Calaveras County Grand Jury
2005-2006
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Violations of the Brown Act occurred. Agendas, on occasion, were unavailable 72 hours prior to board meetings. Last minute additions and deletions were made to agendas after the 72-hour deadline. Items not on the agenda were discussed and action was taken.
F2:
Although MSD has a capital improvement plan for upgrading its infrastructure, it does not have a five-year plan addressing other issues facing the district. Rate increases passed by MSD this year are intended to provide necessary capital, to not only continue operation, but also make the necessary infrastructure improvements 30
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Board committed violations of the Brown Act over the course of the year. These violations included not posting notices 72 hours in advance of a meeting, not holding a public meeting before and after a closed session to inform the public of its decision on related matters, and other violations that are still under investigation at this writing.
F2:
For several years, Foothill Fire Protection District has been receiving tax dollars from an area to the south of Hogan Dam, accessed off of Hogan Dam road, that has not been annexed by the district. During a recent Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) meeting, Jenny Lind Fire District voiced interest in annexing this area into their district.
F3:
In the course of the Grand Jury investigation, it was learned that the emergency response vehicles are poorly equipped with oxygen cylinders. When these cylinders are exhausted, a firefighter must take the empty cylinder to San Andreas to be refilled. There are no extra cylinders at the station.
F4:
The Grand Jury, after reviewing the Brown Act, found that the district was acting appropriately in considering initiating litigation during a closed session. Code 54956.9 (c)
F5:
The Grand Jury, upon review of expense reports and budgets submitted by Ebbetts Pass Fire District, has determined there was no overpayment of legitimate expenses.
F6:
The Grand Jury did find a violation of the Brown Act when a full packet agenda was not available 72 hours in advance of the November 21, 2005 district board meeting. DETERMINATION The Ebbetts Pass Fire District appears to be in compliance with local, county, and state requirements. This is to the credit of the board, management, and staff. With the exception of a minor violation of the Brown Act regarding availability of a full packet agenda 72 hours prior to a board of directors’ meeting, the Grand Jury finds this district well managed and directed.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
An outside computer technician, hired to replace a malfunction in one of the computer system’s memory drives, shut down the system in error causing a system failure in February 2006. Data on the operating system was not accessible while system repairs were being made. Eleven records stored on the tape drive backup system were also lost. Most of the data was restored, and all requests for information were honored. The remaining records were to be restored by April 14, 2006. There is no departmental procedure to notify the Board of Supervisors.
F2:
The Clerk-Recorder’s Office computer system is specific to that office and not shared by other departments. All data is backed up at the end of each day on a tape drive system. All recordings are further scanned and copied into a microfiche system. Original documents are kept until the procedure is completed. There appears to be adequate backup systems and procedures to assure there is no permanent loss of data. CONCLUSION Computer system failures are a fact of life. The Calaveras County Clerk-Recorder’s Office system failure record is one of the lowest in the state. Redundant systems and procedures are adequate and effective.
F3:
As of the writing of this report, the Policies and Procedures Manual currently in use is out of date with current law and labor practices.
F4:
In 2002, MSD entered into two Installment Sale Agreements with the Municipal Finance Corporation to undertake improvements to its wastewater system. The first agreement, dated January 23, 2002, was in the amount of $350,000 for the purposes of expanding Pond 4. This expansion would increase the capacity of Pond 4 from its current 49 million-gallon capacity to 68 million gallons. In addition, various upgrades to the pump house, including the replacement and upgrading of the generator and electrical panel, were included in the project. The second agreement, dated March 25, 2002, was in the amount of $400,000 for the purposes of expansion and improvements to the District’s wastewater treatment plant. The treatment plant upgrade started in 2002 is still not operating, as contracted, due to flawed design by the prior engineering firm. The new district engineer has yet to get corrections made. Thus the District is unable to meet the waste discharge requirements for MSD adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In addition, the new district engineer’s headquarters, now located in Eureka, makes communications difficult between the district engineer and his support staff.
