Gran Jurado del Condado de Amador
2007-2008
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
The 2003/2004 Grand Jury Report, including its findings and recommendations, were not responded to by the Board of Supervisors or any other entity of the County, as required by California Penal Code Section 933.05.
F2:
The Begovich Building is too small for the Court’s current and future needs.
F3:
It would be more advantageous to relocate the Courthouse centrally, in proximity to the County Detention Facility and District Attorney’s offices.
F4:
Due to the close proximity of the Courthouse to approximately 500 minor children, the present location poses a significant risk to these children possibly encountering an active shooter incident emanating from the Courthouse.
F5:
The location of the Courthouse has significantly increased intruder incidents at Argonaut High School and Preschool.
F6:
Incidents at the Courthouse are a catalyst for lockdowns occurring at the High School and other adjacent campuses, interrupting the learning process. Our school’s environment should be a safe and secure place for learning, not one that is fraught with potential violence.
F7:
Moving the Courthouse to a more appropriately zoned location rather than close proximity to a residential neighborhood and schools will significantly reduce the risk of potential injury or catastrophic event at our schools.
F8:
Because of no signage at the Courthouse, court visitors are intruding on Argonaut High School campus to ask for directions to the Courthouse, creating possible security issues and concerns by school personnel. 13
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
1 hallazgos
F1:
State the finding as stated in the Grand Jury 2007-2008 report. Response by Department Head State your detailed response to the finding. Follow this same procedure for each finding that you respond to.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
State the recommendations as stated in the 2007-2008 Grand Jury report. Follow this same procedure for each recommendation you respond to. Response by Department Head State your detailed response to the recommendations. This should include progress on your planned actions. This format is the standard format used by all agencies when responding to Grand Jury reports. viii AMADOR COUNTY CITIZENS COMPLAINTS The Grand Jury is empowered to investigate complaints from citizens, civic groups, government employees and others about the workings of local government or the conduct of its officers or employees. Our primary function and the most important reason for our existence is the examination of all aspects of local government, including: cities, special districts and school districts. The Grand Jury is a guardian of public trust in local government. We exist to assure honest, efficient government in the best interests of all people. CONFIDENTIALITY In all of our proceedings and investigations we are sworn to maintain secrecy. As a Grand Jury we apply the same objective standard of conduct and responsibility to all persons and we are charged to avoid being influenced by sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, public feelings, passion or prejudice. COMPLAINT PROCESS While the Grand Jury will investigate complaints presented to it in any form, it is desirous that this form be used whenever possible. Please identify the specific problem and describe the circumstances. Document your complaint with all available evidence and submit copies of all available documents. The Complaint Form may be downloaded at: http://www.co.amador.ca.us/depts/grandjury Mail your complaint to: AMADOR COUNTY GRAND JURY P.O. BOX 249 JACKSON, CA 95642 ix
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
The Amador County Health and Human Services Agency aggressively pursued all funds available from Proposition 63.
F2:
The accepted Plan was crafted by a varied, multidiscipline team that included persons from the Health and Human Services Agency staff, outside consulting experts, and Mental Health Plan Board members.
F3:
The Health and Human Services Agency is preparing to begin ongoing activities to update the Plan, apply for funds for additional Plan components, set up drop-in centers and acquire needed staff.
F4:
The Health and Human Services Agency is currently negotiating with the State for funds from the approved three year Plan that covered the first half of the 2007-2008 fiscal year and the entire 2006/2007 fiscal year plus an additional $363,000 in Plan monies available for I.T. costs.
F5:
A future enhancement by the department is to provide access to inspection reports online for home computer users.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
The existing County jail provides an overcrowded work/control area that is unsafe for correctional officers.
F2:
The jail population is well beyond what was established when it was built.
F3:
With a growing population in the County, overcrowding and security will cause additional strain on the jail system.
F4:
An increase in the number of correctional officers is needed to meet the requirements of current jail population.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
All precincts observed (5) followed procedures required and as reviewed in training sessions with the following exceptions: one precinct handed the confidentiality cover for ballots to voters separately from the ballots without explaining the purpose, which was confusing to some voters.
F2:
Two precincts failed to post a Precinct Index at entrance to poll as required.
F3:
All machines were checked for accuracy and in working condition prior to being delivered to polls.
F4:
In all, all activity at Elections office and at precincts went very smooth. The many steps set up to insure an uncompromised election provided just that and were well thought out and implemented.
F5:
There is a well-experienced and conscientious staff working on behalf of our County elections. 10
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
Although Amador LAFCO had not become completely effective by December 2006, as the Grand Jury Report of 2005/2006 had recommended, it has made significant strides toward that goal, primarily because of the addition of a highly knowledgeable and experienced Executive Officer, who was retained in February 2006. All of the City and County officials interviewed had high praise for the work of the Executive Officer and the progress made in the last two years by LAFCO. Citizens may access the Amador LAFCO website at www.co.amador.ca.us/LAFCO
F2:
Amador LAFCO is still out of compliance with California State Law, the Cortese-Knox- Hertzberg Act of 2000 which directs all county LAFCOs to conduct Municipal Services Reviews no less often than every five years. LAFCO was to have completed and adopted the required MSR no later than December 31, 2007, and it will not be completed and adopted until July 2008 per the Executive Officer
F3:
According to LAFCO Executive Officer and City and County officials interviewed the failure of LAFCO to complete the MSR has not, as yet, affected the approval of any projects or annexations of proposed areas, because updates of general plans are currently underway by each these entities.
F4:
By not complying with California State Law, Amador County runs the risk of lawsuits from developers who otherwise would have been able to develop land in the areas. 17
F5:
The Grand Jury also recommends that the 2008-2009 Grand Jury follow up to ascertain progress on the Municipal Services Review effort.
F6:
As an associated task the Grand Jury recommends that the 2008-2009 Grand Jury assess and report on the progress of all city and county General Plan progress. Response Required: Response to the Findings and Recommendations in this report is required from the Amador County Local Agency Formation Commission and the Amador County Board of Supervisors pursuant to Penal Code sections 933, subdivision (c), and 933.05. Criminal Justice Detention Facilities Introduction: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 919 Subsection (b) the Grand Jury is required to conduct an annual review of the conditions and management of all correctional facilities located within Amador County. As a result, the 2007-2008 Amador County Grand Jury reviewed and toured the daily operations of the following facilities: Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp Background: The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp has been in operation for 63 years. It is a jointly run facility through the cooperation of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice Division, and CAL FIRE. It is located on 80 acres near Pine Grove. It is a training facility dedicated to the rehabilitation of incarcerated juveniles, and conserving California’s forest land and natural resources. The facility houses wards that meet the criteria and have been pre-approved to be housed in an outside “camp” setting. During their sentences at the Camp, the wards participate in Education programs, Life Skills development, Fire fighting, and Fire prevention training. Method of Review: The 2007-2008 Grand Jury’s review of the Pine Grove Conservation Camp consisted of the following: Individuals Interviewed: Superintendent CAL FIRE Division Chief Nurse, Youth Camp Documents Reviewed: Pine Grove Youth Conservation Brochure-Open House November 3, 2005 Organizational Chart “53 Points of Light” Quarterly Public Service Report Statistics - April through June 2006 Staff News – June 20, 2003 19 “Today in California Youth Authority” – 2001 Edition Sites Toured: Administrative Offices Dorms Dining Hall Medical Area Education Area/Classrooms Physical Fitness room/gym Work Areas Facts: