Butte County 2006-2007 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

View the full annual report (PDF)

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (4)

📋June 12, 2008 — Lp<nd of N a T U R a L Wealth a N D B E a U T Y Butte County Library Headquarters 1820 Mitchellavenue

18 pages 15 findings 15 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 15 findings

F1: "Although it has now been comcteed, in the past, money raised by the Grid& FOL was used toficnd extra hoursfor a patit-time poition." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department. 2. "There eiis a lack of overallfudngfor the Butte Couno Libnay ystem. The mmty is re&ng on FOL monies to sz.pp.$ some ofthe basics.." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department. 3. "There is demandfor inmased horn of operation." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department 4. "The stjc branch libraries ab not have inkdual dismtioonay budgets.." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department 5. "There are dmited opportunitiesfor communication among the branch librarian^.^' The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department. 6. "The Libra y faciltieies are rieten'orating." The respondent agrees with this finding. The County has a number of aging facilities and is in the process of implementing a plan to address these needs. On June 26, 2007 the Board of Supervisors approved a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which lays out a 20 year plan to address facility needs throughout the County. Sqgdicant remodeling and expansion of County libraries is planned for 2015, but this schedule may be modif5ed dependent conmbutions from the community. In addition to addressing these large capital budget needs, the County is addressing maintenance needs. For example, in the current fiscal year the Board of Supervisors appropriated funds to replace the flooring in the Oroville Library and in the Chico Branch Library's conference room, 7. "The roofhaks and moM damage at the Gn'dhy Libray took over twoyears to resoIve.." The respondent agrees with the finding as stated However, it should be noted that although the resolution took two years, the problem was promptly addressed. Over the course of the two years a series of professional roohng contractors were retained, but failed to locate the source of the leak and remedy it. Finally, County staff, by an extensive effort, was able to locate and remedy this unique situation. Newly acquited equipment should allow for more prompt resolutions in the future. 8. "The Bzks Library buiMng is not owned by the county, is in poor condiz%onw ithout reJtmom facilities, and is not ADA accenibLe." The respondent agrees with this finding. The buildmg in which the Biggs Branch Library operates is owned by the City of Biggs and leased to the County at essentially no cost This facility, while not ideal, does allow for Library services to be provided in the City of Biggs. The City recently provided access to a restroom both for library staff and for patrons, and approached the County with an offer to discuss other City facilities that may become available for use by the library. Other County libraries, for example Gridley, which is nearby, are ADA accessible. 9. "Handic~pedparkinga ccess is a p b ha t the Paradise Librq." The respondent agrees with this finding. Although the Paradise Branch Library has handicapped parking directly in front of the main entrance, there appears to be a problem with the slope of those parkmg spaces. There are few, if any, level parking spaces at this library. The General Services Department will analyze the extent of the problem with these parktng spaces, and the most appropriate remedy as part of the ongoing effort to eliminate ADA issues thtoughout the County. 10. "The library Strategic Pkzn is &years OM and is curnntb in theprocess $being trphted" The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department 11 . "The Board ofStrpenirors needr a cIeam understandng $Butte County dbrq is~m.'' The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department.

Page 99

F2: According to our research, the county previously has cleared the ditch. Currently, the county is neglecting to perform a function for which they had previously accepted responsibility. The Respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Respondent agrees that the County road crews have previously cleared the ditch located with the road right of way. The Respondent disagrees that we are neglecting to perform a function for which we have previously accepted responsibility. The County has and will continue to annually mow the weeds in the drainage ditch located within the road right of ways.

Page 102

F3: Currently, the responsibility for maintenance of this drainage ditch constructed by Butte County has not been accepted or acknowledged by the County. The Respondent disagrees with the finding. The County did not construct this drainage ditch which flows primarily across private property and ultimately drains into Wyman Ravine. However, a section of this drainage ditch is located within the County road right of way that runs parallel to South Villa and Railroad Avenues. The County has accepted responsibility to maintain this section of drainage ditch and annually mows the vegetation. This area is within a FEMA designated 100 year flood zone. Public Works staff is unaware of any homes flooding in this area except during the State and Federal declared flood emergencies of 1995,1997 and 2005106. After the 1997 State and Federally declared flood disaster, the County received a FEMA mitigation grant to replace a private culvert which was located downstream from the County's maintained section. The private culvert was undersized causing a constriction in the drainage ditch and flood water flows. The FEMA grant allowed the County to replace the culvert with a bridge which increased the capacity of the drainage ditch. The FEMA grant funds also allowed the removal of a large beaver dam and general cleaning of the adjacent section of this private drainage with the property owner's permission. 1997 FEMA mitigation funding also allowed Private Industry Council (PIC) crews to manually remove vegetation and small trees within this County maintained section of drainage ditch as well as many sections of privately owned and maintained sections when permitted by the property owner. Grand Jury Recommendations

Page 103

F4: The DVIOR program, while worthwhile in intention, often effective, and possibly within the letter of the law, does not conform to the spirit of the law as. addressed in the legislative findings to Penal Code $1203.097 which states ta~iversionpr ograms for perpetrat" 0f domestic violence . . . are inadequate to address domestic v~olencea s a serous [sic] crime." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with the findings. The Chief Probation Officer does not provide any statutory oversight, or participation in the District Attorney's DVIOR Program and therefore directs the response of this finding to the District Attorney's Office.

Page 104

F5: Some victim advocates are concerned that the 32-week batterers' program, as compared to the 52-week program mandated by law for convicted offenders on probation, is not legal nor in the spirit of the law which mandates the 52-week program. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with the findings. The Chief Probation Officer does not provide any statutory oversight, or participation in the District Attorney's DVIOR Program and therefore directs the response of this finding to the District Attorney's Office.

Page 105

F6: According to Penal Code $1203.097, the Probation Department approves and certifies batterer's educational programs for Butte County. Offenders may select which program they wish to attend. If offenders wish to switch to the other program, they may with good cause and with the approval of Probation. The respondent partially disagrees with the findings. The Chief Probation Officer has direct statutory oversight of the Batterers Treatment Programs established pursuant to Penal Code 1203.097. There are currently two certified Batterers Treatment Programs within Butte County for which the Chief Probation Officer has direct oversight. Potential clients ordered to complete a 52- week Batterers Treatment Program are provided the names of both programs by the Court Compliance Unit of the Superior Court, from which they may choose. On the rare occasion, and for a showing of good cause, the probation officer may request of the Court upon behalf of a client that they be allowed to change providers. The ultimate decision of whether a client is allowed to switch Batterers Treatment Program Providers rests with the Court.

Page 105

F7: DVIOR offenders are only allowed to attend the batterer's educational program provided by FVEP, even though there is another certified program available through another provider, NB. The DVIOR offenders do not have a choice of programs. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with the findings. The Chief Probation Officer does not provide any statutory oversight, or participation in the District Attomey's DVIOR Program and therefore directs the response of this finding to the District Attomey's Office.

Page 105

F8: DVIOR offenders who are assigned the 32-week program are taught in the same classes as are the convicted domestic violence offenders on probation who are enrolled in the statutory 52-week program. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with the findings. The Chief Probation-Officerd oes not provide any statutory oversight, or participation in the District Attorney's DVIOR Program and therefore directs the response of this finding to the District Attorney's Office.

Page 105

F9: The Grand Jury could find no rational basis for the exclusion of NB from the DVIOR Program batterers' education intervention component. Research in the Social Sciences has found that people may often benefit from one programltherapy while not benefiting from another. Based on this research, clients deserve a choice. The respondent neither agrees pisagrees with the findings. The Probation ORicer does not provide any statutory oversig t, or participation in the District DVIOR Program and therefore directs the response of this finding to the District Attorney's Office.

Page 105

F10: In the State of California auditor's report entitled Batterer Intervention Programs released in November of 2006 wherein Butte County's programs were audited, there was no mention of the DVIOR Program. The Grand Jury concludes that the audit committee was not aware that it existed. The Respondent agrees with this finding.

