El Dorado County Grand Jury
2010-2011
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (15)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
According to sworn testimony given to the Grand Jury, EDCSO Internal Affairs audited the degrees of EIP recipients in 2002 and found one individual with a degree from Hamilton University. This individual did not appear to warrant EIP. Internal Affairs reports directly to the Under-sheriff and does not conduct investigations without direction from or approval by the Under-sheriff or Sheriff. Testimony indicated that when approached by Internal Affairs, the Under-sheriff ordered Internal Affairs to cease any further investigation. However, when Internal Affairs was interviewed by the District Attorney’s investigator, this audit was said to have been conducted in 2008.
F2:
A simple Web search provided information that Hamilton University was operated by a convicted felon. Hamilton University changed its name to Richardson University and relocated to the Bahamas after Hamilton University was shut down by authorities.
F3:
In 2010, the issue of questionable degrees resurfaced. An Internal Affairs investigation revealed three individuals with diplomas from Hamilton or Richardson University and two other individuals with degrees from other questionable institutions. Internal Affairs turned the matter over to the District Attorney’s office to determine if criminal charges should be brought against these five sworn personnel. Internal Affairs did not obtain statements from the accused officers before turning the matter over to the District Attorney. 7
F4:
The District Attorney’s Office spent eight months investigating the issue but has elected not to prosecute any of the individuals involved, due to a lack of sufficient evidence. Four of the accused deputies declined to provide statements to the District Attorney’s Office. The District Attorney’s investigation revealed that the five officers in question received a total of $166,459.72 in additional pay after the EDCSO Commanders approved their application for EIP. The investigation revealed that the “four year degrees” were approved by EDCSO Commanders even though they were obtained in as little as four weeks of coursework.
F5:
EDCSO Internal Affairs delayed any administrative investigation while the District Attorney’s investigation was ongoing. During this time, two of the individuals in question retired and the other three have remained employed.
F6:
The Modified, Last, Best and Final offer for the EDCSO Deputy Sheriffs Association, Law Enforcement Unit and the El Dorado County Law Enforcement Manager’s Association are the two labor agreements currently in force between El Dorado County and the sworn personnel of the Sheriff’s Office. Both agreements are subject to renegotiation.
F7:
Both labor agreements provide incentives for longevity pay, POST Certificate Awards and Educational Incentive Pay. POST incentives are available as an alternative to longevity pay and these two incentives may not be combined. However, EIP may be combined with either POST incentives or longevity pay. A Captain, for example, receiving the maximum benefit for EIP and longevity pay could receive nearly $32,000 in additional pay.
F8:
In 2010, the County paid in excess of $300,000 in EIP to EDCSO personnel. At the current rate, this incentive program will cost the County in excess of $3,000,000 over the next ten years.
F9:
Neither labor agreement provides a standard for evaluating the legitimacy of college degrees and diplomas. The language of the agreements does not specify either “accredited colleges” or “State approved” colleges as a means of identifying legitimate institutions.
F10:
Two deputies, two sergeants and one lieutenant received degrees from unaccredited institutions that are being investigated by the U.S. Attorney General as “diploma mills.” All five of these individuals applied for and received EIP. Applications were approved by EDCSO Commanders. 8
F11:
There is no requirement for personnel applying for EIP to provide a duplicate diploma and/or sealed transcripts to the El Dorado County Human Resource Department for independent verification.
F12:
The District Attorney’s investigation confirmed that the five employees investigated were the only then current sworn personnel receiving EIP based upon degrees issued by questionable institutions.
F13:
Other local law enforcement agencies offer EIP and POST but the incentives cannot be combined, are currently limited to a maximum benefit of 10% of base salary, and are not available to command rank (Lieutenants and above).
F14:
The EDCSO reviewed the training files of 79 sworn personnel in 2010 to determine the legitimacy of college degrees. However, there were an additional 18 Correctional Officers receiving EIP who were not included in that review.
F15:
Sergeant openings in the West Slope area are typically filled by sergeants with higher seniority, leaving the South Lake Tahoe position vacant when they trans- fer. The vacant position is then filled by a newly promoted sergeant with less sen- iority. This practice can discourage potential candidates with families or other re- sponsibilities rooted in the West Slope to seek promotion.
F16:
Policy 1001 of the Sheriff’s Office Policy Manual defines the process that is used to select individuals for specialized job assignments. All employees are notified via e-mail of job openings, and applicants are ranked by a panel of supervisors within the Department. If the position has three or more candidates, is full time or involves skill pay, only the top three candidates ranked by the panel are invited to compete in an oral interview. After the interviews are concluded and final ranking is tabulated, the panel’s numerical ranking is forwarded to the Division Com- mander.
F17:
Personnel in the Sheriff’s Office provided the following information regarding detective positions: There is no mandatory rotation of detective positions. There are currently 20 male and zero female detectives in the EDCSO. Over the last five years no women were added to the Detective Unit. In 2008, one female detective left the Investigative Detective Unit because she was promoted to sergeant. Detectives receive a 5% pay increase and a take home vehicle, making this a coveted position for deputies.
F18:
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics website, data from a 2003 census (the latest available) showed that the national average for the percentage of sworn female officers in communities between 100,000 and 249,000 is 12.8%. The per- 2 5
F19:
In testimony, the Sheriff indicated there are no plans to recruit female deputy ap- plicants to bridge the Department’s existing gender gap in sworn positions.
F20:
Although there is a written policy that defines the process for selecting candi- dates for lateral assignments, the majority of the six deputies interviewed ex- pressed dissatisfaction with the methods used to select candidates for lateral, spe- cialized work assignments. Concerns include: The selection process was too subjective since most assignments did not in- volve written testing, relying instead on the ranking of candidates by a se- lected panel. Not having a chance to appear before the selection panel if they did not re- ceive one of the top rankings. Not getting any feedback or coaching on how they can improve their chances for being selected in the future. The low number of openings due to non-rotation of some assignments such as detective.
F21:
The Grand Jury finds that lateral assignments such as Detective, Field Training Officer, and River Patrol are a gateway for promotion into the ranks of sergeant or above. In addition, the El Dorado County Grand Jury concludes that the selection process for lateral assignments is subjective and somewhat arbitrary. Without experience gained from lateral assignments a candidate who applies for sergeant or above has a slim chance of succeeding when competing against a can- didate who has detective or other lateral assignment experience. It is not surpris- ing that only one woman achieved the rank of sergeant since female detectives have been almost nonexistent. Having female deputies on the force who have gained experience from lateral assignments also contributes to a more effective and culturally competent law enforcement organization for El Dorado County.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
R2:
The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. It is the expectation of the grand jury that the timeframe be specific and reasonable.
R3:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. It is the expectation of the grand jury that recommendations be responded to as required by items 1, 2, or 4.
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. RESPONSES There are two different response times set forth in the Penal Code essentially depending upon whether the respondent is elected or not elected.
R5:
An administrative investigation by EDCSO Internal Affairs should determine whether any of the five sworn officers investigated for EIP abuse were culpable of any violation of department policy that would warrant administrative 9 penalties. Appropriate penalties including termination or demotion should be enforced if justified.
R6:
The El Dorado County Department of Human Resources should be required to verify the accreditation status of any college or university granting degrees for which EIP is currently being paid or for which an application is submitted. No payment should be made for EIP or POST Award certificates without pre- specified evidence of eligibility from both the Sheriff’s Office and the El Dorado County Human Resource Director.
R7:
In order that the paid compensation of the EDCSO is consistent with other local law enforcement agencies, the CAO should direct the Department of Human Resources to periodically conduct compensation reviews of those other local agencies to ensure that the compensation is consistent and competitive with local standards.