F5:
In the opinion of the Grand Jury, an agreement between MSD and the owners of a vineyard (defined in the contract as ‘User’) leaves the district exposed. Under Item #2, ‘Water Quantity’, the contract stipulates that, “If User needs additional water each year to meet its demand, the district agrees to cooperate with User and UPUD (Union Public Utility District) to assure passage of water through District facilities”. This appears to be an open-ended obligation.
F6:
Currently, the User is the only entity under contract to accept the treated water discharged from MSD. Should a problem occur at the User’s facility with distribution, or if the User switched to using Ag water for its facilities, the District would be unable to discharge treated water, thus creating a strain on storage capacity.
F7:
Waste discharge requirements specified for the MSD by the RWQCB in December 2000 are out of compliance. The MSD has not been able to meet the required two- foot freeboard on its main storage reservoir (Pond 4) during the winter months and has had to discharge wastewater to the User to prevent overflows from the reservoir. The RWQCB has required MSD to prepare a hydraulic balance analysis to determine the treatment facility’s ability to contain storm water and wastewater due to storm events within a 100-year recurrence interval. 32
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that in January 2005, the Employment Agreement of a temporary district employee, with the title of Administration Services Manager (ASM), had been extended and amended. The language of the new agreement excluded the Board of Directors and included a salary increase, new job title, and other costly benefits not offered to other temporary or full-time district employees. The CCWD Employee Policy Handbook states that “All staff positions must be authorized by the Board of Directors” (policy #2200.10), and, “At the next regular Board meeting the Board will be advised of the filling of the position” (policy #2200.70). This “Extension and Amendment of Employment Agreement” was signed only by the previous General Manager/Chief Counsel and the temporary employee. The minutes of the next regular board meeting do not include any announcement to the Board regarding this Extension and Amended Employment Agreement.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F3:
There is no standardized feeding protocol that identifies certain types of foods to be fed to the animals. The type of food being fed to the animals is dependent on what is donated.
F4:
The MOA recommended Animal Services replace the current Animal Control Officers’ trucks with new vehicles containing standard cage mounts that prevent exposure to the weather and have cooling and heating units. The Grand Jury found that Animal Services has the following vehicles: A) Two older 4-wheel drive vehicles with open compartments that expose animals to extreme weather conditions. The Grand Jury learned that during the winter months, animals being transported in these vehicles have arrived to the shelter cold and wet even when blankets were provided. B) Two used animal control trucks were recently purchased which have no cooling or heating units but rather two fans installed on top of each vehicle that only moves air through the six animal compartments. The two trucks do not have the 4-wheel drive needed for severe weather mountain conditions. The intent of the Sheriff’s Department is to transport animals immediately to the shelter during inclement weather. However, given the large size of Calaveras County, transporting animals across the County could take at least an hour or more, causing discomfort or possible death for an animal in extreme weather. The following temperatures were recorded in San Andreas, Calaveras County: During the Winter Months: During the Summer Months: (November 2005 - March 2006) (May - September 2005) 47 days were recorded 32 degrees 86 days were recorded 90 degrees or or below. above, and 38 days were recorded 100 degrees or above. These statistics were taken in San Andreas, which is fairly moderate compared to the mountains and the lower foothill communities of Calaveras County.
F5:
The Grand Jury confirmed complaints received by the consultant that cats without sedation were being euthanized by intracardiac injection. Also, the Grand Jury found there were complaints of abusive treatment of animals being taken to the euthanasia room. Assembly Bill 1426 – Chaptered Section 1. Section 597u of the Penal Code is amended to read: (a) No person, peace officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of a pound or animal regulation department of a public agency shall kill any animal by using (2) Intracardiac injection of a euthanasia agent on a conscious animal, unless the animal is heavily sedated or anesthetized in a humane manner, or comatose. Penal Code 597 (b) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (a) or (c), whoever, having the charge or custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, subjects any animal to needless suffering, or inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon the animal, or in any manner abuses any animal, is for every such offense, guilty of a crime punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony and by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). 8
F6:
The Grand Jury found Calaveras County Animal Services, when compared to similar counties, is under funded. Budget amounts for 2006 divided by population resulted in the following: Name of County Population Budget for 2006 Cost per person/per year Calaveras County 49,000 $ 343,823 $ 7.02 Amador County 38,000 $ 798,211 $21.00 Tuolumne County 57,000 $ 823,000 $14.44 El Dorado/Westslope 68,100 $1,260,000 $18.50
F7:
The Grand Jury finds inadequate communication between Animal Services and the Calaveras Humane Society. Several animals selected for “Pet of the Week” or for transport to another facility were euthanized due to poor communication between Animal Services and the Humane Society. Animal Services developed “Pet of the Week” procedures, issued on March 3, 2006, to improve communications between Animal Services employees and volunteers of the Humane Society. Without the Humane Society’s 50 volunteers, it would be difficult to operate the Calaveras County animal shelter. These volunteers find foster families and permanent homes for the animals and help out with a variety of other tasks.