Page 106

F11: Probation approved the Family Violence Education Programs (FVEP) in 1996 and New Beginnings in November of 2004. The license of the FVEP administrator is listed as "Inactive" and the licenses of the New Beginnings administrators are listed as "Clear." The Respondent agrees with this finding.

Page 106

F12: In Butte County, there currently is no comprehensive domestic violence court to hear cases from start to finish before one specific judge. The District Attorney is supportive of implementing such a court. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with the findings. The respondent is unable to comment on the position of the District attorney on a comprehensive domestic violence court.

Page 106

F13: According to Penal Code §1203.097, certified batterer's educational program providers are to re- apply for certification annually. Twice during the year, the Probation Department is required to audit the programs. The Respondent agrees with this finding.

Page 106

F14: The Probation Department has not been keeping up with program audits and with the re- application process. Probation did begin the re-application process in January of 2007. The Respondent agrees with this finding.

Page 106

F15: Statistics for the number of offenders entering batterer's educational intervention programs and successfully completing the program were not available. In addition, recidivism rates for offenders were not available. The respondent partially disagrees with the fmdings. The Butte County Probation Department keeps a number of statistics and other information concerning the Batterers Treatment Programs. One such statistic is the number of clients referred to either of the two programs by the Court. The Butte County Probation Department can also provide statistics as to the number of clients referred by the Court, and who are supervised by the Probation Department. Recidivism rates are extremely difficult and costly to track, as once a client is no longer on probation it becomes very difficult to keep up with their activities or whereabouts. Clients may also ultimately be sentenced to the California State Department of Corrections and become the responsibility of State Parole. Recidivism is also difficult to define. It may not be truly reflected simply because a client is re-arrested once completing a Batterers Treatment Program, as their arrest may not be directly related to their history of domestic violence, charges may not be filed, or charges may be dismissed. The respondent agrees with the Grand Jury finding as to when cost effective, and possible within the resources available, clients placed by the Court in a Batterers Treatment Program be tracked for recidivism. *

Page 106

Additional Recommendations 15

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: "The Coung shodd not use FOL monq tof znd mutine operating eqenses." The respondent is unable to comment on this recommendation. The respondent does not have the authority to implement the recommendation.

Page 91

R2: To provide increased funding of libraries, the Butte County Library Director and the Board of Supervisors need to investigate other sources of income, as follows: a. Reconsider the proposal of a one-eighth (1/8) cent sales tax increase through a ballot measure to be voted on by the citizens of Butte County. This recommendation is directed to the Board of Supervisors. The respondent does not have the authority to place a sales tax measure on the ballot. However, it should be noted that the Board of Supervisors chose not to place a measure on the ballot on February 14, 2006. b. Pursue grant opportunities aggressively. The recommendation has been implemented. The Library has pursued grant opportunities aggressively, and it will continue to do so. The Library Director reviews available grant funds weekly through eCivis, the Foundation Center, the Library Grants blog, the California State Library and other sources. The Library recently received $55,000 over three years from First 5, as well as $25,000 for the 2007-08 fiscal year from the California State Library, to support the Early Learning with Families and Families for Literacy initiatives. The Library is also awaiting the outcomes of several additional applications, including one to the AT&T Foundation to provide wireless internet access in library buildings. While many grant programs support expansion projects or new initiatives, they rarely provide funding for routine operating expenses, and most grant makers do not fund applications to supplant local government funding. As a result, grants will always play a small but important role in the funding of the Butte County Library. c. Partner with cities in Butte County to implement library impact fees. This recommendation is directed to the Board of Supervisors. However it is the understanding of the respondent that the Board of Supervisors, at its July 10, 2007 meeting, adopted the third and final piece of the development impact fees and that by September 2007 the County will formally request that each city and town in the County adopt Library and other countywide impact fees. d. Apply for state library bond money, when available. This recommendation has been implemented to the degree possible. State library bond money is not currently available. California Senate Bill 156, the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Act of 2008, sponsored by Senator Joe Simitian, has not been brought forward from the Senate Appropriations Committee for a vote by the full Senate. The respondent will continue to monitor the status of the bill. A new library strategic plan, in combination with the County's Capital Improvements Program, will provide much of the content for the application process for state bond funds when and if it becomes available. Additionally, it should be noted that the Board of Supervisors allocated $194,914 in additional General Fund dollars during the 2007-08 budget hearings to expand staff and hours at all six branch locations. The new service hours will begin in October 2007.

Page 92

R3: The Butte County Library budget should allocate discretionary funds to each individual branch library. The recommendation has been partially implemented. With 72 percent of its 2007- 08 budget dedicated to salaries and benefits and 19 percent allocated to internal service funds and support services from other County departments, the Library as a whole has very little discretionary funding. Six percent of the budget goes to purchase books and other materials, leaving three percent for all other expenses. For the 2007-08 budget year, budgets for books and extra help staffing were developed by allocating funds to each branch with the intent to provide branch librarians with maximum flexibility within the constraints of budget limitations. By the end of September 2007, the Library Leadership Team (see response to recommendation 4 below) will determine whether branch discretionary office supply budgets would serve the branches better than the current integrated purchasing of supplies for the entire system.

Page 93

R4: The Butte County Library Director should provide increased opportunities for branch personnel to network through regular meetings, workshops and conferences. The recommendation has been implemented. Beginning on January 17, 2007, the Library Leadership Team has met biweekly, including the Director, Senior Administrative Assistant, and representatives from all branches, the literacy program, and technical services. These meetings have included team building, opportunities to share training, collaborative decision making about policies and procedures, and

Page 93

R5: Facilities Services should address major maintenance issues in a timely manner. The respondent is unable to respond to this recommendation. This recommendation is directed at the General Services Director. The General Services Director reports that major maintenance issues are currently addressed in a timely manner within the confines of staffing, budget and complexity of the issues.

Page 94

R6: The Butte County Library administration should work with the City of Biggs to locate an appropriate facility for the Biggs Library. The recommendation requires further analysis. The City Manager of Biggs has provided a key to the restroom, located on the lower level of the building occupied by the Library, for staff and customer use. Because of the condition of the stairs, people must go outside and enter the building through a different external door. However, access to a restroom within the building is a very positive development. The City of Biggs has identified other potential City-owned facilities where a library might be located, and County officials will tour these facilities by September 2007. The respondent hopes to secure a space that is centrally located, ADA-accessible, well maintained, larger than the current facility, and includes updated technology infrastructure. Any existing facility is likely to require some remodeling, which may render a relocation cost-prohibitive, but the Library Director is hopeful that an agreement for a more suitable facility can be reached.

Page 94

R7: ADA compliance issues at identified branches need to be resolved. The respondent is unable to respond to this recommendation. This recommendation is directed at the General Services Director. However, the respondent understands from the General Services Director that a list of ADA issues, including those at the Library, is being compiled and will be prioritized based on risk and cost.

Page 95

R8: The Butte County Library Advisory Board should complete the update of the Library Strategic Plan. The recommendation is directed at the Library Advisory Board. However, the desired outcome of the recommendation will be implemented by June 2008. The respondent assumes primary responsibility for implementing the recommendation, with the assistance of the Library Advisory Board. The Library Strategic Plan will be a valuable document for making budget allocations, focusing staff time and energy, identifying necessary operational changes, and assessing training and fundraising needs. The Library Advisory Board should play a significant role in the development of the strategic plan, but the Library Director is ultimately responsible for the development and implementation of such a plan. The intent of the Library Director is to complete a plan by the end of the current fiscal year.

Page 95

R9: A member of the Board of Supervisors should serve as a liaison to the Butte County Library Advisory Board. The respondent is unable to respond to this recommendation. The respondent does not have the authority to implement this recommendation. RICH HALL Director - General Services July 31,2007 rhall@buttecounh.net Telephone: (530)-538-7064 Fan: (5303-538-6760 Hon. Steven J. Howell, Presiding Judge c/o Court Administration Superior Court of California, County of Butte 1 Court Street Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Judge Howell: This memorandum contains my responses to the findings and recommendations contained in the Final Report of the 2006-07 Grand Jury. To my knowledge, the only section requiring response from the General Services Department is the section on the library system. If there are other sections I have missed, please let me know and I will respond.