R8:
In addition to the EDCSO the personnel files of all past and present County, City and Special District employees receiving EIP should be reviewed by an independent auditor to evaluate the legitimacy of all degrees on file. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to the El Dorado County Sheriff, the El Dorado County Human Resources Department and the El Dorado County CAO for response. Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report. 10 -015 REASON FOR REPORT The El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office (EDCSO) accounts for approximately 20% ($41 million) of the County’s General Fund. This investigation examines the historical and current Sheriff’s Office Operations budget, including cost and revenue implications, with the goal of determining how and where cost savings are possible. The Grand Jury’s emphasis was to identify potential cost savings through means other than staff reductions.
R9:
Authorities considering consolidation and annexation of smaller El Dorado County fire departments into the El Dorado Hills Fire Department should closely consider the potential personnel costs before proceeding further. Authorities contemplating annexation / consolidation of EDC West Slope Fire Departments should fully understand the EDHFD MOU. The smaller, more rural, fire districts surrounding EDHFD cannot afford the salary and benefit package currently in force at EDHFD. If consolidation were adopted, it is probable that in the future disparate firefighters of the merged fire districts would attempt to form one bargaining unit. Obviously, allied firefighters from the smaller agencies would start demanding “We want what EDHFD gets!” Further, one avenue publicly discussed for consolidation involves the EDHFD annexing smaller EDC agencies. Annexation would possibly enable the smaller agencies to operate under the umbrella of the EDHFD dual county status. This status enables the EDHFD to avoid paying the 10% “Education Revenue Augmentation Funds” shift of property tax revenues that currently go to schools. It is probable that the property tax revenue that currently goes to schools would instead go to increasing the salaries and benefits of merged firefighters while local schools continue to lay off teachers and increase student to teacher ratios.
R10:
The EDHFD should make broader use of volunteers to reduce overtime. Other fire departments use volunteers more effectively to reduce overtime costs than the EDHFD. Generally, there are three paramedic-licensed firefighters on an “Engine” in the EDHFD. There are many more paramedic-licensed firefighters at nearby stations to lend paramedic assistance if necessary. Once a volunteer is EMT certified (12 volunteers have paramedic licenses), he or she should be satisfactory to fill in on the one to two calls per day service demands of the fire stations to save 24 hours of overtime pay. The Fire Administration explained that a more structured volunteer program is being considered that may result in more of a firefighter “Reserve” Program, where volunteers are paid more substantial stipends. It was explained that some volunteers are persons who have full time jobs and commit their time out of a sense of civic duty, while others are planning careers as firefighters and are trying to gain job experience. The Board of Directors must ensure that the Fire Chief develops a scheduling model that ensures a reduction in future overtime cost to the minimum necessary. 5 6
R11:
The EDHFD should continue to research methods to reduce 911 call answering and processing time. The front end of the cell phone call reporting process lengthens response times. To what degree the response time is increased is not known, as only anecdotal evidence has been cited or collected. According to an EDC 911 center administrator, an ongoing state-funded project entitled the “Red Project” will enable El Dorado Hills callers to reach the EDC Sheriff’s Office PSAP directly, avoiding the CHP step. Therefore, the dispatcher answering the call would have an orientation to El Dorado County that a CHP dispatcher may not have. The project is a joint effort between the State, cell phone companies, CHP, and local fire and law enforcement authorities. Panicked El Dorado Hills victims are not going to remember a ten-digit phone number, unless they have it programmed into their cell phones. Until the Red Project is fully implemented, EDH residents should have a dedicated 916 area code number to call to get routed directly to the Cal Fire dispatch facility on their land-line phones and cell phones. The Grand Jury recommends that before the project is implemented, current benchmark data concerning call answering and call processing times should be collected and analyzed to determine what those factors are presently and how they have been impacted with the implementation of the Red Project.
R12:
Representatives of the EDHFD Professional Firefighter Association should ensure that their public statements are factually sound. The general public supports their firefighters for the work they do and the sacrifices they make. Firefighter spokespersons should not violate that support by embellishing facts and figures to justify contract enhancements. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. 5 7 This Report has been provided to the El Dorado Hills Fire Department Board of Directors for response. Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report. 5 8
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The current Department procedure requires consumer complaints and any responses be filed in individual building files, but does not require retention of all complaints in a single collective file. This procedure makes reviewing, monitoring and use for personnel customer service training difficult because of the overwhelming number of individual building files.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In addition to the current individual files, establish and maintain a central repository of complaints and subsequent responses. This system would make complaints and subsequent responses available for management monitoring, department accountability and personnel training.
F2:
The Department processes two types of complaints: first, those received from applicants; second, those received from persons or groups who have been impacted by Department decisions and wish to alter or void them. According to county public officials and members of the public, there is concern among both types of applicants who felt the Department does not "listen" or pay sufficient attention to their complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Provide readily available customer service feedback forms. Written feedback would assist the Department in monitoring and improving customer service.
F3:
Applicants to the Department are of two general groups. The first group are professionals such as builders, architects and planners. This group generally understands the planning and building process and has fewer complaints. The second consists of members of the general public who possess little or no experience in building issues such as codes and fees. Our interviews indicate this group generates the most complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Train personnel in effective customer service. It would improve the Department's customer service, enhance public perception of the Department, and reduce public complaints.
F4:
When anyone approaches the Development Services Department, they are given a large packet of papers containing applications, instructions and fee schedules. To the untrained person, this packet generally is perceived as overwhelming and unclear because the building codes are complex.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Create a network of volunteers who are professionals in the building trades to guide the nonprofessional builder through the process. This group of volunteers would be available by telephone to the public for inquiries regarding applications and complaints. This group could be similar to the ‘Small Claims Advisor’ created by the courts to assist non-lawyers in the policies and procedures regarding small claims actions.
F5:
The Department demonstrated an inconsistent quality of customer service during Grand Jury user interfaces. During interviews, county officials reported hearing complaints from the general public regarding customer service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The following sample script could be used when training Department personnel in how a volunteer group could be used to promote customer service. The Department customer service personnel could make a simple inquiry, "Are you familiar with the building permit process and the fees?” If the answer is, "No," the applicant would be advised of the volunteer group and be given a printed sheet with names and phone numbers of those available to assist. It could contain a disclaimer such as, “The volunteers are available to assist you through the permit or dispute process. They can only give information on the application process, fees and cost, or advise you on a potential protest. They are not available to instruct you on construction or to prepare plans." The intent is to inform, educate, and extend to the public a “helping hand."
F7:
Implementing best practices will improve the overall operation of the Department, including customer service. To accomplish this, it would be beneficial to compare and contrast the Department's current system of management practices with those best practices of other counties. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with the California penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Reports have been provided to the Director of the El Dorado County Development Services Department and the Chairperson of the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors for responses. Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Implementing best practices will improve the overall operation of the Department, including customer service. To accomplish this, it would be beneficial to compare and contrast the Department's current system of management practices with those best practices of other counties. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with the California penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Reports have been provided to the Director of the El Dorado County Development Services Department and the Chairperson of the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors for responses. Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
The complainants affected by Department decisions could be supported by the same volunteer advisory group. The volunteer professional could explain the complex details of the codes, planning, and appeals process. Public understanding of the building codes, planning process and accessibility to a hearing may help avoid many of the nonprofessional complaints.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The current Department procedure requires consumer complaints and any responses be filed in individual building files, but does not require retention of all complaints in a single collective file. This procedure makes reviewing, monitoring and use for personnel customer service training difficult because of the overwhelming number of individual building files.
F2:
The Department processes two types of complaints: first, those received from applicants; second, those received from persons or groups who have been impacted by Department decisions and wish to alter or void them. According to county public officials and members of the public, there is concern among both types of applicants who felt the Department does not "listen" or pay sufficient attention to their complaints. 92
F3:
Applicants to the Department are of two general groups. The first group are professionals such as builders, architects and planners. This group generally understands the planning and building process and has fewer complaints. The second consists of members of the general public who possess little or no experience in building issues such as codes and fees. Our interviews indicate this group generates the most complaints.
F4:
When anyone approaches the Development Services Department, they are given a large packet of papers containing applications, instructions and fee schedules. To the untrained person, this packet generally is perceived as overwhelming and unclear because the building codes are complex.
