28:
In that the AB is no longer employed by the County, any recommendation for no- rehire, or the like is now moot. [F47, F48, F49, F50, F51] 12. Interview Issues with the Alpine County Board of Supervisors The GJ elected to interview members of the BOS as part of its general review of the DPW. Four members were selected based on their official capacity as Supervisors prior to 2009. The purpose of these interviews was to gather additional information for the GJ’s General review of the DPW and its Director, not an investigation of the BOS. However, the GJ was aware that, although very limited, there were certain topics that the BOS could not be expected to address. Examples of these topics include personnel matters involving personal health information and/or disciplinary issues and actions, and any pending litigation. Once the initial interviews were scheduled, a series of events occurred that surprised the GJ and demonstrated a lack of cooperation with and respect for the GJ process by the BOS and County Counsel, hereinafter referred to as CC. The four individual interviews were confirmed to take place at the close of a regularly scheduled BOS meeting. Prior to the first interview, CC unexpectedly entered the room identifying himself and saying he would be sitting in with each of the BOS member interviews. He advised the GJ’s Committee Chairperson that this was to “protect” the BOS members and the County against any violations of the “Ralph M. Brown (Meeting) Act”7, and to advise the BOS members what questions they could or could not answer. The GJ Committee Chairperson responded that legal representation of an individual giving testimony before any civil, criminal and Federal GJ is not permitted. Further, this would be a breach of the basic operating tenants of the GJ process and function of secrecy and confidentiality. As a result, the Chairperson cancelled the interviews for that evening. Prior to the individual interviews, one member of the BOS verbally confronted a member of the GJ in a public place of business in Alpine County. This Supervisor was rude, loud and threatening to the Juror in front of members of the public, because the Juror would not discuss the pending interviews or business of the GJ. With a unanimous vote the GJ decided that this behavior by any resident would be unacceptable, let alone by an elected official. A letter of admonishment was sent to the offending BOS member and copied to the Alpine County Superior Court Judges, County Chief Administrative Officer, CC and the Alpine County District Attorney, hereinafter referred to as DA. The CC went to the defense of the BOS creating an immediate conflict of interest. The CC did not confer in private with the assigned Superior Court Judge prior to taking action on behalf of the BOS member interviews, nor did CC discuss the matter with the GJ. This action by the CC immediately created the following legal situation: (1) The CC was eliminated as one of the legal advisors to the GJ per California Penal Code, (2) Any future legal service by the CC to the GJ would have to be replaced and would require the Supervising Judge to hire a separate and independent legal advisor attorney at additional cost to the County. The immediate posturing of the BOS members not to be interviewed and unacceptable behavior of one Supervisor, established a lack of cooperation by the BOS with the GJ. It also created the perception that there was an attempt by the BOS to conceal pertinent information from the GJ. Elected officials should never feel or have the opinion that they are above the law. Ultimately, the GJ was able to interview the four BOS members individually and without County Counsel present. The interviews provided some basic information, but for the most part the Supervisors were reluctant, indifferent, and at times hostile in their responses. Ralph M. Brown (Meeting) Act – California Government Code, Section 54950-54963. Legislation that provides for public commissions, boards, councils and other public agencies that meet to conduct the people’s business is done in such a manner that their actions and deliberations be conducted openly. This Act sets forth criteria for advanced notice of meetings of public bodies including but not limited to a 72-hour notice, a written agenda, discussion and presentation of information, and actions (votes) to be taken in public. 42
F51:
The AB/County employee was provided two documented opportunities to provide information to the GJ in order to assist it in determining facts and the related Findings and Recommendations relevant to County business, the employee’s background and the employee’s perspective. The employee declined both opportunities and the GJ decided not to use its subpoena powers for a sworn-in, in-person testimony before the GJ.