F8:
The Calaveras County Animal Services Facility is in need of developing and revising their Policies and Procedures Manual, job descriptions, methods for training, and evaluating its staff and volunteers. Animal Services has mentioned implementing a new tracking software program to maintain a more effective database. Animal Services management intends to have all the above items completed and in place by January 2007.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F2:
The Grand Jury found several violations of hiring policies. Often, job applicants, who did not score highest on pre-hire tests and not given positive marks by interviewers, were hired solely at the discretion of the General Manager (GM). Thus, the highest qualified person was not hired. The practice of ignoring the guidelines by hiring under-qualified personnel jeopardizes the safety of both the new hire and co-workers. The Grand Jury also learned that an applicant who applied for, and was hired to fill a position advertised as a Range 4 on the union wage scale, was informed after being hired that she would be placed in a Range 1 position. This could leave the district exposed for liability.
F3:
In 2005, employee turnover at CCWD was estimated to be at approximately 60%. Poor personnel practices at CCWD are responsible for this high turnover rate. Examples include: 1) Newly hired field personnel placed in positions without the necessary experience and/or training resulting in dismissal for lack of performance. 2) Employees unable to advance on the pay scale because of the lack of opportunity to obtain a higher level of certification, so they seek other employment. 3) Intimidation and micro-management by the previous General Manager.
F4:
The Grand Jury found CCWD Board members were not following established guidelines for reporting expenses. Some requests for reimbursement were lacking necessary documentation.
F5:
The Grand Jury found certain employees at the management level not following established guidelines when recording paid time off. The Grand Jury found instances of management submitting time cards that show them at work, when other documentation shows them absent. On at least one occasion, time cards were submitted by the previous Administrative Services Manager (ASM) to be paid without having the required signature of the GM/Chief Counsel. This clearly ignores the Employment Agreement signed by the GM/Chief Counsel and the ASM.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Newly hired field personnel placed in positions without the necessary experience and/or training resulting in dismissal for lack of performance.
R2:
Employees unable to advance on the pay scale because of the lack of opportunity to obtain a higher level of certification, so they seek other employment.
R3:
Intimidation and micro-management by the previous General Manager. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends CCWD follow its Employee Policy Handbook. In addition, training opportunities for promotional advancement should be reinstated. RESPONSE REQUESTED Calaveras County Water District
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
All fire protection district board of director candidates are required to be a registered voter of the district they are to represent per California State Health and Safety Code 13841.
F2:
All candidates are required to file for candidacy with the Calaveras County Clerk’s office per Declaration of Candidacy, Elections Code Section 10511, 10512 and 10540. Filing is done by filling out an application and signing, under penalty of perjury, that the address on the application is correct. The County Elections Coordinator then certifies each candidate’s declaration of candidacy by checking the applicant’s residence against county voter registration.
F3:
Should a board member move during his term in office, he is required to file a change of voter registration with the County Elections Coordinator. The voter registration record change is the only county check to determine a board member’s residency per Voter Qualifications, Chapter 1, Section 2032 and 2034. 20
F4:
If a board member’s residency requirement, through litigation, is no longer met during his term, this could render all votes taken by that candidate void and possibly nullify some decisions where that vote was critical.