Page 95

R10: In the State of California auditor's report entitled Batterer Intervention Programs released in November of 2006 wherein Butte County's programs were audited, there was no mention of the DVIOR Program. The Grand Jury concludes that the audit committee was not aware that it existed. The Respondent agrees with this finding.

Page 94

R11: Probation approved the Family Violence Education Programs (FVEP) in 1996 and New Beginnings in November of 2004. The license of the FVEP administrator is listed as "Inactive" and the licenses of the New Beginnings administrators are listed as "Clear." The Respondent agrees with this finding.

Page 94

R12: In Butte County, there currently is no comprehensive domestic violence court to hear cases from start to finish before one specific judge. The District Attorney is supportive of implementing such a court. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with the findings. The respondent is unable to comment on the position of the District attorney on a comprehensive domestic violence court.

Page 94

R13: According to Penal Code §1203.097, certified batterer's educational program providers are to re- apply for certification annually. Twice during the year, the Probation Department is required to audit the programs. The Respondent agrees with this finding.

Page 94

R14: The Probation Department has not been keeping up with program audits and with the re- application process. Probation did begin the re-application process in January of 2007. The Respondent agrees with this finding.

Page 94

R15: Statistics for the number of offenders entering batterer's educational intervention programs and successfully completing the program were not available. In addition, recidivism rates for offenders were not available. The respondent partially disagrees with the fmdings. The Butte County Probation Department keeps a number of statistics and other information concerning the Batterers Treatment Programs. One such statistic is the number of clients referred to either of the two programs by the Court. The Butte County Probation Department can also provide statistics as to the number of clients referred by the Court, and who are supervised by the Probation Department. Recidivism rates are extremely difficult and costly to track, as once a client is no longer on probation it becomes very difficult to keep up with their activities or whereabouts. Clients may also ultimately be sentenced to the California State Department of Corrections and become the responsibility of State Parole. Recidivism is also difficult to define. It may not be truly reflected simply because a client is re-arrested once completing a Batterers Treatment Program, as their arrest may not be directly related to their history of domestic violence, charges may not be filed, or charges may be dismissed. The respondent agrees with the Grand Jury finding as to when cost effective, and possible within the resources available, clients placed by the Court in a Batterers Treatment Program be tracked for recidivism. * Recommendations: 0

Page 94

📋June 12, 2008 — L a N D of N a T U R a L W E a L T H a N D B E a U T Y Office Ofthe Auditor-controller County Administration Building

71 pages 15 findings 16 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 15 findings

F1: The Auditor-Controller has adjusted his behavior to spend more time in the office. The respondent disagrees wholly with this finding. The Auditor-Controller has not adjusted any behavior to spend more time in the office. Absences on the part of the Auditor-Controller have been related to time off for vacations, holidays, attending meetings held by The Auditors Association, several Association Committees as a member, Megabyte Property Tax Meeting, Property Tax Managers meetings, and absences for medical reasons for the Auditor and his family. If anything has affected the attendance of the Auditor-Controller between last year and this year, it is some improvements in the medical issues that have demanded less time.

Page 21

F2: The Auditor-Controller appears to be making some effort to improve his interaction style; however, he is still viewed as intimidating as a result of his condescending and critical style. While this style of management may have been common in previous decades, more recent styles include much more positive, supportive guidance interaction. The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. As a supervisor, there are times when one must be critical of certain actions by an employee, and correction is necessary. Employees are encouraged with positive comments when appropriate and the Auditor-Controller will continue with this practice. Every individual can learn and gain from training and the Auditor-Controller is in the process of scheduling attendance at some management communication workshops on supervising employees in today's working environment. The Auditor-Controller takes these critical comments seriously and is making an effort to improve his interactive style.

Page 21

F3: Although reports from interviewees were varied, a certain amount of gender bias may be present in the office environment. The behavior may be inadvertent as result of cultural conditioning. The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. There is no intentional gender bias towards anyone in the Auditor-Controller department.

Page 21

F4: Some staff members still report the fear of retaliation; some report actions that they believe are retaliatory in nature. The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. There has never been retaliation on any employees in the Auditor-Controller office. It would be very helpful if the Grand Jury could be specific as to what retaliation has been brought on any employee so we can better understand this accusation and address it.

Page 21

F5: Morale in the Auditor-Controller's Office appears to be improving based on reports from a majority of the inte~iewees.S everal changes in the office, previously described, have contributed to the increase in morale. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 22

F6: Issues affecting morale still need attention. Personnel issues, minimal communication between departments and among employees, little appreciation from higher administration, and lack of appropriate in-service trainings appear to be contributing to the problem. The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. In any environment with 31 staff members working closely together, there is always room for morale building. The Auditor-Controller and management staff has made great strides in improving communication within the department. Regular management staff meetings are held, as well as monthly meetings with the entire department staff. Training has increased significantly and dollars available and classes offered have increased for the 200712008 fiscal year. 7.A minimal amount of cross-training is being done. The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Cross-training has varied from section to section. The Property Tax section is very well cross-trained. It should be noted that the four staff members in this section have been working together for a number of years, creating a more stable environment for cross- training. In the remaining sections of the office, efforts are continually being made to cross-train. With new staff in each section, however, the new staff member must learn their own duties first, before cross-training can occur.

Page 22

F8: Employees interviewed report that they have had more opportunity and support to attend in-service training programs, but would like to see Human Resources offer even more trainings helpful to management and other staff. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 22

F9: The process of developing an ofice manual and worksite responsibilities has been implemented. However, the manual does not appear to have a high priority. Many of the staff said they do not have time to work on it, and administration has not set any timelines. The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Many staff members have completed their respective worksite responsibilities manual. Timelines were set by management; however, due to time constraints for some staff, manuals are still in process.

Page 22

F10: The office has done a good job at responding to problems which may be affecting response time by planning workshops for outside departments to better understand processes that must be followed for the Auditor- Controller's Office to do its job. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 23

F11: The Assistant Auditor-Controller has worked hard at learning a new job in a challenging environment. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 23

F12: The General Accounting Supervisor is viewed as a hard worker and a highly competent professional dealing with difficult issues and tasks. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 23

F13: The County has transferred Kronos and Pentamation Systems from the Auditor-Controller's Office to the Information Systems Department, thereby addressing time-management and budget issues. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 23

F14: The County has moved quickly to implement desired changes in the physical environment of the Auditor-Controller's Office. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 23

F15: The Audit Committee has developed by-laws and has minutes of meetings available. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 23

F16: Even though the Grand Jury is charged by the Penal Code with the responsibility to review the budgetary issues of the county, notice of Audit Committee meetings were not routinely sent until requested by the Grand Jury. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 23

Additional Recommendations 16

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Auditor-Controller should attend management communication workshops which focus on more effective styles for supervising employees in today's working environments. The recommendation will be implemented. The Auditor-Controller is in the process of scheduling attendance at management communication workshops on supervising employees in today's working environment.

Page 20

R2: The Auditor-Controller should continue the recently implemented programs designed to improve interaction and be open to suggestions for effective change. The recommendation has been implemented. The administration of the Auditor- Controller's office is continuing with the recently implemented programs designed to improve the interaction of staff, and staff members are encouraged to bring forward any suggestions they have. Administration is looking at methods for improving the upward, downward, and lateral flow of communications, as well as looking at areas of training to provide staff with tools to improve communication flow.

Page 20

R3: The Auditor-Controller should implement methods to improve the upward, downward, and lateral flow of communication. The recommendation has been implemented. Please see response above to Recommendation number 2.

Page 21

R4: The Auditor-Controller should implement cross-training in those sections that are not currently doing so. The recommendation is in the process of being implemented. The Auditor- Controller, with support from the Assistant Auditor-Controller and Finance Officer, will be closely working with each section that does not have a complete cross- training plan in place to further develop a cross-training plan.

Page 21

R5: Human Resources should plan and implement management communication skill workshops for supervisors at all levels, in all departments. The respondent is unable to comment on this recommendation since it is directed to Human Resources. However, the Auditor-Controller agrees with the recommendation.

Page 21

R6: Human Resources should plan and implement workshops which include educating all staff on behaviors that are gender biased in nature but often not recognized as such as a result of cultural conditioning. The respondent is unable to comment on this recommendation since it is directed to Human Resources. However, the Auditor-Controller agrees with the recommendation.

Page 21

R7: Human Resources should better educate employees about the grievance procedures to be followed in case of a retaliatory action. The respondent is unable to comment on this recommendation since it is directed to Human Resources. However, the Auditor-Controller agrees with the recommendation.

Page 21

R8: The Auditor-Controller should place a higher priority on the development of the office procedural manual and respective desk manuals. Staff should be held accountable to a timeline. A mechanism should be in place to encourage employee input. The recommendation will be implemented. The Auditor Controller administration is putting together a plan to assist a selected staff person to work with employees to get their input and contributions of ideas and processes as an office procedural manual, as well as individual desk manuals, are developed. A specific timetable will be put in place for the completion of the procedures manual and the desk manuals.

Page 21

R9: The Auditor-Controller's Office should continue offering educational programs to help outside departments in their responsibilities for completing paper work more effectively. The recommendation has been implemented. Auditor-Controller staff has developed training programs and presentations to educate outside departments in areas of cost, payroll, cash handling, and accounting procedures. These training presentations are being scheduled on a recurring basis and also on the request of any department which desires the training between regularly scheduled times.

Page 22

R10: The CAO should inform the Grand Jury of all meetings of the Audit Committee. The respondent is unable to comment on this recommendation since it is directed to the Chief Administrative Officer. However, the Auditor-Controller agrees with the recommendation. Responses Required (Penal Code <933 and 933.05) Butte County Auditor-Controller Butte County CAO Butte County Human Resources e 0 utte County F F BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I I ' BILL CONNELLY '!Jmrlor L L First District " *Oo7 E ~ NDOEWN, Chair ADMINISTRATION CENTER 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 959651) shard ~mlanCdm D Second District ' TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7224 BY Dm M AUREEN KIRK LI Third District CURT JOSIASSEN Fourth District KIM K. YAMAGUCHI Fifth District August 28,2007 . , Honorable Steven Howell, Presiding Judge Butte County Superior Court One Court Street Oroville, CA 95965 RE: Board of Supervisors' Response to the 2006-2007 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report The Butte County Board of Supervisors would like to thank the members of the Grand Jury for many hours spent in researching, investigating, and making recommendations for improvements in government operations that benefit the citizens and taxpayers of Butte County. In accordance with Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the Board submits the following agency response to the findings and recommendations of the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury Final Report pertaining to matters under its control. A response from the Board is additionally provided where the Grand Jury has requested a response to budgetary or personnel matters of a county department that is headed by an elected official. In such cases, the Board's response addresses only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. In preparing an agency response, appointed department heads were requested to submit responses to the Chief Administrative Officer for attachment to the overall agency response included herein. You will find the various departmental responses located in

Page 22

R11: The Assistant Auditor-Controller has worked hard at learning a new job in a challenging environment. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with the finding. The Board of Supervisors is not involved in the daily operations of the Auditor-Controller's Department.

Page 26

R12: The General Accounting Supervisor is viewed as a hard worker and a highly competent professional dealing with dificult issues and tasks. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with the finding. The Board of Supervisors is not involved in the daily operations of the Auditor-Controller's Department.

Page 27

R13: The County has transferred Kronos and Pentamation Systems fiom the Auditor-Controller 's Ofice to the Information Systems Department, thereby addressing time-management and budget issues. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 27

R14: The County has moved quickly to implement desired changes in the physical environment of the Auditor-Controller 's OfJice. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 27

R15: The Audit Committee has developed by-laws and has minutes of meetings available. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 27

R16: Even though the Grand Jury is charged by the Penal Code with the responsibility to review the budgetary issues ofthe county, notice of Audit Committee meetings were not routinely sent until requested by the Grand Jury. The respondent disagrees with the finding. The Chief Administrative Officer reports that the Grand Jury has been routinely invited to Audit Committee meetings. Grand Jury Recommendations I. The Auditor-Controller should attend management communication workshops which focus on more effective styles for supervising employees in today's working environments. The respondent is unable to comment on this recommendation since it is directed to the Auditor-Controller, an elected official.

Page 27

📋June 12, 2008 — L a N D of N a T U R a L W E a L T H a N D Beauty Office Ofthe Auditor-controller County Administration Building 25

81 pages 16 findings 19 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 16 findings

Page 110

F5: Morale in the Auditor-Controller's Office appears to be improving based on reports from a majority of the interviewees. Several changes in the office, previously described, have contributed to the increase in morale. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 111

F7: D V/OR offenders are only allowed to attend the batterev 's educational program provided by FVEP, even though there is another certz$ed program available through another provider, NB. The DV/OR offenders do not have a choice ofprograms. Response - I wholly disagree with the first sentence of this finding in that there is only Grand Jury Response 2006-07 August 20,2007 Paqe 7 of 11 one "certified" batterer's educational program for DVIOR offenders - Family Violence Educational Programs (FVEP). FVEP is the only program approved by the District Attorney to provide the treatment and supervision services as needed for the DVIOR Program. Any certification for other programs is irrelevant. As to the second sentence of the finding, I disagree partially as there have been rare instances of a DVIOR offender now residing far away who have been allowed to participate in an out-of- county treatment program approved by the District Attorney.

Page 132

Page 111

Page 112

F11: The Assistant Auditor-Controller has worked hard at learning a new job in a challenging environment. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 112

F12: The General Accounting Supervisor is viewed as a hard worker and a highly competent professional dealing with difficult issues and tasks. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 112

F14: The County has moved quickly to implement desired changes in the physical environment of the Auditor-Controller's Office. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 112

F15: The Audit Committee has developed by-laws and has minutes of meetings available. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 112

Additional Recommendations 19

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: - The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but hopefully wilI be in the near future. I am doing all I can to convey the importance of fully funding the Assessor's office, and the long-term benefit of doing so.

Page 116

R2: - I have attempted to implement the recommendation, most recently as it applies to the 'support' division of my department. On April 24,2007, I forwarded an interdepartmental memo to the Administration and the Human Recourses (HR) Departments of Butte County, with supporting documentation, regarding inequities I believe occurred as a result of the 2005-2006 ClassICompensation Study. Specifically, an adverse effect of the ClassICompensation Study was the compression of our previous Assessment Clerk I and I1 positions into one entry-level position. This reduced the number of salary range differentials within the job series, and minimized promotional opportunities for long-term employees. The same-type compression occurred in our appraiser series. It takes years to train our support and appraisal sW, and I would like those qualified and so-inclined to have the opportunity for promotion by returning to pre-Class/Compensation Study salary range differentials.

Page 116

R3: - The recommendation has been implemented, and the cooperative working relationship we have with HR continues to be strengthened. I responded to the HR 'Recruitment Process Questionnaire' in February 2007. I appreciate the goal of the survey, August 8,2007 which was to provide HR with interdepartmental input to assist in analyzing and streamlining the recruitment process. The results were tabulated and it is my belief that the survey was not only a beneficial endeavor, but that it will assist in achieving its stated purpose.

Page 116

R4: - The recommendation has been implemented but there is only so much that can be done. My staff and I maintain on-going contact with the other two other tax-cycle departments (Auditor and Treasurer-Tax Collector) which utilize, and rely upon, the Megabyte property tax system. We are aligned in our attempt to gain improved service and accountability from the Consultant/Contractor, and I believe our efforts will eventually produce some positive results.

Page 117

R5: - The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. One third of California counties (19) adhere to a minimum value assessment policy of $2,000. Twelve counties have no minimum value ordinance, and six counties have a minimum value assessment policy of between $700 and $1,350. Revenue and Taxation (R&T) statute 155.20 provides for a "determination" by the board based upon a costhenefit, or break- even analysis.. .essentially a determination of the point at which costs exceed the proceeds to be collected. Costs of annually processing and taxing parcels with base values of $2,001 to $5,000 do not exceed $20.00 per parcel. In Butte County, there are 855 parcels with base values of $2,001 to $5,000, for a total assessed value of $3,300,000. At a county general tax rate of 1%, foregone tax revenue would be $33,000 if the low value ordinance was amended to preclude these assessments from annual tax.

Page 117

R6: - The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Within the next month I will draft a 'Board Agenda Transmittal' requesting that a resolution be adopted, pursuant to R&T statute 155.20, to raise the low value threshold for transitory 'Possessory Interests7 to $50,000.

Page 117

Page 110

R7a: - The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but hopejklly will be in the near future. I agree that the number of auditor-appraisers should be increased to five. However, that is not a possibility under current budget restraints. Additional finding to the Assessor's budget from the general fund will be necessary to increase the staff to a level adequate to maintain compliance with the mandatory audit regulations.

Page 118

R7b: - The recommendation has been implemented, however, even with an increase to the auditor-appraiser staff, the office is so far behind in its mandatory audit workload that extra help would be required to catch up to a level that could then be maintained by an increased staff. The continued use of a retired auditor-appraiser for a portion of each year can help reduce the audit backlog. This could take a few years. Without an increase in staffing, the extra help is essential to continue audits at the current level of production.

Page 118

R7c: - The recommendation has not yet been implemented, however, if adequate funding were received in the budget to fill all of the needed auditor-appraiser positions, it would not be necessary to perform extra CCCASE audit trips. We could perform only what is needed to offset the expense of the CCCASE audits that other counties are performing for our county. However, under the current budget situation, the revenue generated by the extra August 8,2007 CCCASE trips helps cover the salary of our third auditor-appraiser. A loss of that revenue would result in additional reduction of staff. While we are not completing all of the mandatory audits that are due, the extra auditor-appraiser is essential for help in processing property statements, valuing boats and aircraft, creating roll corrections, and handling the day-to-day dealings with taxpayers.

Page 118

R8: - The recommendation has been implemented, and I feel our participation in CCCASE continues to be the most practical tool for performing out-of-state audits. The alternative would be to do the audits through correspondence, which would consume more time, and result in a higher rate of inadequate information. It is often more difficult to gain compliance fiom taxpayers through correspondence.

Page 119

R9: - The recommendation has been implemented but there is only so much that can be done. The PTAP funding is extremely important to the overall budget of my department, and I am thankful to Administration for infilling the foregone funding for the 200712008 budget cycle. Permanent loss of $381,956 in annual PTAP hding would result in staff reductions my department can ill-afford. August 8,2007 Butte Countv Assessor's Response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations Below are responses to the findings and recommendations of the 2007 Grand Jury report as they apply speczjically to the Business Division.

Page 117

R10: The CAO should inform the Grand Jury of all meetings of the Audit Committee. The respondent is unable to comment on this recommendation since it is directed to the Chief Administrative Officer. However, the Auditor-Controller agrees with the recommendation. Responses Required (Penal Code c933 and 933.05) Butte County Auditor-Controller Butte County CAO Butte County Human Resources L A N D OF N A T U R A L W E A L T H A N D B E A U T Y KENNETH 0. REIMERS ASSESSOR 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3382 Telephone: (530)5 38-7721 Fa: (530)5 38-7991 Meegan Condon Senior Management Analyst Butte County Administration 25 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Assessor's Office Response to 200612007 Butte County Grand Jury Final Report Dear Meegan: In response to your memorandum of July 5, 2007, please find enclosed the Assessor's Office Response to the Butte County Grand Jury Final Report. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me. Sincerelv. KENNETH 0. RElMERS Assessor Enclosure August 8,2007 Butte County Assessor's Response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations Note: Responses to Findings 1,8,9, 10, and 11 , and responses to Recommendations 5,7a, 7b, 7c, 8, and 9, as they apply to the Business Division, are detailed on pages 3 and 4 of this document. Below are responses to findings and recommendations of the 2007 Grand Jury report, exclusive of the aforementioned responses to findings and recommendations applicable to the Business Division.

Page 111

R11: "The Board ofSupenn'sws nee& a cham undersana3ng @Butte Coung librq issues." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department. Recommendations

Page 131

R12: In Butte County, there currently is no comprehensive domestic violence court to hear cases from start to finish before one speczjk judge. The District Attorney is supportive of implementing such a court. Response - I agree with this finding with the note that I have been advocating such a court for a number of years and although most judges are in general agreement, the Grand Jury Response 2006-07 August 20,2007 Paqe 9 of 11 court has indicated they do not currently have adequate resources to implement such a separate court calendar. 13 . According to Penal Code Section 1203.097, certified batterer 's educational program providers are to re-apply for certiJication annually. Twice during the year, the Probation Department is required to audit the programs. Response - I agree with this finding.

Page 123

R13: The County has transferred Kronos and Pentamation Systems from the Auditor-Controller's Office to the Information Systems Department, thereby addressing time-management and budget issues. The respondent agrees with this finding.

Page 144

R14: The Probation Department has not been keeping up with program audits and with the re- application process. Probation did begin the re-application process in Januav of 2007. Response - I can neither agree nor disagree with this finding as this is within the knowledge of the Probation Department. (I do note, however, the Probation Department, like many other county departments, continually struggles with unfunded state mandates such as this one.) 15 . Statisticsf or the number of offenders entering batterer 'se ducational interventionp rograms and successfully completing the program were not available. In addition, recidivism rates for offenders were not available. Response - I disagree partially with this finding. The information is available, it is the resources are that not available to capture the information. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS (For ease of reference, the Grand Jury recommendations are in italics and my response is in bold.)

Page 124

R15: The Auditor Committee has developed by-laws and has minutes of meetings available. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Respondent is not involved in this committee and therefore has no direct knowledge regarding this finding.

Page 144

R16: Even though the Grand Jury is charged by the Penal Code with the responsibility to review the budgetary issues of the county, notice of Audit committee meetings were not routinely sent until requested by the Grand Jury. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Respondent is not involved in this committee and therefore has no direct knowledge regarding this finding. FY 06-07 Grand Jury Response Butte County Department of Human Resources 9 Grand Jury Recommendatr ns

Page 145

June 21, 2007 — Butte County 2006-2007 Grand Jury Final Report

579 pages 26 findings 26 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 26 findings

F1: The Auditor-Controller has adjusted his behavior to spend more time in the office. 23

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Department of Public Works should schedule and perform periodic inspection and maintenance of County drainage ditches. 2. The Board of Supervisors should instruct the Department of Public Works to be more responsive to citizen complaints. 97 3. The Board of Supervisors should adopt a resolution clarifying the County responsibility to maintain county-constructed ditches. Responses Required (Penal Code §933 & §933.05) Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Public Works Director 98 Domestic Violence/Own Recognizance Program Reasons for the Investigation A complaint form was submitted to the Grand Jury listing concerns with a program administered from the Butte County District Attorney’s Office. The program was identified as the Domestic Violence/Own Recognizance (DV/OR). The first concern in the complaint was: Is the DV/OR Program a diversion program and, as a consequence, an illegal one based on Penal Code §1203.097? A second concern focused on the 32-week batterer’s intervention program in DV/OR: Is it a legal requirement in that the same Penal Code requires a program of 52 weeks? The final concern was: Is the practice of referring clients/domestic batterers in the DV/OR program exclusively to one service provider in the community a legal practice? The Grand Jury decided to investigate.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Auditor-Controller should continue the recently implemented programs designed to improve interaction and be open to suggestions for effective change.

F3: Although reports from interviewees were varied, a certain amount of gender bias may be present in the office environment. The behavior may be inadvertent as result of cultural conditioning.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Auditor-Controller should implement methods to improve the upward, downward, and lateral flow of communication.

F4: Some staff members still report the fear of retaliation; some report actions that they believe are retaliatory in nature.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Auditor-Controller should implement cross-training in those sections that are not currently doing so.

F5: Morale in the Auditor-Controller’s Office appears to be improving based on reports from a majority of the interviewees. Several changes in the office, previously described, have contributed to the increase in morale.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Human Resources should plan and implement management communication skill workshops for supervisors at all levels, in all departments.

Related Recommendations (1)

F7: A minimal amount of cross-training is being done.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Human Resources should better educate employees about the grievance procedures to be followed in case of a retaliatory action.

Related Recommendations (1)

F9: The process of developing an office manual and worksite responsibilities has been implemented. However, the manual does not appear to have a high priority. Many of the staff said they do not have time to work on it, and administration has not set any timelines.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Auditor-Controller’s Office should continue offering educational programs to help outside departments in their responsibilities for completing paper work more effectively.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The CAO should inform the Grand Jury of all meetings of the Audit Committee. Responses Required (Penal Code ξ933 and 933.05) Butte County Auditor-Controller Butte County CAO Butte County Human Resources 25

F11: The Assistant Auditor-Controller has worked hard at learning a new job in a challenging environment.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The FRRPD Board and management should use the line of credit only for cash flow management.

F12: The General Accounting Supervisor is viewed as a hard worker and a highly competent professional dealing with difficult issues and tasks.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: The FRRPD Board should budget to pay off the incurred debt well in advance of the ten year limit.

F13: The County has transferred Kronos and Pentamation Systems from the Auditor-Controller’s Office to the Information Systems Department, thereby addressing time-management and budget issues.

F14: The County has moved quickly to implement desired changes in the physical environment of the Auditor-Controller’s Office. 24

Related Recommendations (1)

R14: The FRRPD Board should arrange to have a financial staff of between two and three full time equivalents, including the FM.

F15: The Audit Committee has developed by-laws and has minutes of meetings available.

Related Recommendations (1)

R15: The FRRPD Board should ensure that the financial manager position be filled by a degreed professional with some years of appropriate experience.

Related Recommendations (1)

R16: The FRRPD Board should see that the accounting software is set up and running so that a monthly formal report can be made to the Board of Directors. If the existing staff cannot complete the setup work by August 1, 2007, the work should be contracted out to a financial consulting firm.

F17: The General Manager and the Board of Directors have failed to provide the FRRPD with the staff necessary to handle day-to-day financial affairs of the District. There is neither enough experience nor enough staff.

Related Recommendations (2)

R13: which appear at the end of this report. Issue: Financial Management – Staffing Background: In the course of our investigation of the various financial issues concerning the District, the Grand Jury noted that the financial management was in disarray. We focused on the financial management staffing to see if that might be part of the problem. Investigation: The Financial Manager (FM) was most cooperative in our interview. During the interview we learned that the FM had some relevant experience and was currently working towards a degree in accounting. There was a sense that the FM was overwhelmed partly because of the newness of the job, but also because the former staff members who held any corporate knowledge of how things worked had either quit or been fired. Also, the lack of appropriate support staff required that the FM do the day-to-day tasks such as posting payments to the correct accounts and delivering daily receipts to the County Treasurer’s Office. This impeded progress in getting the books organized. When we inquired about the obviously incorrect balance sheet (Exhibit H) submitted in response to subpoena, we learned that the new accounting software had not yet been set up, so it was not possible to produce a meaningful financial picture. This was still true at the time of the interview (March 21, 2007) although a few weeks later the Board Chairman, after being questioned about the financial situation, sent to the Grand Jury an updated balance sheet (Exhibit I) which included the missing liability entry for the debt to the Bank of the West. However, it appeared that the balance sheet had been corrected manually, so it does not necessarily signify that the new software is fully operational. At every FRRPD Board meeting attended by Grand Jury members, in March, April and May, presentation of a financial report was on the agenda. Each time, the FM offered an apology for being unable to present a financial report. Our interview with representatives of the Butte County Auditor-Controller’s Office, who work with the FRRPD FM on a day-to-day basis, confirmed our impression that the FRRPD is inadequately staffed to handle their financial affairs. The Auditor-Controller’s office recommended that the FRRPD contract with a professional financial advisor to get things in order, but no action has been taken on that advice. The Auditor-Controller’s Office also supplied copies of correspondence (both internal and with the FRRPD) which delineated a number of situations in which funds were not handled properly. For example, (Exhibit J) in January 2007 the District drew approximately $250,000 from the line of credit established with the bank and then did not use the money for several months and lost track of it. This caused not only confusion but also resulted in an unnecessary interest expense estimated at about $5000. See Findings 17, 18, 19 and Recommendations 14, 15, 16 which appear at the end of this report. Issue: Public Service and Relations - Conduct of Board Meetings Background: The Grand Jury received a letter complaining about the conduct of the FRRPD Board meetings. The complaint noted that the FRRPD had changed the time of the meetings to 3:30 in the afternoon, which is much less conducive to citizen participation than the evening meetings which were the earlier practice. The letter went on to report that at a recent Board meeting, the Board members were huddled around a conference table so that members of the public could not make eye contact with the Board members, nor could they easily hear the Board member discussion. When a complaint was made, they were told by a Board member “it works for us.” The letter goes on to state that one Board member, the same member who had argued earlier for even more severe limits on public comments at the meeting, filibustered the meeting by reading magazine articles aloud to use up the time remaining. This was viewed as another technique to limit public comment and input. Investigation: The details of the written complaint were confirmed during interviews with the authors; the Board member who had argued for limits in public input and then had filibustered the meeting was identified as Director Thompson. One complainant had attended the FRRPD Board meetings regularly for many years, but had recently stopped because of the Board’s apparent policy of discouraging public participation. When interviewed, the Board chairman denied that the Board had adopted a policy of discouraging public attendance and participation at Board meetings. The meeting time change was described as a cost cutting measure; the District would not have to pay extra to hourly employees if their presence was required. In a follow up letter (Exhibit K), the Chairman said that the local newspaper had been contacted and would publicize the Board meetings, but as of this writing in early June, no such notice has been observed. In order to better understand the issue, members of the Grand Jury attended a number of FRRPD Board meetings as follows: February 28, 2007 Two Grand Jury members attended March 14, 2007 Three Grand Jury members attended March 28, 2007 Two Grand Jury members attended April 11, 2007 Three Grand Jury members attended May 9, 2007 Four Grand Jury members attended The Grand Jury members attended as members of the public and wore no identifying badges. There was no advance notice to the Board; the Grand Jury members did not ask to speak at any of the meetings; they were there only to observe. All of the meetings, except one, were held in the room adjacent to the gymnasium in the Oroville Municipal Auditorium. A movable partition separates this room from the gymnasium. The FRRPD headquarters and offices are in this same building. The acoustics in the meeting room are terrible. Many of the Board members are soft-spoken, so it is difficult for the audience to hear what they are saying. This problem is much worse when there is a noisy athletic event in progress in the adjacent gym as was often the case. There is no audio system. It is questionable whether the narrow entry doors provide access for the disabled. The one meeting that was held at a different site was no better. The site was outdoors at Riverbend Park. The ability to hear what was said by the Board members was even worse than at the Municipal Auditorium. The new Policies and Procedures Handbook, supplied by the District in response to subpoena, states that the Board meetings will normally be held at the Oroville City Council Chambers. The change to the present location evidently became a standard practice in the fall of 2006. All of the meetings we attended were in fact held in the afternoon. The Board Chairman testified that the meetings had been 196 held in the evening until the fall of 2006 when the Board changed the regular meeting time to 3:30 pm. The only notice of meetings is a posting on the front door of the FRRPD office. Although the regular meetings are scheduled at the same times each month, the Board has been holding many special meetings which, by law, require even less advance notice (24 instead of 72 hours). For example, the special Board meeting held on January 5, 2007, had no other purpose than to approve the increase in the line of credit with the Bank of the West from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. Because this increase did not actually take place until January 30, the approval could have been done at the regular meeting five days later on January 10. During the week of April 23, 2007, the FRRPD held three Board meetings as follows: Monday, April 23 Special Meeting (Budget discussion) Wednesday, April 25 Regular Meeting Thursday, April 26 Special Meeting (To approve impact fee letter) The public is not well served if important discussions and actions take place in special meetings. It should be noted that the regular Board meetings are scheduled twice a month. We observed that members of the audience were treated appropriately at those meetings where Director Thompson was absent. When he was present, the Grand Jury observed that Director Thompson exhibited hostile and verbally abusive behavior towards the audience. Some examples are: o According to the minutes of the April 11th meeting, Director Thompson spoke as follows: “…informed them that he wanted to discuss something that had not been approved by the board, nor did they have any prior knowledge of it. He stated that he didn’t like there [sic] Gestapo tactics and believes they are on the verge of harassment for frequent appearances at our Board meetings. He would like to know what they are investigating. He also stated that he is preparing a letter to be sent to the Attorney General with a list of Grand Jury members’ names from this year and last year and he does not understand the witch hunting.” (Exhibit L) o At the meeting on May 9th, Director Thompson conspicuously photographed the Grand Jury members in attendance, both inside and outside the building. During the Pledge of Allegiance, he added the words “and to the Grand Jury” into his recitation. Later, Director Thompson made an insulting reference to the “members of the Gestapo present” while gesturing towards the audience. o One of the Grand Jury members attending the March 28th meeting was interfered with by another member of the audience who sat next to the Grand Jury member and suggested that she had no 197 business taking notes because she did not understand what was going on. The interference was continued by talking directly into the Grand Jury member’s ear, so that it was very difficult for her to hear what was being said in the meeting. The offending person was later identified as the spouse of an FRRPD Director. Director Thompson’s expressed lack of familiarity with Grand Jury responsibilities and procedures is especially bizarre because he once served on a Butte County Grand Jury. The new Board policy is effectively discouraging public participation; the Grand Jury members were usually the only public attendees. The District lawyer was briefly present at one meeting. A consultant to the District was present at another. A member of the Citizens Oversight Committee was present at one meeting. On two other occasions we observed two other community groups that sent representatives to a meeting. See Findings 20, 21 and Recommendations 17, 18, 19 which appear at the end of this report. Issue: Public Service and Relations - Citizens Oversight Committee Background: In 2002 the residents of the FRRPD voted to approve a benefit assessment district supported by an annual tax added to their real estate tax bills. The tax is collected by Butte County and disbursed to the Park District as a separate fund for maintenance of FRRPD facilities. The former General Manager testified that the District, in the promotional literature encouraging voters to support the benefit assessment, promised to set up a Citizens Oversight Committee to oversee the allocation and utilization of the benefit assessment funds. This committee was formed. When the Grand Jury studied the district’s web site in March 2007, an advertisement was found seeking citizen volunteers to fill vacancies on the Citizens Oversight Committee; the advertisement gave an October of 2006 deadline for submittal of applications. The advertisement was many months out of date. Investigation: When the Grand Jury began to attend the Park District Board meetings, we learned from the discussions that the Oversight Committee had more than one vacancy, had not been able to achieve a quorum to support a meeting for several quarters; and that there had been essentially no recruiting activity since the web site advertisement had been placed in the summer of 2006. When we interviewed the Board Chairman on March 22, 2007, she expressed some surprise at the fact that the web site advertisement was out of date. In a letter to the Grand Jury following the interview (Exhibit K), the Chairman stated 198 that the web site notice would be updated; it subsequently was updated to eliminate the long past October 2006 deadline for applications. At the May 9, 2007, Board meeting, the most recently attended as of this writing, the issue was further discussed. It was suggested that candidates would be interviewed and new members for the Oversight Committee selected just prior to the next regular board meeting. See Finding 22 and Recommendation 20 which appear at the end of this report. Issue: Programs for Seniors Background: In our review of the FRRPD Website, the Grand Jury noticed that the District is working with only one of the two senior citizen organizations in the greater Oroville area. Complainants who were interviewed indicated a lack of senior programs. Investigation: We interviewed representatives of one senior citizen organization at length. We also questioned past and present Board members about the adequacy of programs oriented towards participation by seniors. Everyone agreed that there were too few offerings. The Board members attributed this to lack of funds. In our review of past and present FRRPD Activity Guides (Exhibits M and N), we found an overall reduction in program offerings in all age categories. In the offerings for seniors, we found that FRRPD no longer offers trips and tours, many of which were heavily attended by seniors. Social dances have also been eliminated. These cuts may have been made as a result of declining enrollment and participation, but as with any programming, there needs to be promotion. Representatives from the senior community have attended board meetings to express their desire for more offerings, but to date, their concerns have not been adequately addressed. The former General Manager provided us with the history of the FRRPD working relationship with senior organizations. He also said that there had been efforts to work cooperatively with both seniors organizations in Oroville, but that these past efforts had proved unsuccessful, due to personality conflicts. See Findings 23, 24 and Recommendations 21, 22 which appear at the end of this report. Issue: Conflict of Interest Incident Background: Two citizen complainants indicated during their interviews that an FRRPD Director voted at a Board meeting to award a contract to a firm owned by a close relative of the Board member. In a situation of this sort, the proper procedure is that the Board member disclose the conflict of interest, then recuse himself from the discussion and abstain from the vote on the contract award. Investigation: The Grand Jury interviewed the Board member involved who admitted that the incident had indeed occurred and stated that it was now recognized by that Board member to have been improper. The vote came up soon after the election of the Board member and before receiving ethics training. We reviewed the subpoenaed FRRPD Policies and Procedures Handbook received on January 24, 2007. The Handbook gives no substantive guidance to Board members on any ethics issue. The Handbook incorporates the standard Conflict of Interest Code by reference, but gives no summary of its provisions. This leaves a new director or employee in a potentially awkward situation with no guidance at hand. The Grand Jury also reviewed the FRRPD Directors Handbook, originally dated January 12, 1984, and revised periodically through February 6, 1995. We obtained this document from a former FRRPD Board member. The current Board seems to be unaware of this earlier Handbook. The earlier handbook has appended to it a succinct summary of the ethics obligations of a Board member. If this handbook were still in use, a new Board member would have a convenient and timely way to become informed on avoiding conflict of interest situations. See Finding 25 and Recommendation 23 which appear at the end of this report. Issue: Skate & Bike Park Funding Background: The 2005-06 Grand Jury investigated and reported on the funding of the Skate & Bike Park. They found that funds were committed without the required Board approval. In the formal response to the 2005-06 Grand Jury report, the FRRPD stated that the funds had been properly approved at a Board meeting, but that the records of that meeting had been destroyed. The FRRPD directed the General Manager to conduct an investigation of the Skate and Bike Park funding and report to the Board. The General Manager responded with a “time line” showing the dates on which all of the required funding approvals had occurred. The Board formally accepted the General Manager’s report and declared that the issue was settled as described in the Board minutes of December 13, 2006: “B. RESOLUTION 928-06 ADOPTING TIMELINE IN REGARDS TO AUTHORIZATION MADE BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE FEATHER RIVER RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT SKATE AND BIKE PARK GM Sharkey read the timeline. Chairman Gurr read the resolution. Director Allen thanked GM Sharkey for the through [sic] timeline. The District’s Attorney, Jessica Miller, stated that if further information is requested regarding the funding or any other issue surrounding the Bedrock Skate and Bike Park, she will respond with a letter and this 200 resolution. If she deems it necessary, she will have a Director who was present at the time period in question write a letter attesting to the validity of what the timeline states. Director Gill motioned to approve Resolution 928-06. Director Hill seconded the motion and it passed by the following vote: Ayes: Directors Allen, Gill, Hill, Thompson, and Chairman Gurr Noes: Absent:” The published minutes do not include the wording of the resolution. Investigation: The Grand Jury interviewed two former Board members and the former legal counsel to the Board. All three were involved in Board activities at the time in question. They were in agreement that the funding had not been approved at a Board meeting, and that the minutes had not been destroyed; rather, they never existed because there had been no approval and no Board meeting at which an approval occurred. We also reviewed in detail the report of the prior Grand Jury and the extensive records kept by a former member of the Board who was familiar with district activities at the time. We noted that the investigation requested by the Board was conducted by the General Manager who was implicated by the 2005-06 Grand Jury in the alleged mishandling of funds. See Finding 26 and Recommendation 24 which appear at the end of this report.

R17: The FRRPD Board should adopt a resolution affirming the Board’s commitment to public attendance at, and participation in, the Board meetings.

F18: There is no regular reporting of financial status at Board Meetings.

Related Recommendations (1)

R18: The FRRPD Board should change the logistics and conduct of the Board meetings so as to facilitate public participation: a. Change the time of all meetings back to the evening. b. Change the venue back to City Council Chambers or some other location that has adequate acoustics, an audio system, accessibility for the disabled, and is not impacted by external noise. c. Require that all Board members treat attendees with respect. d. Provide 72 hour prior public notice of the meetings by arranging for publication in the local newspaper and by keeping the District website current. e. Publish the agenda and minutes on the website at least 72 hours prior to a regularly scheduled meeting and at least 24 hours prior to a special meeting. f. Restrict the use of special board meetings to emergency situations. 204

F19: The accounting software is not fully operational.

Related Recommendations (1)

R19: The FRRPD Board should adopt a resolution which formally recognizes that Board Member Thompson’s behavior has become an embarrassment to the FRRPD and to the community, and which requests his immediate resignation from the Board.

F20: The FRRPD is actively discouraging public participation in the affairs of the district, most particularly in meetings of the Board of Directors.

Related Recommendations (2)

R20: The FRRPD Board should fulfill its election commitment by assuring that the Citizens Oversight Committee has sufficient members and performs its duties.

F21: Director Thompson is discouraging public participation in FRRPD Board meetings by persistent harassment of some attendees. The remainder of the Board tolerates this behavior without public comment.

Related Recommendations (1)

R21: The FRRPD Board and General Manager should explore ways to increase their offerings for seniors. This should be a focus area for a qualified Recreation Director, once hired.

F22: The FRRPD Board and General Manager have not actively recruited members for the Benefit Assessment District Citizens Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee was promised to the voters when the Benefit Assessment District was being promoted.

Related Recommendations (2)

R22: The FRRPD Board and General Manager should work cooperatively with both greater Oroville senior organizations to arrange facilities and programs for seniors.

F23: The FRRPD does not adequately serve the senior citizens in the District.

Related Recommendations (2)

R23: The FRRPD Board and General Manager should include in the revision of the Policies and Procedures Handbook (recommended elsewhere in this report) a summary of the conflict of interest related obligations of Board members and other designated officials of the District.

F24: Currently the FRRPD is working cooperatively with only one of the two senior citizen organizations in the greater Oroville area. 202

Related Recommendations (1)

R24: The Butte County District Attorney should conduct an investigation into the alleged mishandling of funds for the Skate and Bike Park project and into the possibly biased Board-requested investigation of the appropriation process to see if criminal charges should be brought against the Board and the General Manager. Required Responses (Penal Code §933 & §933.05) Feather River Recreation & Park District Board of Directors Butte County District Attorney 205

F25: The FRRPD Board and General Manager are remiss in not providing timely guidance to new Board members on their conflict of interest responsibilities.

Related Recommendations (1)

F26: Credible testimony from knowledgeable witnesses concerning the appropriation of funds for the Skate and Bike Park contradicts the account given by the FRRPD Board in their response to the 2005-06 Grand Jury Report. The FRRPD Board’s investigation into the appropriation process was conducted by the General Manager who, as a principal in the situation, would appear to be biased.

Related Recommendations (1)

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R45: and total budgets, the difference appears to be higher staffing levels in the business division of 5 to 6 auditor appraisers. One of these counties, Shasta, is incredibly close to Butte in business division workload. The Shasta County Assessor, when interviewed indicated her division took only one CCCASE trip to cover the costs of having other counties do some of their audits for them. She has no mandatory audit backlog. In conclusion, the recommendations from BOE over the past 11 years are that Butte County complete mandatory and non-mandatory audits in a timely manner and eliminate their backlog. BOE surveys will continue to make these recommendations unless the Assessor’s Office makes a concerted effort to solve the problem. It is easy for him to respond that audits will be done as staffing and time allow and make no effort to address additional staffing or better use of the time for staff involved. There does not appear to be any perceived urgency. The department is doing some audits, and the work is good. There probably would be no penalties or loss of state funding for supplemental assessment that BOE could impose in major instances where counties do not comply with the property tax codes and statutes. However, the audits are not being completed within the time frame laid out by Section 469 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. In what seems to be a symptomatic problem within the county, limited revenues lead to pressures to do more with fewer personnel. Since this department’s very work affects the revenue stream within and outside of county government, it 45 should be adequately staffed. The Assessor should focus also on the best apportioning and use of his staff to fulfill statutory requirements.

R80: Also, during interviews, the Grand Jury learned that some proposed road connections, such as the Potter Road extension to Yosemite Drive, might not be completed because of other environmental concerns. There is a question as to whether CalTrans will give “encroachment permits” to allow access to Highway 32 as well. On a positive note, the plan for property on the south side of Humboldt Road, though currently in litigation over control of ownership, included a subdivision called East Gate. Part of the plan was a 50 foot corridor dedicated to the city to preserve the Humboldt Road ruts and the rock walls. The area would be maintained by a special Maintenance District. We were told that once the dispute is resolved, the corridor might still be in the plan. At the very least, other planned developments along the corridor would probably double the number of housing units. Under these circumstances, taking the long view is appropriate. First, since the Oak Valley EIR has been called into question by several experts and the new owner of the parcel being developed has made various changes to the original plan, the city should require that a new EIR and historical and archeological survey be undertaken using a different consultant. The EIR should consider both direct and indirect impacts to Humboldt Road and its setting near this development. Second, the City of Chico is currently revising its master plan. Similar EIR’s and historical and archeological surveys for property being developed on or near Humboldt Road should be required in order to protect this historic resource. It is conceivable that each time another phase of the Oak Valley development or any new developments in the area come to the City Council for approval, the EIR would be challenged. A faulty EIR could prompt one or more lawsuits. Rather than looking at each development separately, would it not be to the city’s advantage that the city itself order a new EIR and historical and archeological survey that considers both direct and indirect impacts to Humboldt Road and its setting from east of Bruce Road to Highway 32? In the end, if the findings of a new EIR agree with those done for the Oak Valley development, then the city will 166 have a better chance of avoiding challenges and possible litigation. On the other hand, does the city want to set precedent for developers based on an EIR which many experts argue is inadequate? Consider what is at stake. Recently, of necessity, the City of Chico lost direct artifacts left by John and Annie Bidwell, the trees in the old City Plaza. The city now has a chance to protect the last vestiges of the Old Humboldt Wagon Trail built by General Bidwell more than 140 years ago. To do this, the city needs a ruling on the meaning of the words “substantial adverse change” as they relate to Old Humboldt Road’s “immediate surroundings” or setting. One city official said in his interview that if everyone followed the idea of visual impact of the person who requested this year’s Grand Jury investigation, “nothing would be built anywhere.” We would answer with a question: How many historic sites such as this still exist in Chico? In such cases, is it not better to err on the side of caution? In his responses to the 2005-06 Grand Jury report, the City Manager wrote, “The City anticipates undertaking a comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan within the next several years, and the eligibility of the trail and adjacent rock walls for designation as historic landmarks will be considered through a process open to public input.” (Exhibit O) The city should make every effort to involve the citizens of Chico in making the best decisions possible for the city’s historical resources. However, the citizens have a responsibility, too. They can take an active role in solving the dilemma of accommodating both historical preservation and population growth. Otherwise, they may find themselves mourning yet another loss of a piece of Chico’s history.