F5:
The Department demonstrated an inconsistent quality of customer service during Grand Jury user interfaces. During interviews, county officials reported hearing complaints from the general public regarding customer service.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
EDC should ensure that all future health care prescription service contracts include a strong provision for monitoring waste, fraud and abuse.
R2:
Provide readily available customer service feedback forms. Written feedback would assist the Department in monitoring and improving customer service.
R3:
Train personnel in effective customer service. It would improve the Department's
R4:
Create a network of volunteers who are professionals in the building trades to
R5:
The following sample script could be used when training Department personnel in how a volunteer group could be used to promote customer service. The Department customer service personnel could make a simple inquiry, "Are you familiar with the building permit process and the fees?” If the answer is, "No," the applicant would be advised of the volunteer group and be given a 93 94
R6:
The complainants affected by Department decisions could be supported by the same volunteer advisory group. The volunteer professional could explain the
R7:
Implementing best practices will improve the overall operation of the
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
F2:
The respondent disagrees 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 therefore. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS The responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. It is the expectation of the grand jury that the timeframe be specific and reasonable.
F3:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. It is the expectation of the grand jury that recommendations be responded to as required by items 1, 2, or 4.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. It is the expectation of the grand jury that recommendations be responded to as required by items 1, 2, or 4.
F4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. RESPONSES There are two different response times set forth in the Penal Code essentially depending upon whether the respondent is elected or not elected.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. RESPONSES There are two different response times set forth in the Penal Code essentially depending upon whether the respondent is elected or not elected.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The new Chief Administrative Officer for El Dorado County has identified four top priority county functions warranting review and improvement: Information Technology Human Resources Management Financial Accounting These four functional areas are being reviewed at a department head level and have broad affects throughout all county operations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The CAO should clearly express and publicize an operating principle and preferred method for county government operations reviews. The stated policy or operating principle should make clear a strong preference for a balanced approach that incorporates both internal and external personnel (public and private sector participants) on any significant operational, procedural, functional or systemic review of county government. Such a commitment would signal the value of outside perspectives as well as the likely benefit of comparing and contrasting public and private sector initiatives focused on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of county operations.
F2:
There is an increasing recognition that county government operations are behind the times, insular in outlook, and stagnating from lack of competition...or at least the competition of new ideas. According to one prominent county official, “The County has a monopoly on the provision of certain services. We are lacking public feedback. We are discovering that the county is pretty good at compliance, but not so good at service delivery.” 81
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
An emphasis needs to be placed on the deliberate and careful selection of participating members of review teams. Among the qualities expected for participating members would be their experience and expertise, as well as their ability to work as part of a team with a specific charge and within specified timeframes. There would need to be openness to information that contrasted with one’s own experience and perceptions, a willingness to compare and contrast information in general, and the ability to “roll up their sleeves” and engage in the sometimes laboriously detailed information used to find their way toward considered and deliberate recommendations for change.
F3:
As evidenced most recently by the use of the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC), the clear potential exists to mobilize volunteer resources available in the wider community. El Dorado County has a diverse, rich and deep skill set of those who are still working or who recently worked in professions and occupations directly relevant to county operations. Whether it was a business, non-profit, social or charitable group, private association or community group surveyed during this report, there was a uniform and clear consensus that substantial experience and expertise exists and could be made available to meaningfully participate as part of a review team focused on improving a particular segment of county operations. In several instances the Grand Jury received comments like, “Nobody from the county has ever asked for our help.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Operations review teams should seek and incorporate in their deliberations relevant information from all primary stakeholders, public or private. 83
F4:
Every representative of a group interviewed for this report immediately and forthrightly stated that there would be “no problem” in obtaining volunteers from the community to assist in the conduct of operational reviews. Not one person interviewed for this report indicated otherwise. In one instance a prominent private sector individual in El Dorado County volunteered on the spot to participate as a member on a review team comprised of county officials and qualified individuals from the private sector. There was a clear consensus among those groups contacted for this report that there would be two key areas of vulnerability for a proposed mechanism to produce qualified individuals for participation on review teams. Those two areas were either a lack of leadership from the County Administrator’s Office and/or a lack of willingness of individuals to volunteer their time and expertise for their county. A third area of vulnerability endangering potential success would be lack of acceptance of the review group at a departmental level.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Operations review teams should be charged with making their findings and recommendations advisory to both the CAO and the Board of Supervisors with concurrent reports going to each entity.
F5:
A major determinant of success for the establishment and good use of public/private review teams was how the CAO reached out to and invited the meaningful participation of the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The CAO should identify and generally prioritize the need for operations reviews to include at least all large and medium size departments and key functions and systems across county departments.
F6:
Participation on operations review teams could entail very different levels of commitment ranging from a few weeks to six to twelve months. This did not cause any party interviewed for this report to change their assessment about the potential participation of individuals from outside county government.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Chief Administrative Officer’s office itself should be among the first to be the subject of an operations review. This would serve as an example to other county departments and underscore the commitment of the CAO to achieve meaningful and beneficial results.
F7:
There was a strong recognition by everyone interviewed for this report that it would be very important to understand that county government exists to protect and further the greater good or public interest. Review teams could not be comprised of individuals or representatives from an interest group whose primary or exclusive reason for participating was to enhance their own or their own group’s interest at the expense of everyone else’s interest. One interviewee perhaps put it best when they said, “The greater the private interest, the greater the 82 risk.” This concern pointed to the need for clear standards to avoid conflicts of interest by participating members of a review team.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Various methods could be employed to initially identify top priority departments or functions for operations reviews. Undoubtedly the CAO will give due consideration to the factors governing prioritization of such reviews. However, at least four key elements are important considerations for a prioritization of operations reviews: Size of the department or pervasive impact of the function or system on county government operations Impact of the department or function on the county budget The potential for establishing workable public/private partnerships in the construction of a product or delivery of a service, and the Impact of the department or function on the local economy
F8:
A significant benefit of such collaboration between public officials and private individuals (between the local public and private sectors) would be to foster a greater understanding of the professional environment, the unique challenges and demands, and yes, the inherent differences in operational flexibility, accountability, and speed of the sectors and how each may function. The rhetorical if not the practical clash of cultures between the public and private sectors could be diminished with greater cooperation, collaboration and communication focused on a specific and tangible need and objective. Mutual benefit would be the preferred goal of such reviews, with both government employees and members of the public seeking and obtaining a “win-win” of less cost, less time, greater productivity, and enhanced service delivery, with ultimate benefits to both a renewed faith in the ability of local government to function as well as an improved local economy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The CAO should establish a workable mechanism for obtaining, listing and utilizing private sector members for operations review teams based upon their experience, particular expertise, and overall ability to function as a productive member of such a team. The registry or clearinghouse concept is but one option to be considered as a workable structure or process.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R9:
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors should support and encourage the CAO in the pursuit of a balance of public and private sector membership and participation on operations review teams and should seriously consider the
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Agencies which have signaled an interest in participating in joint efforts to improve prevention and response to mental health crises include: El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office, EDC Mental Health, Placerville Police Department, EDC District Attorney, National Alliance on Mental Illness, EDC Emergency Services Authority, EDC Mental Health Commission EDC Probation Department and Marshall Hospital.
F2:
This commitment to move forward resulted in written agreements, augmented participation in training programs, and expanded use of the Sheriff’s Department sponsored Multi-Disciplinary Team.
F3:
There is a lack of leadership structure supported by agency heads and the Board of Supervisors. This deficiency could make the joint effort less effective and subject to collapse should interagency conflict arise or public interest wane.
F4:
The potential for continued or increased encounters with persons in crisis is apparent according to available data. There is a significant increase in the at-risk population. For example, in El Dorado County there are 521 veterans who have been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and 681 veterans receiving care for other mental health disorders. This group represents a small portion of the at-risk population in the county. 6 4
F5:
Declining revenues limit the ability of organizations to commit resources to these mental health incidents.