F5:
Other than the voters of the special district, the county special fire protection district board, itself, is the only agency that can continuously verify the residency of its members.
F6:
Due to board action and a resignation, the specific complaint being investigated is no longer an issue. DETERMINATION Residency is defined by voter registration, and being a registered voter is a requirement for fire protection district board members. If a board member moves out of the district, no county agency audit can determine if residency requirements are met if the board member does not re-register to vote at the new address. The special district board, therefore, is the only agency that can determine if board members continue to meet the requirements of office. This process has taken place, as intended, in the best interest of the citizens within the Copperopolis Fire Protection District.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Was the Brown Act violated prior to the Ebbetts Pass Fire District’s April 18, 2005 board of directors’ meeting, when the pending initiative was discussed without being on the agenda?
R2:
Did a staff member violate the Brown Act by discussing the pending initiative with the board members prior to the April 18, 2005 district board meeting?
R3:
Were public funds used inappropriately when law firm services were retained for legal counsel to keep an initiative off the ballot before the initiative was certified?
R4:
Did holding a closed session to initiate litigation violate the Brown Act? Code 54956.9 (c)
R5:
Did the district overpay staff and directors’ expenses?
R6:
Was the Brown Act violated by not having full packet agendas available when requested prior to the November 21, 2005 board meeting? PROCEDURES The Grand Jury requested and reviewed all agendas and minutes for the district for 2005, interviewed the complainant, and interviewed a district staff member. The Grand Jury listened to tapes of board meetings and reviewed budgets and financial statements, including expenses of the board. The Grand Jury reviewed district policies and procedures and the Brown Act with particular attention to sections 54952.2(b) and 54956.9(c). County Counsel was consulted by the Grand Jury. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Since the jail facility’s construction in 1963, the population within Calaveras County has nearly quadrupled. The jail was originally constructed for an inmate population of 47 to serve a county residency of 11,000. With its increase in size, the jail will now house up to 65 inmates, while the population it serves has swelled to over 43,000. The county adult detention facility in San Andreas is the only county jail within the county, serving the Angels Camp Police Department as well as the Sheriff’s Department.
F2:
The 2004-2005 Grand Jury, the Needs Assessment Consultant, and the Sheriff’s Department have judged the current jail facility not expandable as well as inadequate. The current jail is a labyrinth of corridors, passages, exits, entries, and holding areas that are in some cases remote from central control. Current jail architecture standard strives to have all holding cells be circumferential to a common observation and control station. The remote and convoluted current facility requires increased officer participation for the safety of officers as well as inmates. Several sections of the facility are not visible from the control station, and there is no way to route remote monitors through the walls to central control. In the 27 case of a fire, entrance and exit from some areas of the facility could become untenable.
F3:
Currently there exists no “sally port” or enclosure outside the jail for moving inmates to or from the jail. This situation exposes officers as well as the public to increased risk while transporting inmates. Prisoners, although restrained during transport, pass through a wide-open area adjacent to the entire Government Center. This issue has been addressed by previous grand juries.
F4:
The jail is well run and meets state and local requirements for care and feeding of inmates. The kitchen is adequate, clean, and well maintained. There are exercise areas as well as a library. However, because of general layout of the facility, officer and inmate safety require additional officer support to assure compliance. This tends to take officers from the field in order to maintain safe control within the jail.
F5:
With its maximum inmate population set at 65 by the state, the jail represents the weakest link in the law enforcement infrastructure in Calaveras County. Due to the size of the jail, it is common for inmates to be released far short of their sentences. As more offenders are taken into custody, inmates must be released to maintain the 65 maximum population mandate. At this time, the jail has basically become a “felony only” facility eliminating any “shock and fright” aspect for deterring early misdemeanor crimes. Incarceration, punishment, and deterrent aspects of a jail are greatly diminished when the potential criminals know they will be released short of their sentences.
F6:
The early release norm diminishes the punishment, incarceration, and deterrent aspect of jail time. Knowing little or no time will be served, more sophisticated offenders are choosing “incarceration” over fines, probation, and other sanctions.
F7:
The increasing population within the county is resulting in more urban crime. Calaveras County is beginning to see epidemic increases in drug offenses and gang activity. The current jail facility has no ability to separate offenders according to gang affiliations, crime levels, or communicable diseases. The methamphetamine epidemic within the county is exacerbated by an inability to hold offenders for their full sentences. Early released offenders often go back to their previous criminal activity. 28
F8:
Angels Camp Police Department, which must also use the county jail, has seen over a 300 percent increase in adult felony arrests from 2000 to 2004, and misdemeanor arrests are up 200 percent. Crime increases at the city level parallel those of county statistics. Per the County Probation Department Geographical statistics, the Valley Springs general area has the highest number of felony drug crimes with Angels Camp and San Andreas, second and third. According to the needs assessment statistics, adult crime is not only increasing with the population, but the ratio between population and offenders has gone from .054610 in 2000 to a projected ratio of .067033 in 2005.
F9:
There are significant increases in police activity during the Calaveras Frog Jump Celebration and other special events that put a demand on crime enforcement infrastructure. These costs are born by county taxpayers. Ironically, taxpayers recently rejected an increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax, which could have reduced this burden of visitor-related stress to law enforcement infrastructure. SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION As with any type of public infrastructure, a “bottleneck” or “choke point” will limit the ability of that agency to be effective. Within the law enforcement infrastructure, the choke point is the jail. With current population increases and projections based on development within the County, the law enforcement infrastructure is inadequate to meet the current or projected needs of the population. Increasing personnel within the Sheriff’s Department can only partially deter crime increases. The impact on the law enforcement infrastructure caused by population growth has been woefully ignored. State funding from grants, revenue from bonds, or tax increases are necessary in order to meet the urgent need for a new jail. We find it difficult to agree with county approvals for increased development without a plan to upgrade the infrastructures to support that growth. Under the current financial climate within state government, the likelihood of a grant for a small voting block such as Calaveras County is, at best, weak. Further delays in securing a new jail only increase the eventual cost and time needed for construction.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F2:
recommends informing the public about experimental systems. Staff makes every effort already to work with the parcel owner and their consultant about all types of systems and options. By the end of the process, the owner or contractor of record has been informed about what will actually be installed in the ground. They are also informed of the proper care and maintenance of the system. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION, 2005-2006 The response by the Calaveras County Building Official has been adequately met. FINDING 3, 2004-2005 Although there are many experimental system manufacturers, one company, based out-of-state, has planted itself firmly in Calaveras County by setting up training classes locally and maintaining a well orchestrated marketing campaign.
F3:
makes a recommendation that staff familiarize themselves with all types of septic systems. Not a month goes by where we don’t get calls from new vendors wanting to have their system approved by the County. The regulations in place allow just about any type of system; provided that there is technical test data that 69 proves the desired outcome and that a licensed consultant designs the system. Therein lies the problem - local consultants do not want to jeopardize their licenses by designing systems they are not familiar or comfortable with. In addition, many of these new proposed systems are maintenance intensive, and we require that the homeowner be offered some type of pre-paid maintenance contract from the local provider. If the vendor is not capable of putting a process in place to provide this protection, their systems are not approved. The Department, however, is always ready to research and possibly approve proven technology. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION, 2005-2006 The response by the Calaveras County Building Official has been adequately met. FINDING 4, 2004-2005 It came to the attention of the Grand Jury that some staff members at the Building Department recommend specific septic engineers and installers. For example, without any investigation or soil report, Building Department staff made statements that an engineered system would be mandatory in the Valley Springs area. The Building Official was made aware of this issue and stated that the staff would be instructed to end any such practice.
F4:
has been dealt with by instructing staff that they cannot make blanket statements about the types of systems required until field staff has made an investigation and filed a report for each parcel in question. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION, 2005-2006 The response by the Calaveras County Building Official has been adequately met. FINDING 5, 2004-2005 At the time of the March 2005 interview with the Building Official, the Grand Jury was denied access to the Policies and Procedures Manual; therefore, we were unable to determine whether the Department adheres to their own policies and procedures.
F5:
Area 12 should continue the training and monitoring of service providers. Penalties should be imposed upon service providers for non-compliance with training and procedural requirements. NOTE In the Calaveras County Grand Jury Final Report of 2004-2005 it was noted that Area 12 had not responded to the Final Report of 2003-2004. A letter had been sent to Area 12 Agency on Aging near the end of the grand jury year of 2004-2005 requesting this response, and no response was received. Once again, a letter was written to Area 12 on February 14, 2006 informing Area 12 of Penal Code 933 ©, which states a response is required and that no response had been received. On February 21, 2006, Area 12 responded to the letter of February 14, 2006 requesting their response and stated that they had, in fact, responded to the Final Report of 2003-2004 on March 14, 2005. Since the Grand Jury had no record of this letter, a copy was sent with the February 21, 2006 letter from Area 12. RESPONSE Area 12 Agency on Aging has provided significant training and input to Common Ground Senior Services. Enclosed with this letter is a print out of the provider matrix that is kept on all providers. In addition, there are provider meetings, nutrition committee meetings, and Advisory Council meetings that the provider could attend and learn. There are no penalties that can be imposed. Only sanctions can be imposed. The Agency has attempted to place sanctions on providers. Just recently, last week, there was a comprehensive training attended by all providers. They were given information on what is required by law. The Area Agency has suggested that all providers work together on meeting the requirements of the federal program. We have arranged a meeting for Wednesday, March 16, 2005 to begin working with providers on meeting federal and state requirements. In addition, our Counsel attempted to set up a meeting with Common Ground to go over some of the problems that were outstanding in November/December, but that meeting did not occur. DETERMINATION, 2005-2006 The Grand Jury determines that the response from Area 12 Agency on Aging is adequate. ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION, 2003-2004
F6:
During the needs-assessment process and the meal-delivery process, it must be made clear to the meal recipients that they are expected to pay for the meals to the extent that they are able. Procedures for collection and recording of collection must be instituted. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION, 2004-2005 The 2004-2005 Grand Jury repeats the recommendation to Area 12 that they should develop and implement procedures for informing meal recipients that they may make contributions toward the cost of meals received to the extent they are capable and for the collection and reporting of collected contributions. RESPONSE Several trainings have occurred over the past three years with the Calaveras provider for training of home delivered meal assessors. Clients cannot be charged for meals, but they can donate to the extent that they are able. We have attempted to have providers write procedures for collection and recording of donations. It was again brought to the providers attention at the training last week. We hope to work on the procedures this Wednesday, March 16, 2005. NOTE An Executive Director, no longer with Area 12 Agency on Aging, wrote the above response. Therefore, the 2004-2005 Calaveras County Grand Jury felt the need for a further response. RESPONSE Your letter requesting follow-up information regarding our letter to the Grand Jury dated March 14, 2005 has been received. The previous Executive Director left our agency in early April 2005. Our Nutrition Program Director was also out on leave at the same time. We are unable to locate any evidence that the March 14, 2005 meeting was held. We do have records indicating that on December 16, 2005 a regularly scheduled Provider Meeting was held. The Calaveras County provider was present. The topic of donations and procedures was reviewed. We would like you to be aware that the Older Americans Act does not allow for the recording of donations by a participant. The participants are to be given every opportunity to make donations but it is done anonymously. The word “fee” must never be used. The attached material was distributed at the December Provider Meeting. An example of the information to be posted regarding donations at 44 congregate sites is one of the enclosures. The other enclosure is a summary of suggestions for donations pertaining to signage/requests, and donation statements and unacceptable practices. There are written procedures for the collection and recording of donations in the Area 12 Agency on Aging’s ‘Senior Meals Program Manual’. Every provider has a copy of this manual including the Calaveras County Provider. It is referred to regularly for the purposes of training and monitoring. The material in this manual was also used at the December 16, 2005 meeting. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION, 2005-2006 The Grand Jury determines that the response from Area 12 Agency on Aging is adequate.