Related Recommendations (1)
R28:
In that the AB is no longer employed by the County, any recommendation for no- rehire, or the like is now moot. [F47, F48, F49, F50, F51] 12. Interview Issues with the Alpine County Board of Supervisors The GJ elected to interview members of the BOS as part of its general review of the DPW. Four members were selected based on their official capacity as Supervisors prior to 2009. The purpose of these interviews was to gather additional information for the GJ’s General review of the DPW and its Director, not an investigation of the BOS. However, the GJ was aware that, although very limited, there were certain topics that the BOS could not be expected to address. Examples of these topics include personnel matters involving personal health information and/or disciplinary issues and actions, and any pending litigation. Once the initial interviews were scheduled, a series of events occurred that surprised the GJ and demonstrated a lack of cooperation with and respect for the GJ process by the BOS and County Counsel, hereinafter referred to as CC. The four individual interviews were confirmed to take place at the close of a regularly scheduled BOS meeting. Prior to the first interview, CC unexpectedly entered the room identifying himself and saying he would be sitting in with each of the BOS member interviews. He advised the GJ’s Committee Chairperson that this was to “protect” the BOS members and the County against any violations of the “Ralph M. Brown (Meeting) Act”7, and to advise the BOS members what questions they could or could not answer. The GJ Committee Chairperson responded that legal representation of an individual giving testimony before any civil, criminal and Federal GJ is not permitted. Further, this would be a breach of the basic operating tenants of the GJ process and function of secrecy and confidentiality. As a result, the Chairperson cancelled the interviews for that evening. Prior to the individual interviews, one member of the BOS verbally confronted a member of the GJ in a public place of business in Alpine County. This Supervisor was rude, loud and threatening to the Juror in front of members of the public, because the Juror would not discuss the pending interviews or business of the GJ. With a unanimous vote the GJ decided that this behavior by any resident would be unacceptable, let alone by an elected official. A letter of admonishment was sent to the offending BOS member and copied to the Alpine County Superior Court Judges, County Chief Administrative Officer, CC and the Alpine County District Attorney, hereinafter referred to as DA. The CC went to the defense of the BOS creating an immediate conflict of interest. The CC did not confer in private with the assigned Superior Court Judge prior to taking action on behalf of the BOS member interviews, nor did CC discuss the matter with the GJ. This action by the CC immediately created the following legal situation: (1) The CC was eliminated as one of the legal advisors to the GJ per California Penal Code, (2) Any future legal service by the CC to the GJ would have to be replaced and would require the Supervising Judge to hire a separate and independent legal advisor attorney at additional cost to the County. The immediate posturing of the BOS members not to be interviewed and unacceptable behavior of one Supervisor, established a lack of cooperation by the BOS with the GJ. It also created the perception that there was an attempt by the BOS to conceal pertinent information from the GJ. Elected officials should never feel or have the opinion that they are above the law. Ultimately, the GJ was able to interview the four BOS members individually and without County Counsel present. The interviews provided some basic information, but for the most part the Supervisors were reluctant, indifferent, and at times hostile in their responses. Ralph M. Brown (Meeting) Act – California Government Code, Section 54950-54963. Legislation that provides for public commissions, boards, councils and other public agencies that meet to conduct the people’s business is done in such a manner that their actions and deliberations be conducted openly. This Act sets forth criteria for advanced notice of meetings of public bodies including but not limited to a 72-hour notice, a written agenda, discussion and presentation of information, and actions (votes) to be taken in public. 42
F52:
The California Penal Code that regulates the functions and operations of a GJ, identifies the CC, along with the DA and the supervising Superior Court Judge to serve as the legal representatives and resources for the GJ.
Related Recommendations (1)
R29:
Current and future BOS and CC receive at least the first day training session provided to Alpine County Grand Jurors by the California Grand Jurors Association. This presents an opportunity to understand the role and responsibilities of a GJ and provide orientation of the Ralph M. Brown Act related to the authority, operations, and functions of a California Grand Jury. [F52, F53,
F53:
The four BOS members interviewed lacked knowledge of the section of the Brown Act which provides for interviews by the GJ. The cause of this hypersensitivity of violating the Brown Act was created by the failure of CC to provide accurate interpretations or BOS training. One of the legislative obligations of a California Grand Jury is to monitor the use of the “Ralph M. Brown Act” within its County of jurisdiction. Section 54953.1 of the Brown Act specifically and only addresses that an elected body of a local agency is NOT prohibited from giving testimony (interview) before a GJ either as an individual or as a body.
Related Recommendations (1)
R29:
Current and future BOS and CC receive at least the first day training session provided to Alpine County Grand Jurors by the California Grand Jurors Association. This presents an opportunity to understand the role and responsibilities of a GJ and provide orientation of the Ralph M. Brown Act related to the authority, operations, and functions of a California Grand Jury. [F52, F53,
F54:
The four BOS members, as a group, postured to avoid interviews with the GJ. One member, through confrontation with a Juror in public, attempted to circumvent being interviewed by the GJ.
Related Recommendations (1)
R29:
Current and future BOS and CC receive at least the first day training session provided to Alpine County Grand Jurors by the California Grand Jurors Association. This presents an opportunity to understand the role and responsibilities of a GJ and provide orientation of the Ralph M. Brown Act related to the authority, operations, and functions of a California Grand Jury. [F52, F53,
F55:
The County Counsel went to the defense of the BOS, thereby creating a conflict of interest that resulted in the GJ not being able to utilize the CC’s services. If needed, the GJ would have to engage an outside independent legal representative. This would have resulted in additional taxpayer funds to be unnecessarily utilized. The CC was not acting in the best interests of the taxpayers of Alpine County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R29:
Current and future BOS and CC receive at least the first day training session provided to Alpine County Grand Jurors by the California Grand Jurors Association. This presents an opportunity to understand the role and responsibilities of a GJ and provide orientation of the Ralph M. Brown Act related to the authority, operations, and functions of a California Grand Jury. [F52, F53,