El Dorado County Grand Jury

2004-2005

12 reports

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: Animal Control acted within their statutory and discretionary authority. Response to Finding 1: The respondent agrees with the finding. The Grand Jury has contacted the current owners of the three horses and finds no evidence of impropriety in the transfer of ownership. Response to Finding 2: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Develop a formal structured process for determining the reasonableness of returning (or not returning) animals to their owner. Comment: The Grand Jury cannot identify any reasons why these horses, upon payment of seizure and maintenance charges, should not have been returned to the owners. A return in an incident such as this could be made contingent on an agreement that Animal Control be permitted to make inspections. Such an arrangement would be consistent with stated goals of animal control, such as reuniting animals with their owners and the education of owners. This arrangement would of course not be appropriate if overt abuse was suspected, or the owner simply did not have the means to care for the animals. However, that does not appear to be the case in this incident. Response to Recommendation 1: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Chief Animal Control Officer adheres to CA Penal Code 597.1 when making a determination on whether to return or not return animals to their owners. The Chief Animal Control Officer consults with the attending veterinarian about the neglect and if the animal is physically fit. Then they review the case to see if the owner can and will provide the necessary care if the animal is returned to them. A policy and procedure will be developed which outlines the specific elements the Chief takes into consideration in making their decision. This will be completed by July 2005.
F3: There is no record of the discussions during the 597.1 hearing. Therefore, there is no indication that other options for handling this situation were considered. Response to Finding 3: The respondent agrees with the finding. 41
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Prepare a formal record of 597.1 hearings. Comment: For all practical purposes, the decision of the hearing officer was a decision to permanently confiscate the property of the complainant. That level of government action requires documentation. Response to recommendation 3: The recommendation has been implemented. Every 597.1 hearing is tape-recorded and the Animal Control Division staff takes supplemental notes.
F4: The crime report prepared by Animal Control is extremely brief, making reference to loose horses and underweight horses. These two elements, standing alone, do not support a prosecution for cruelty to animals under any concept of fairness. Response to Finding 4: The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. The crime report prepared by an Animal Control Officer references a nationally recognized Body Condition Scoring System for Horses which rated the horses in question extremely low in the scale of body condition, a statement by the Kennel Supervisor about the horses’ poor condition, and a statement by the attending veterinarian that the horses were underweight by approximately 20%. The Officer that prepared the report states that she was taught the Body Condition Scoring System while attending a Horse Abuse Investigation School and was trained and knowledgeable in the proper care of horses. The sum of these observations and assessments were deemed sufficient to present the case to the District Attorney. Based on the information contained in the crime report, the District Attorney’s office felt that there was probable cause to warrant a charge and prosecute the case. The prosecution was conducted referencing the following Penal Codes: PC 597 states “…every person who causes any animal…to be deprived of necessary sustenance… is, for every such offense, guilty of a crime punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony…”. And Penal Code 597.1 states “…Every owner…who permits the animal to be in any street… without proper care … is guilty of a misdemeanor”.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Provide additional training to Animal Control Officers relative to the preparation of crime reports and identification of the elements of the crimes they are likely to encounter. Response to recommendation 4: The recommendation has been implemented. All Animal Control Officers attend training pursuant to CA Penal Code 832 which is an introductory course prescribed by the Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training. This course identifies the elements of a crime and details the powers of arrest. All Animal Control Officers also attend a two-week Animal Law Enforcement Academy that includes the preparation of crime reports and evidence collection as well as the elements of a crime. Additionally, officers attend the Advanced Animal Law Enforcement Academy or similar training presented by nationally recognized agencies that encompass all aspects of animal crimes. The Chief Animal Control Officer and Supervising Animal Control Officer review all crime reports prior to submittal to the District Attorney’s office. Both have extensive training and experience in writing crime reports.
F5: The Policy and Procedures Manual for Animal Control is out dated and disorganized. Response to Finding 5: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Update and organize the Animal Control Policies and Procedures manual Response to recommendation 5: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Animal Control Division and the Public Health Department are currently in the process of updating the Policies and Procedures manual and this project will be completed by July 2005.
F6: Animal Control has an adequate process for handling animal adoptions. Response to Finding 6: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Animal Control needs to reconcile the Court judgment against the complainant for $1,915.36 and the $2,873.05 collection referral form they initiated. Response to recommendation 6: The recommendation has been implemented. At the time of the court’s adjudication of the case the judge ruled that the cost of the seizure and care should only be attributed to two of the three horses seized. The $2,873.05 was the amount for the three horses and the $1,915.36 was the amount for the two horses. The County Revenue Recovery Division (County Collections at the time) was informed in writing (after the court’s judgment) that the amount of $1,915.36 was the amount owed to the County. JAIL INSPECTIONS Per Penal Code 919(b) select members of the 2004/2005 Grand Jury visited the following Jails & Department of Correction facilities:
F7: Grand Jury’s contacts with Animal Control personnel indicate they are a conscientious and committed group of employees working in a difficult environment. Response to Finding 7: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The CAO will keep a file of all department head responses so the Grand Jury or Board of Supervisors may review.
F8: There has been no reconciliation between the $1,915.36 court judgment for the county and the $2,873.05 collection referral form initiated by Animal Control Response to Finding 8: The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. At the time of the court’s adjudication of the case, the judge ruled that the cost of the seizure and care should only be attributed to two of the three horses seized. The $2,873.05 was the amount identified by Animal Control as owed for three horses ($957.69 per horse). The $2,873.05 was reduced by $957.69, to $1,915.36, to reflect the charge for two horses. The County Revenue Recovery Division (County Collections at the time) was informed in writing (after the court’s judgment) that the amount of $1,915.36 was the amount owed to the County. 42
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: Elected department heads must, in addition to the above, provide a written response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within 60 days.
Additional Recommendations 16

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: Use non-county employees as Hearing Officers in 597.1 hearings. Comment: While the statute allows the use of employees to perform the duties of hearing Officer, this clearly does not have the appearance of fairness. Response to Recommendation 2: The recommendation has been implemented. The Animal Control Division has contracted for a non-county employee to be the hearing officer for the 597.1 hearings. This person is a local attorney.
R9: The CAO will review all department head responses, for which the Board is required to respond, for accuracy, appropriateness, investigating and reconciling discrepancies among responses, etc.
R10: The CAO shall compile an Initial Draft Response for Board review. a. All Responses will be organized in a manner similar to the Grand Jury’s Final Report. 49.4 COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY Subject: Policy Number Page Number: A-11 5 of 7 RESPONDING TO GRAND JURY REPORTS Date Adopted: Revised Date: 11/5/1991 4/26/2005 Corrected: 6/10/1994 b. The Initial Draft Response shall be submitted for a Public Hearing review set for a time certain. This public hearing will be not less than 21 days prior to the 90-day legal response time to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. c. The CAO will inform the issuing and/or current Grand Jury Foreman as to the Board Hearing date and time, transmit a copy of the Initial Draft response to them at the same time as the Draft goes to the Board Clerk. The CAO will include a statement in the cover letter to the Board, accompanying the initial draft, that a copy of the report has been transmitted to the issuing and/or current Grand Jury Foreman along with information regarding the date and time of the Hearing. d. At the Initial Draft Response public hearing the Board may direct staff to make changes, establish workshops to explain the issues, schedule additional hearings, create Board subcommittees, etc. Final Draft Response:
R11: Have you been discharged as a grand juror in any court of this state within one year of this date? Yes ____ No ____
R12: Have you ever been convicted with any of the following? Malfeasance in Office: Yes ____ No ____ Felony: Yes ____ No ____ Misdemeanor: Yes ____ No ____ If you answered Yes to any of the above, please give details below: City/State of Offense: ______________________________________________ Date of Offense: __________________ Penalty: ______________________________ A misdemeanor conviction is not an automatic bar to acceptance of application. Each case is considered individually and confidentially.
R13: Have you ever been suspended, disqualified or disbarred from any public office, profession, or professional organization? Yes ____ No ____
R14: If selected as a grand juror, you will be required to swear or affirm the following. Have you any objections to taking such an oath or affirmation? Yes ____ No ____ “ I do solemnly sear (affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the State of California, and all laws made pursuant to and in conformity therewith, will diligently inquire into, and true presentment make, of all public offenses against the people of this state, committed or triable within this county, of which the Grand Jury shall have or can obtain legal evidence. Further, I will not disclose any evidence brought before the Grand Jury, nor anything which I or any other grand Juror may say, nor the manner in which I or any other grand juror may have voted on any matter before the Grand Jury. I will keep the charge that will be given to me by the court.” Grand Jury Application 12-17-04
R15: Are you a citizen of the United States? Yes ____ No ____
R17: Do you read and understand English? Yes ____ No ____
R18: Will you have been a resident of the Count of El Dorado for one year prior to May 1, 2005? Yes ____ No ____
R19: Are you aware that the Grand Jury is required to publish a final report of issues they have investigated? Yes ____ No ____
R20: Are you willing to investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments or functions of the county or any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county? Yes ____ No ____
R21: Will your employer release you to serve in the capacity as a fulltime grand juror for the entire period that the jury shall be in session? Yes ___ No ___ Not Applicable __
R22: Why do you want to serve on the Grand Jury and what contributions would you hope to make as a member? _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
R23: Please outline your knowledge and understanding of the role and function of the Civil Grand Jury and the role and function of county government. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
R24: Would you be interested in the position of Grand Jury Foreperson? Yes ____ No ____ If yes, why? ________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Grand Jury Application 12-17-04 I am in possession of all my natural faculties, of ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment and fair character. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above statements are true and correct. Executed on _________________ in _____________________________, California. Date City ________________________________________________ Signature Grand Jury Application 12-17-04 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final report End of Report 2004-2005 Grand Jury Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings
F1: That you agree with the finding.
Page 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action.
F2: That you disagree wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons for the disagreement. How to Respond to Recommendations Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action. The responding person or entity must report action on all recommendations in one of four ways: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action.
Page 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the fu- ture, with a timeframe for implementation.
F3: The recommendation requires further analysis. If the person or entity reports in this man- ner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the analysis or study and timeframe not to exceed six months. In this event, the analysis or study must be submitted to the officer, director or governing body of the agency being investigated.
Page 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The recommendation requires further analysis. If the person or entity reports in this man- ner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the analysis or study and timeframe not to exceed six months. In this event, the analysis or study must be submitted to the officer, director or governing body of the agency being investigated.
F4: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not rea- sonable, with an explanation therefore. Time to Respond, Where and to Whom to Respond Depending on the type of Respondent, Penal Code Section 933.05 provides for two different re- sponse times and to whom you must respond: 1. Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond within ninety (90) days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Page 1
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not rea- sonable, with an explanation therefore. Time to Respond, Where and to Whom to Respond Depending on the type of Respondent, Penal Code Section 933.05 provides for two different re- sponse times and to whom you must respond:
F5: Recommendation responses shall follow the format and timelines specified in Section 933.05 (b) of the Penal Code. Initial Draft Response Process: 1. The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) receives the Grand Jury Final Report.
Page 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Recommendation responses shall follow the format and timelines specified in Section 933.05 (b) of the Penal Code. Initial Draft Response Process:
F6: Department responses to the CAO shall be submitted in writing as well as the computer compatible formats specified by the CAO.
Page 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Department responses to the CAO shall be submitted in writing as well as the computer compatible formats specified by the CAO.
F7: The CAO will keep a file of all department head responses so the Grand Jury or Board of Supervisors may review.
Page 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The CAO will keep a file of all department head responses so the Grand Jury or Board of Supervisors may review.
F8: Elected department heads must, in addition to the above, provide a written response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within 60 days.
Page 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: Elected department heads must, in addition to the above, provide a written response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within 60 days.
F9: The CAO will review all department head responses, for which the Board is required to respond, for accuracy, appropriateness, investigating and reconciling discrepancies among responses, etc.
Page 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: The CAO will review all department head responses, for which the Board is required to respond, for accuracy, appropriateness, investigating and reconciling discrepancies among responses, etc.
F10: The CAO shall compile an Initial Draft Response for Board review. a. All Responses will be organized in a manner similar to the Grand Jury’s Final Report. Subject: Policy Number Page Number: A-11 5 of 7 RESPONDING TO GRAND JURY REPORTS Date Adopted: Revised Date: 11/5/1991 4/26/2005 Corrected: 6/10/1994 b. The Initial Draft Response shall be submitted for a Public Hearing review set for a time certain. This public hearing will be not less than 21 days prior to the 90-day legal response time to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. c. The CAO will inform the issuing and/or current Grand Jury Foreman as to the Board Hearing date and time, transmit a copy of the Initial Draft response to them at the same time as the Draft goes to the Board Clerk. The CAO will include a statement in the cover letter to the Board, accompanying the initial draft, that a copy of the report has been transmitted to the issuing and/or current Grand Jury Foreman along with information regarding the date and time of the Hearing. d. At the Initial Draft Response public hearing the Board may direct staff to make changes, establish workshops to explain the issues, schedule additional hearings, create Board subcommittees, etc. Final Draft Response: 1. Following the Board review of the Initial Draft Response, and within the 90 day required response time to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court: a. The CAO will submit the recommended Final Draft Response to the Board in a Public Hearing set for a time certain. b. The CAO will send copies of the Final Draft Response to department heads with a directive to inform the CAO of any changes that might have occurred thus making the Final Draft Response out of date. The CAO will review the 5 Subject: Policy Number Page Number: A-11 6 of 7 RESPONDING TO GRAND JURY REPORTS Date Adopted: Revised Date: 11/5/1991 4/26/2005 Corrected: 6/10/1994 responses and inform the Board and the Grand Jury, in writing, prior to the Public Hearing, should changes be required. c. The Final Draft Response agenda shall include a proposed letter of transmittal from the Board Chair to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. d. The Final Draft Response will incorporate any Board approved modifications from the Initial Draft Response. e. A letter accompanying the Final Draft Response agenda item will include a summary of any Board Subcommittee recommendations that may modify the Final Draft Response. f. The Final Draft Response will include recommendations as to distribution and publication (in addition to Section 4, below).
Page 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R10: The CAO shall compile an Initial Draft Response for Board review. a. All Responses will be organized in a manner similar to the Grand Jury’s Final Report. Subject: Policy Number Page Number: A-11 5 of 7 RESPONDING TO GRAND JURY REPORTS Date Adopted: Revised Date: 11/5/1991 4/26/2005 Corrected: 6/10/1994 b. The Initial Draft Response shall be submitted for a Public Hearing review set for a time certain. This public hearing will be not less than 21 days prior to the 90-day legal response time to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. c. The CAO will inform the issuing and/or current Grand Jury Foreman as to the Board Hearing date and time, transmit a copy of the Initial Draft response to them at the same time as the Draft goes to the Board Clerk. The CAO will include a statement in the cover letter to the Board, accompanying the initial draft, that a copy of the report has been transmitted to the issuing and/or current Grand Jury Foreman along with information regarding the date and time of the Hearing. d. At the Initial Draft Response public hearing the Board may direct staff to make changes, establish workshops to explain the issues, schedule additional hearings, create Board subcommittees, etc. Final Draft Response:

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Grand Jury strongly recommends that, in the future, the Board of Trustees of the EDUHSD develop a plan for the selection of a candidate for any administrative position and adhere to it. Entering into a contract and then subverting it by making a selection before the contract had expired is inproper. While this is not illegal and is the prerogative of the Board of Trustees, the short period during which this process took place leads the Grand Jury to wonder if the candidate was “pre-selected” from the start, which gives the air of impropriety. The EDUHSD Board of Trustees should promote policies which demonstrate fair and open communication, minimizing both secrecy and the appearance of favoritism. The fact that other people have stated that they would have applied if they had known the position was open indicates that this opportunity was not as widely available as the board has stated. The lack of any records as to whom and when the notices of the Board of Trustees’ meeting agenda were sent, and whether they were given the required time as mandated in The Brown Act, indicates a lack of regard for the law and gives the impression of contempt for teachers and the general public. The EDUHSD Board of Trustees should insure that proper documentation is kept on file, which indicates total, not selective, compliance with The Brown Act. The Board of Trustees is not an entity unto itself, but is supported by the people of El Dorado County through public taxes, and is therefore to be of service to the public, not the reverse. A response is required by the Board of Trustees, El Dorado Union High School District within ninety (90) days. See Tableof Contents, “Notice to Respondents”. 29

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Additional documents

Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.