F6:
Hospital security failed to document important events and information from their shifts.
F7:
The video camera system is inadequate. There are areas in the Marshall Emergency Department that are not covered by cameras. The video recordings are retained for one week. AMBULANCE
F8:
As of October 25, 2010, revisions to the ambulance policy have been under discussion. Proposed changes would require that all 5150 patients riding in El Dorado County Emergency Service Authority vehicles be secured. Gravely disabled and incapacitated patients would be secured with gurney straps. Patients, who have a history of violence or are violent, agitated or angry, 7 2 coupled with the physical capability of inflicting harm and endangering themselves, would be placed in a four-point restraint. MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TEAM
F9:
Marshall Medical Center, Healthcare Security Services officers, Director of the Emergency Services Authority, and the USDA Forest Service Law Enforcement has expressed an interest in participating in the MDT.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The urgent need for bylaws demands the immediate attention of the District. LAFCO should be consulted for assistance. The bylaws should include a process for the removal of a Board Member from office.
R2:
A grievance procedure and grievance form should be developed without delay and be made available to all employees. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Report provided to PFPD BOD Chairperson for response. Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report. 6 1 -007 REASON FOR REPORT The El Dorado County Grand Jury (EDCGJ) learned that a number of recent encounters between law enforcement and persons in emotional crisis have resulted in confrontations leading to injury or even death. An investigation was initiated to develop workable recommendations for interagency collaboration that would reduce risks to officers, subjects and citizens.
R3:
HSS security staff needs training in documenting important events that occur on their shifts related to the monitoring of 5150 patients. All daily security notes regarding 5150 patients should be provided to the Charge Nurse.
R4:
The purpose, current usage and configuration of the video monitoring system should be re-evaluated. The current system must be upgraded if it is going to be of any use in preventing another incident. 7 3 AMBULANCE
R5:
The Executive Director of the El Dorado County Emergency Medical Authority has proposed changes to the Ambulance 5150 policy that are intended to reduce the likelihood that a patient would harm themselves or others. The proposed changes should be reviewed by other agencies; especially Marshall Medical Center, which has policies and procedures for transporting persons with mental health issues. MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TEAM
R6:
Marshall Medical Center, Healthcare Security Services officers, Director of the Emergency Services Authority, and USDA Forest Service Law Enforcement should be included in MDT training. EL DORADO COUNTY
R7:
El Dorado County should have a designated health facility where 5150 patients and others with mental health impairments would be evaluated and treated in a safe, secured environment. RESPONSES Responses to findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with the California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided for a response to the following agencies: Director, Health Services Department, 670 Placerville Drive Suite 1B, Placerville, CA 95667 Chief Executive Officer, Marshall Medical Center, 1100 Marshall Way, Placerville, CA 95667 Healthcare Security Services Supervisor, Marshall Medical Center, 1100 Marshall Way, Placerville, CA 95667 Executive Director, Emergency Services Authority, 480 Locust Road, Diamond Springs, CA, 956667 El Dorado County Sheriff, 300 Fair Lane, Placerville, CA 95667 Chief, Placerville Police Department, 730 Main Street, Placerville, CA 95667 7 4 Chairperson, El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, 330 Fair Lane, Placerville, CA 95667 Patrol Captain, El Dorado National Forest, 100 Forni Road, Placerville, CA, 95667 Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report. 7 5 - 2011 OPERATIONS REVIEWS AND THE POTENTIAL FOR PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Case Number GJ010-018 REASON FOR REPORT Grand Jury investigations and reports on El Dorado County government have produced a recurring picture. Though there is an increasing need for government to become more efficient and effective at less cost, there has been a lack of initiative and due diligence in assessing and evaluating the operations and performance of county government. The functions and operations of county government, the mechanics of actual governance, have not been reviewed or updated, to the point where it is now out-of-step with the need and demand for change. The County should show a willingness to utilize relevant experience and expertise from outside county government…from the various sectors of business, education, professional services, non-profits, even the general public…to participate in much needed operations reviews of departments, functions, systems, operations and processes. Such an outreach effort could provide valuable perspectives and relevant knowledge when properly focused. This investigation reveals that relevant and needed experience and expertise exists in abundance among the citizenry of El Dorado County, and is just waiting to be tapped and incorporated in long overdue operations reviews of county government. 76
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Agencies which have signaled an interest in participating in joint efforts to improve prevention and response to mental health crises include: El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office, EDC Mental Health, Placerville Police Department, EDC District Attorney, National Alliance on Mental Illness, EDC Emergency Services Authority, EDC Mental Health Commission EDC Probation Department and Marshall Hospital.
F2:
This commitment to move forward resulted in written agreements, augmented participation in training programs, and expanded use of the Sheriff’s Department sponsored Multi-Disciplinary Team.
F3:
There is a lack of leadership structure supported by agency heads and the Board of Supervisors. This deficiency could make the joint effort less effective and subject to collapse should interagency conflict arise or public interest wane.
F4:
The potential for continued or increased encounters with persons in crisis is apparent according to available data. There is a significant increase in the at-risk population. For example, in El Dorado County there are 521 veterans who have been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and 681 veterans receiving care for other mental health disorders. This group represents a small portion of the at-risk population in the county.
F5:
Declining revenues limit the ability of organizations to commit resources to these mental health incidents.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The EDC Board of Supervisors should immediately appoint an ad hoc committee to develop a plan for prevention of and response to emergency health crises and make recommendations for the creation of an official structure to implement and manage this plan. This committee would be chaired by the Director of Health Services and will be comprised of executive representatives of the Sheriff, the District Attorney, the Chiefs of South Lake Tahoe and Placerville Police Departments, EDC Emergency Services Authority and other entities as necessary (e.g. Mental Health Commission, National Alliance for Mental Illness). The committee should meet and make its recommendations within ninety days from the date of its creation which will then be considered for adoption by the BOS. The recommended official mental health emergency response organization might be a variation of the Incident Command System that originated in California to respond and fight fires and has been adopted nationally to respond to all emergencies, large and small.
R2:
The recommended emergency mental health crisis plan should also address conflict intervention training, required drills, intervention strategies, identification of warning signs, communication and notification protocols. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to the following for response: El Dorado County Sheriff EDC Director of Mental Health Placerville Chief of Police EDC District Attorney Director, National Alliance on Mental Illness EDC Director of Emergency Services Authority President, EDC Mental Health Commission EDC Chief of Probation Director of Marshall Hospital Placerville, CA Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
An audit was conducted by Caremark into this abnormally high use of addictive prescription medication by the EDC employee referenced above, and Caremark determined that there was no evidence of criminal or fraudulent conduct.
F2:
Two significant positions with EDC responsible for monitoring prescription health care services were vacated (2005 and 2007) and not backfilled. In mid- 2010 the Director of the Department of Human Resources unsuccessfully attempted to monitor costs.
F3:
Shortly after the provision for monitoring prescription health care services was contracted at an annual cost of $49,000, the costs for the employee declined by almost half.
F4:
Amendment #4 to the original contract includes safeguards to protect EDC from excessive prescription costs by providing the following programs: “Point of Sale Safety Edits Program: Caremark shall provide in accordance with Section 2.8 of the Agreement its automated concurrent Drug Utilization Review (DUR) services. The Point of Sale Safety Edits Program is necessarily limited by the amount, type and accuracy of Plan Participant information made available to Caremark. Retrospective Safety Review Program: Caremark shall provide client retrospective Drug Utilization Review services, which are designed to provide appropriate clinical information concerning plan participant drug utilization for specific prescriptions. Caremark shall provide Prescribers with a Plan Participant-specific communication that identifies clinical issue and suggests alternative therapies, as appropriate. Safety and Monitoring Solution Program: “On a calendar quarterly basis Caremark shall evaluate claims for patterns of potential overuse or misuse, including without limitation, the use of multiple Prescribers or multiple pharmacies. For circumstances that Caremark identifies patterns of potential overuse or misuse, Caremark may provide Prescribers or pharmacies with written notice of such issues.”
F5:
The EDC Grand Jury was informed that in addition to any member of the BOS, any member of the public may request an item be pulled for further discussion or correction.
F6:
Printed copies of EDC BOS meeting agendas contain no information informing the public how to have an item pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
EDC should ensure that all future health care prescription service contracts include a strong provision for monitoring waste, fraud and abuse. RESPONSES Responses are not required.
R2:
The EDC BOS should revise Policy B-12 to require Auditor/Controller review of contracts exceeding $100,000.
R3:
EDC should provide instruction for the public on printed agendas explaining the method for pulling a Consent Calendar item for discussion.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
A major causal factor in the March 2010 incident was the fact that previous to March 2010, attention to detail and awareness of the agencies involved in the care and observations of 5150 patients had lapsed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Mental Health Division of the El Dorado County Health Services Department should be the lead agency in an annual reminder of the March 2010 incident and training for all agencies involved in the care and monitoring of 5150 patients. MARSHALL MEDICAL CENTER SECURITY
F2:
The March 2010 incident shed light on the oversight of the agencies that relate to 5150 patients. MARSHALL MEDICAL CENTER SECURITY
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Coordination and communication between hospital personnel and the security guards is essential. All Marshall HSS security personnel should be trained to deal with mentally impaired patients.
F3:
Hospital security, as currently provided by HSS, is marginally adequate. There is only one officer with law enforcement training. The other security officers were not extensively trained when hired and their training has not been updated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
HSS security staff needs training in documenting important events that occur on their shifts related to the monitoring of 5150 patients. All daily security notes regarding 5150 patients should be provided to the Charge Nurse.
F4:
The HSS Supervisor at Marshall spends a significant portion of his day doing administrative work and attending meetings. This leaves the only other day shift officer alone to deal with both the ordinary security functions as well as 5150 surveillance. In addition, the supervisor is the only designated on call person in case of an emergency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The purpose, current usage and configuration of the video monitoring system should be re-evaluated. The current system must be upgraded if it is going to be of any use in preventing another incident. AMBULANCE
F5:
Currently, hospital staff and HSS officers provide continuous 5150 patient observation within the emergency department. However, Marshall Medical Center is not a designated mental health facility with a locked, secure area for 5150 patients.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Executive Director of the El Dorado County Emergency Medical Authority has proposed changes to the Ambulance 5150 policy that are intended to reduce the likelihood that a patient would harm themselves or others. The proposed changes should be reviewed by other agencies; especially Marshall Medical Center, which has policies and procedures for transporting persons with mental health issues. MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TEAM
F6:
Hospital security failed to document important events and information from their shifts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Marshall Medical Center, Healthcare Security Services officers, Director of the Emergency Services Authority, and USDA Forest Service Law Enforcement should be included in MDT training. EL DORADO COUNTY
F7:
The video camera system is inadequate. There are areas in the Marshall Emergency Department that are not covered by cameras. The video recordings are retained for one week. AMBULANCE
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
El Dorado County should have a designated health facility where 5150 patients and others with mental health impairments would be evaluated and treated in a safe, secured environment. RESPONSES Responses to findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with the California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided for a response to the following agencies: Director, Health Services Department, 670 Placerville Drive Suite 1B, Placerville, CA 95667 Chief Executive Officer, Marshall Medical Center, 1100 Marshall Way, Placerville, CA 95667 Healthcare Security Services Supervisor, Marshall Medical Center, 1100 Marshall Way, Placerville, CA 95667 Executive Director, Emergency Services Authority, 480 Locust Road, Diamond Springs, CA, 956667 El Dorado County Sheriff, 300 Fair Lane, Placerville, CA 95667 Chief, Placerville Police Department, 730 Main Street, Placerville, CA 95667 Chairperson, El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, 330 Fair Lane, Placerville, CA 95667 Patrol Captain, El Dorado National Forest, 100 Forni Road, Placerville, CA, 95667 Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report.
F8:
As of October 25, 2010, revisions to the ambulance policy have been under discussion. Proposed changes would require that all 5150 patients riding in El Dorado County Emergency Service Authority vehicles be secured. Gravely disabled and incapacitated patients would be secured with gurney straps. Patients, who have a history of violence or are violent, agitated or angry, coupled with the physical capability of inflicting harm and endangering themselves, would be placed in a four-point restraint. MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TEAM
F9:
Marshall Medical Center, Healthcare Security Services officers, Director of the Emergency Services Authority, and the USDA Forest Service Law Enforcement has expressed an interest in participating in the MDT.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The EDHFD salary and benefit package is significantly higher than other fire departments. The EDHFD is impacted by three entities: the Board of Directors, Fire Chief, and the EDH Professional Firefighters’ Union Local 3604. The Grand Jury learned from their interviews the Board wants to balance costs, but at the same time wants to maintain high wage and benefits to minimize loss of skilled personnel to other fire departments. The Union wants to maximize firefighter and citizen safety, as well as prevent layoffs, regardless of cost. This leaves the Fire Chief in the unenviable position of having to run a department on a collision course with fiscal reality, and who is responsible and accountable, but excluded from labor contract negotiations. Key budget categories for Fiscal Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are: Table 2: Key EDHFD Budget Components 2009‐10 2010‐11 Wages and Benefits 75% 84% Operations 8% 9% Contingency Funds 6% 1% Fixed Assets 6% 6% Capital Reserve 5% 0% The EDHFD budget contains many salary and benefit figures that seem out of sync with today’s struggling governmental agencies. The Department’s budget pressures have their origin in the 2005-06 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or labor contract. Cost of Living Allowances From July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2008, the following Cost of Living Allowances were awarded to EDHFD uniformed staff: Effective July 1, 2006 4% Effective July 1, 2007 4.5% Effective July 1, 2008 5% Compounded, these raises total 14.11%. From July 2006 to July 2008, inflation rose 7.5%, so in effect the EDHFD firefighters netted a 6.61% raise over this three year period. However, there has been no Cost of Living adjustment for Firefighters since July 1, 2008. Salary Adjustments An additional equity salary adjustment of 1% for Engineers, and 2% for Firefighters was granted on September 26, 2006 by the Board of Directors. Another 0.5% equity salary adjustment was granted to Captains, Engineers, and Firefighters on July 1, 2007. With the equity adjustments added to the cost of living allowance, wages were boosted up to 16% from July 1, 2006 to July 1,
F2:
A Grand Jury survey of comparable fire departments revealed that the EDHFD pays higher salaries and benefits, but has lower service demands. The Grand Jury surveyed the following seven comparable Fire Departments to gain a reference to the EDHFD budgetary and staffing practices: El Dorado County Fire; El Dorado Hills, Rocklin, Lincoln, South Lake Tahoe, Sacramento Metropolitan, and Sacramento (See Table 4). The survey table reveals in most comparisons EDHFD pays much more in salaries and benefits, but has less service demand. The most striking comparisons are: EDHFD has the second highest staffing level, but lowest annual alarms lowest alarms per day per station lowest percentage of calls that are medical in nature lowest number of structure fires lowest proportionate population Though the lowest in service demand, EDHFD is among the highest in the following categories: Highest Firefighter, Engineer, and Captain pay Numbers of staff assigned to an engine and truck Total budget amount (proportionate) Highest Overtime pay and proportionate budget Educational Incentive pay and proportionate budget Fire Officer and Chief Officer Pay Second highest Chief, Deputy Chief and Battalion Chief pay EDHFD is the only Department that offers 100% funded retirement, medical, and dental plans EDHFD has a disproportionate number of Captains and Battalion Chiefs Areas that are similar to the other fire departments include: Span of Control between ranks EIP is incorporated in overtime calculations TABLE 4: RESULTS OF GRAND JURY SURVEY OF 8 COMPARABLE FIRE DEPARTMENTS EDC EDH Rocklin Lincoln SL Tahoe Sac Metro Folsom Sacto Total staff numbers by rank? 110 56 37 24 39 503 64 653 1 Chief 1 Chief 1 Chief 1 Chief 1 Chief $1 $1 1 Chief 2 Asst Ch. DpC / 1DvC 1 Fire Mar NA 3 Div Ch.5 AC / 1 DC / 1 FM Vacant 2 DpC, 5 AC 4 Bat Ch. Bat Ch. Bat Ch. Bat Ch. NA 15 6 (2Vacant) 11 Bat. Ch. Capt. Capt. Capt. Capt. Capt 136 15 105 NA 12 Eng. Pm 9 Eng. NA 9 Eng. 129 15 97 9 FF 288 FF, 144 44 FF 23 FF Pm 4 FF Pm 15 FF 17 FF 204 / 11 Insp. FF, 1 PM FFPm Population of your jursidiction? 77,000 40,000 56,019 41,111 25,819 640,000 64,394 525,000 Square miles of your jursitiction? 281 44 19.87 19.2 13 / 5 UW 417 21.74 148 Number of fire stations? Staffing per station? 15 / 7 4 / 4,4,4, 6 3 / 3,3,3-4 3 Stns, 3,3,0 4 Stn. / 4,4,5,0 41 Stns. 4, 3 to 7 24 Stns. Total alarms or responses for year? 7,565 1,815 3,309 3,066 2,949 75,525 5,600 70,000 Percentage of mecical calls? 75% 55% 67% 67% 68% 68% 77% 64% Average number of alarms p/station p/ day? .5 to 7 .8 to 1.7 3 3.7 3.15 ,1.94, 2.99 5.04 3.84 8.3 frames? 378 6 to 21 140 28 66 422 71 1,200 Annual property loss due to fires ? $2,252,786 $1,207,000 $2,746,106 $35,000 $282,771 $24,101,102 $610,000 $2,252,786 Number of fire staff assigned to an engine? 2 to 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 4 Number of fire staff assigned to a truck? NA 5 3 to 4 NA 2 4 4 4 Does your agency use floaters? Yes No Yes Reserves Yes No No Yes Span of control between Captains and engineers/FF? 1 to 4 1 to 2 or 3 1 to 2 1 to 2 or 3 1 to 3 No Answer 1:2-4 3 to 1 or 5 to 1 Base Salary Top Step FF $67,063 $79,996 $74,316 $66,426 $62,400 $79,044 $78,297 $65,072 Base Salary Top Step Engineer $69,189 $91,704 $82,560 N/A $68,652 $87,492 $86,127 $77,322 Base Salary Top Step Captain $83,691 $105,144 $94,368 $83,864 $78,936 $98,028 $94,739 $87,416 Base Salary Top Step Battalion Chief $108,264 A $129,648 $116,052 $112,902 N/A $119,316 $133,375 $123,441 AC $151,632, FM DvC $140,044, AC $152,048, FM AC / FM $161,148 DpC 116,796, DpC DpC $152,110, $152,048, DpC Base Salary Top Step Deputy Chief $122,720 $142,620 DvC NA N/A DvC $118,524 $166,788, FM $152,148 $168,943 Base Salary Top Step Chief $158,704 $185,000 $188,688 $148,907 $149,640 $224,736 $170,278 $186,176 Span of control between Battalion Chiefs and Captains? 1 to 5 1 to 4 1 to 3 1 to 2 1 to 3 No Answer 1 to 4 8 to 1 Salary increase percentage from engineer to Captain? 20% 13% 14% N/A 15% No Answer 10% 10% Total agency budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010? $12,004,315 $16,108,638 $8,007,992 $3,980,331 $6,932,897 $148,269,642 $14,404,185 $101,000,000 Total annual overtime budget for Agency? $645,000 $2,250,000 $529,892 $85,927 $203,000 $11,406,807 $507,000 $4,300,000 Average annual overtime pay per employee? $14,336 $39,501 $15,585 $10,383 $5,996 $22,036 $10,040 $7,000 Educational Incentive Pay percentage of total 1.12% GF, .87% budget? 1.40% 3% 0.41% Not Answer other funds No Answer 1.80% 2% s EIP is incorporated into overtime pay calculations? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 10 receive FO, 1 Average Educational Incentive pay per employee? $0 $7,800 $1,714 $0 CO, 2%/4% $4,918 $3,950 $0 Retirement 0 Retirement, 3%, Med. 0, med. $1,187 9% Ret., $1,756 0 Retirement, Ret. 0, Medical Amount of employee contributions to retirement, 10% - 20% Dental 0, 9% PERS, O Annual for Med. Ann, Dental Med $190 pm, Dental, Vision medical, dental, and vision plans? Medical $0 Vision 0 MDV Family $127 M, $18.75 M 0 Dental/Visons Flat fee $800 Number of staff receiving “Fire Officer” salary 11 / $75 per enhancement, and what is pay rate hike? None 34 /3% mth. 17 / 5% 10 / 2% 122 / .5% 18 / 5% None Does your Fire Chief participates in contract negotiations? Yes No No No Yes - advisory Yes Yes Yes Note: The EDHFD figures do not reflect April 2011 retirements of 1 Battalion Chief and 3 Captains
F3:
The EDHFD staffing and deployment strategy does not fit service demands of the community and is not cost effective. The Department top-heavy business model is inflexible and out of step with the realities of what an EDH fireman does on a daily basis. El Dorado Hills Firefighters are, for the most part, a first responder medical resource and non- emergency community service provider. On balance, the Firefighters perform fire related services about 4.2% of the time, and very little of that time entails actually fighting a fire. Firefighting duties are more frequently needed when firefighting companies perform Strike Team support for outside jurisdictions during the peak fire season. However, the EDHFD is staffed and deployed as a fire fighting force for a community that sustains relatively few fires. By contrast an EDHFD union leader testified that there was a shortage of ambulances in El Dorado County, even though responding to medical emergencies is the Department’s primary service. A chief level officer disagreed with this assessment of ambulance service and described a seemingly well- coordinated and flexible system that is deployed to maximize EDC ambulance coverage. As of March 2011, the EDHFD was staffed as follows: Table 5: March 2011 EDHFD Firefighter and Administrative Staffing Firefighter Staffing Administrative Staffing 1 Acting Chief 1 Chief Financial Officer 1 Deputy Chief 1 Systems Administrator 1 Division Chief (Fire Marshal) 3 Administrative Assistants 1 Battalion Chief (Admin) 1 Operations Specialist 3 Battalion Chief (Shift) 1 Fire Prevention Specialist 13 Captains 7 Total Administrative Staff 11 Engineers 23 Firefighters 56 Total Firefighting Staff Note: This table does not include the one Battalion Chief and three Captains that retired in April 2011. An EDHFD staff report prepared which summarized a January 26, 2009 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting shed light on the Department staffing and low service demands in EDH. The report was used by Department administration to oppose adding a fourth firefighter Engine Company position to outlying stations due to low service demands (NOTE: this was before the 2009 13% downturn in calls for service, 28% reduction in structure fires, and 50% reduction in wild land fires): “Our safety record is great; other jurisdictions minimum staff at 2 in El Dorado County, 3 in the Sacramento region, 4 on Truck Companies and Sacramento City. We currently are at 4 minimum on the truck, 4 at one outlying station, and 3 at the other two stations. As far as incident statistics go, emergency personnel respond on a half dozen confirmed structure fires per year in district and up to a dozen outside our district (Auto-Mutual Aid.) Our reasons for such low numbers are an affluent community, newer construction, early electronic detection, some residential sprinkler systems, very well planned and commercial development, mostly concrete tilt-up with sprinkler systems and electronic detection, as well as national average for minimum staffing of 2 Engine/Truck Companies and meet NFPA 1710…NFPA is a standard that is very costly to meet and maintain.” According to a Union official and Chief level officer, the Department’s firefighters have semi-structured hours during their two-day work week. He described a typical day (absent calls for service) as follows: 7:00 AM - Wake up and have breakfast 8:00 AM - Check Fire Rig, safety equipment, and medications Morning - Work out for sixty minutes followed by a 30 minute cool down period (the time of the workout is flexible) 10:00- 11:00 AM - Participate in a late morning training or community services One hour lunch Afternoon - Conduct community services such as: tours, school visits, inspections, prevention training, and station chores After 5PM - Dinner and uncommitted time, unless the above chores or exercise periods were not completed during the day Sleep and wake up at 7:00 2009 and 2010 Staffing Comparisons Table 6 was produced by the EDHFD in November 2010 at the request of the Grand Jury with respect to the issue of fire engine and fire truck (with ladder) staffing compared to other fire departments. Table 6: 2009 and 2010 Engine and Truck Staffing Comparisons 2009 2009 2010 2010 Engine Ladder Truck Engine Ladder Truck Cameron Park/Cal Fire 2 to 3 0 2 to 3 0 Folsom City 3 4 3 4 El Dorado County 2 0 2 0 El Dorado Hills 4 5 4* 5* Roseville City 3 4 3 4 Sacramento Metro 4 4 3 4 South Placer 2 2 to 4 2 2 to 4 *In speaking to a chief officer, he corrected the graph to state that the Department currently staffs an Engine Company with three (except Station 87) and each Truck Company has a crew of four (it takes two teams of two to man the apparatus). Span of Control Span of control refers to the number of employees over which a supervisor has authority. The 54-member department is staffed in a traditional manner, with seven ranks and seven pay scales. Twenty of the uniformed staff supervises the other 34. A Fire Captain supervises one or two Firefighters and one Engineer. Battalion Chiefs also work two 24-hour shifts every six days, and supervise four Captains and four stations. Floaters A floater is generally the least senior Firefighter on duty who is used as a flexible position to fill in for vacancies throughout the Department as a means to reduce a 24-hour shift of overtime. The Department’s Memorandum of Understanding specifically forbids the use of floaters for daily staffing. Volunteers The Department budgets $85,000 annually for its volunteer program. There are currently 35 EDHFD volunteers. Volunteers are paid $15 per incident to which they respond. A $100 fee is paid to the Volunteer Firefighter’s Association each time a full engine is staffed by volunteers and when certain criteria are met. A volunteer firefighter receives an hourly rate of pay when that firefighter is used to staff an ambulance or to respond on a Strike Team under a Joint Powers Agreement/Mutual Aid/Office of Emergency Service Agreement. In 2010, volunteers participated in 2,326 alarm responses, and completed 2,668 hours of drill training, an average of 78 hours per volunteer. Their peak engine coverage by far was in July, followed by May. The EDHFD Firefighter Union resists broader usage of volunteers to reduce overtime. A union official cited the volunteers’ relative lack of training when compared to full-time Firefighters. However, volunteers possess Emergency Medical Technician certification, approximately 10 volunteers are paramedics, and volunteers attend annual update training as well. According to testimony, volunteers are currently used to supplant full-time firefighters, after the full-time firefighters have turned down overtime opportunities. Volunteers are also used to cover full-time Firefighters when they attend special events, such as funerals, and can ride along at will to assist full-time personnel.
F4:
Calls for service at the EDHFD’s four fully staffed stations are surprising low compared to the investment in staff, equipment, and facilities. In 93.7% of the cases, Department responses to calls for service involve medical calls, customer service, and auto accidents. If there is an incident involving a serious injury, the Fire Department responding Company either responds with an ambulance (from station 85) or waits for an El Dorado County Joint Powers Authority (JPA) ambulance to transport the victim. If the Station 85 JPA Ambulance is out of service, the closest alternative JPA ambulance responds. The Fire Department’s 2,245 calls for service in 2009, and 2,253 in 2010, rarely involved fires. According to the EDHFD 2009 Annual Report, only 4.8% (110) of the calls involved fires, and, as noted, according to the former Chief, only six were actual structure fires, and in 2010 only 4.3% (99) of the calls involved fires. According to the Annual Report, these fire losses amounted to only $1.2 million in 2009 and only $1.4 million in 2010. In 2009, two of these structure fires involved Cameron Park and Rescue jurisdiction fires that sustained a total of $700,000 in property damage; but these property losses appear to be incorporated into the El Dorado Hills fire loss calculations. The issue of defining and quantifying structure fires was perplexing. The former Fire Chief stated there were six structure fires in Fiscal Year 2009-10, yet the Board of Directors Annual Report for the same period listed 21 structure fires. The current Acting Chief told the Grand Jury that he did not know how his predecessor arrived at the figure of six annual structure fires. When the Grand Jury asked for clarification from two Board members they could not answer, nor could a union official. Any inconsistency in the reported data contained in this report concerning structure fires results from the inconsistency in the information given to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury requested available documentation for structure fires for 2009-10. The EDHFD administration provided 41 National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) Dollar Loss Threshold Reports that detailed responses to 40 of the 62 fire related responses between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010. An analysis of the two years of reports revealed the following: 40 of the 62 incidents occurred in the EDHFD jurisdiction. 19 of 40 EDHFD jurisdiction fire incidents did not have NFIRS reports – only log entries on the Dollar Threshold Report. Seven of the 40 EDHFD reported fire incidents occurred in other fire jurisdictions, but were entered as EDH fires. 22 of the 62 incidents occurred out of EDHFD jurisdiction. Of the 22 outside jurisdiction incidents, 12 responses entailed staging only, no fire action taken, or en-route cancelation. Overall responses to serious Structural Fire Calls in the El Dorado Hills jurisdiction involved an average response of 20 EDHFD Firefighters. Three of the outside jurisdiction structure fire responses involved only one EDHFD firefighter acting in an administrative capacity. None of the fires appeared to require a rescue from a structure The Grand Jury examined the Alarm Statistics page contained in the 2010 Annual Report and found conflicting structure fire numbers, as Table 7 illustrates. Table 7: 2009 AND 2010 FIRE RELATED ALARMS 2009 2010 Structure Fires 21 19 Fire in Building 5 12 Chimney Fires 4 6 Total Structure Fires 30 37 Grass/Brush Fires 33 40 Vehicle Fires 15 7 Misc. Fires 132 15 Total Misc. Fires 80 62 The Call for Service (CFS) numbers and percentage breakdowns from the EDHFD Annual Reports are contained in Table 8, as follows: 2009‐2010 Calls for Service 2009‐2010 Medical Calls Breakdown 2009 2010 2009 2010 Medical 55% 57% General 51% 50% Injury from Customer Service 17.4% 25%* Trauma 15% 18% False Canceled 13% 5% Auto Accidents 13.1% 12% Auto Accidents 8.3% 7% Cardiac 13.1% 12% Hazardous Materials 1.3% 2% Respiratory 7.8% 8% Misc. Fires 1.4% 2% Transfers .5% 0% Brush Fires 1.5% 1% Structure Fires 1.3% 1% Vehicle Fires .67% 0% Note: The above calls for service numbers are pulled directly from the Department’s Computer Aided Dispatch System, and the categorization is based on what the caller reports, not necessarily what the event turns out to be. By contrast, crime statistics are pulled from crime reports, not the CAD system, and tend to be more outcomes directed. *Customer Service calculations were changed in 2010 to include false calls (but the policy change was not indicated on the Annual Report). Calls for Service per station vary between Stations as Table 7 depicts. Table 9: 2009 Calls for Service Per Station Responses Percentage Daily 2009 2009 2009 Station 84 ‐ Francisco Dr. 551 28.70% 1.5 Station 85 ‐ Wilshire Blvd. 628 28.70% 1.7 Station 86 ‐ Bass Lake Rd. 320 16.70% 0.87 Station 87 ‐ Golden Foothill Pkwy. 416 21.70% 1.1
F5:
The EDH Firefighters Association is a primary contributor to the electoral campaigns of the EDH Board of Directors. An EDH Professional Firefighter’s Association representative stated the union represents 48 of the Department’s 56 uniformed staff, and the union strives to find and back Board of Director candidates who are union friendly. In fact, the union funds the filing fees and campaign expenses for some candidates, and assists with campaign activities. The Grand Jury contacted the EDC Elections Office to determine if any of the candidates filed itemized campaign statements for the November 2010 election. The Elections Office indicated none of the Fire Board candidates filed forms indicating they had spent over $1,000 for their campaigns – thus relieving them of the responsibility of itemizing expenses or contributions. The EDHFD union official informed the Grand Jury that during contract negotiations the Firefighter’s Association is represented by a labor attorney whose office is based in San Jose. He also said the Board of Directors is represented during contract negotiations by two Board members. Board members told the Grand Jury that they have an attorney they can consult, but that the attorney is not specifically a labor contract attorney. The current president of the Board of Directors is listed as a retired EDHFD firefighter in the EDHFD Annual Report.
F6:
The EDHFD indirect 911 system lengthens response times. One EDHFD official commented that fire responses are delayed due to delays in call answering and processing times when callers use cell phones. Station 87 was built to reduce response times in its service area. The Grand Jury is concerned that some of the gains achieved by building, and staffing, and strategically locating its four stations could be negated by delays at the front end of the double-layered cell phone process. When El Dorado Hills residents experience a fire related emergency and call 911 from a cell phone, the call is first routed to the Highway Patrol Communications Center in Rancho Cordova, the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). Law enforcement is generally the PSAP over fire agencies. Once the phone is answered, the dispatcher determines the appropriate jurisdiction and type of call; the fire emergency caller is transferred to the EDHFD’s shared Cal Fire Communications Center in Camino. The EDHFD encourages EDH residents to use the ten-digit direct Camino phone number (530-626-4911) to bypass the CHP step. One official called the CHP’s 911 Center “overwhelmed” due to its service area of four counties. Another authority said the CHP does misroute calls on occasion and lacks the knowledge of local geography that is important to dispatchers. Another official commented that even if the initial CHP step was eliminated, the cell phone 911 calls would still go to the El Dorado County PSAP, the Sheriff’s Office, and not directly to the Cal Fire line. He also said he was unaware of any CHP delays beyond 45 seconds. The Grand Jury asked if there was data on call answering and processing times at the CHP’s Rancho Cordova communications facility, but found that the information was not tracked by EDC authorities.
F7:
West Slope Fire District Consolidation Planners should be cognizant of disparate firefighter labor contracts. Because EDC subsidies to some fire districts are expiring at the end of 2011, the issue of consolidating six fire districts on EDC’s Western Slope is now being explored. One proposal calls for the EDHFD to annex other fire districts, all of which will struggle financially once the County subsidies are gone. Annexation would enable other fire districts to piggy-back onto the EDHFD exemption from “Education Revenue Augmentation Funds.” The ERAF funding redirects up to 10% of the revenue from most special districts to local schools. Though such annexation could streamline services and increase revenues up to 10% for smaller fire districts, it is unclear how the disproportionate labor contacts for each of the fire departments would be impacted by consolidation and annexation.
F8:
Comments made by EDHFD union officials to the news media may mislead the public. One study publicly cited by the EDHFD Firefighters Union, entitled “Firefighting Tactics, Measured Scientifically,” to support the need for four firefighters on an “Engine” truck (no ladder), indicates that four firefighters can fight a fire from start to finish 25% more effectively and safely than three. However this study has little relevance to how fires are responded to in El Dorado Hills. When a fire call is dispatched in El Dorado Hills, three engines and a truck (with ladder) are dispatched simultaneously, and an average of twenty firefighters respond to reports of serious fires. The study involves only four firefighters fighting a fire from start to finish. The other industry standard cited publicly by a Firefighters Association official involves the “Two-in -Two-out” rule where two firefighters must remain outside a potential burning structure while two enter. The Firefighters Association publicly cited this staffing rule to justify four firefighters on an “Engine” (fire truck without a ladder). The implication was that a resident would have to wait for a second engine to arrive before a rescue entry could be attempted. The purpose for the “Two in-Two out” standard is to ensure an effective rescue of a firefighter can be achieved if one of the firefighters inside encounters difficulties. An EDHFD procedural exception to the “Two in- Two out” rule occurs when a resident rescue must be attempted. In other words, if three firefighters were present at a scene necessitating a rescue, the firefighters present would not wait for a second engine to be on the scene before entering. Again, three other fully staffed fire vehicles would be responding to assist. Further, nearly all surrounding Fire Departments surveyed have three firefighters assigned to an Engine. Significantly, in reviewing all the structural fire calls to which EDHFD responded in 2009-2010, not a single one appeared to require an actual resident rescue.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
During contract negotiations, the EDHFD Board of Directors must be aware of and take responsible action regarding contract provisions that impact long term retirement costs in order to safeguard and protect taxpayer funds. Prior Boards of Directors approved costly contract provisions that resulted in long term consequences that have come to haunt the current board, and will impact future boards unless they are addressed. When the Grand Jury spoke to Board members they did not know if certain contract perks were PERSable, including Education Incentive Pay. Education incentives are PERSable, and over time cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars per employee, i.e. hidden escalators. If a newly hired firefighter with a paramedic certificate starts at $80,000 base salary, works for thirty years and lives in retirement for 20 years, the cost to taxpayers for the paramedic incentive is $360,000. According to a publication from American River College and website Salary.com, the median annual salary for paramedics not employed by a fire department in the Sacramento region is $41,229. Obtaining a Fire Officer Certificate earns a firefighter a 3% pay increase. At $80,000 annual salary over a 50-year employment and retirement period, this amounts to an additional $120,000 for obtaining the Fire Officer certificate. If the same firefighter is promoted and is paid $100,000 per year, and maximizes EIP pay at 25% of base pay, the cost to taxpayers is over one million dollars ($1,000,000). It is no wonder that costs for the Educational Incentive Program tripled over a five-year period after contract language changed the educational incentive from a fixed amount to a percentage. A Chief Level firefighter receives $12,000 in “management pay.” Management pay is offered to compensate chief officers for their inability to earn overtime pay like their subordinates. Management pay is PERSable as well. Over a 20-year retirement period, chief level firefighters receive a $240,000 bonus for not receiving overtime pay. In contrast, subordinates’ overtime pay is not PERSable. The long term costs of these contract benefits go unnoticed by the general public who elects the Board of Directors to ensure the expenditure of taxpayer funds is conducted in a reasonable manner.
R2:
The EDHFD should reconsider the purpose of Educational Incentive Pay. Members of the EDHFD Board of Directors told the Grand Jury that incentive pay was provided for two reasons: (1) to develop leadership within the Department, and (2) to maintain a benefit plan that would keep firefighters from transferring to a higher paying Fire Department. In the unlikely event a firefighter would leave the EDHFD due to cuts in the EIP program, there would likely be, in today’s economy, a cavalcade of applicants to replace the firefighter - including highly qualified firefighters recently laid off from other jurisdictions. In many governmental agencies and private corporations, new hires are given automatic step increases as a reward for additional education. Step increases do not provide “stackable” career and lifetime benefits; they merely move the employee to a top step sooner. In terms of Fire Officer and Fire Chief pay, employees should not be rewarded for studying or preparing for promotion. The pay increase upon promotion is the proper financial reward, as is done in other fire departments.
R3:
The Proposition 13 property tax revenue allocation to the EDHFD needs to be re-evaluated. Taxpayer money is taxpayer money regardless of its origin or revenue stream. The EDHFD is over compensated and staffed inefficiently. While teachers annually face layoffs and municipal fire departments struggle, the EDHFD Firefighters average annual overtime pay is $39,000 and annual EID is nearly $8,000. This is along with a two day work-week (not including vacation and other leaves) every six days in which eating, exercising, and sleeping is included. The firefighting staff also receives longevity pay, no-cost retirement, medical, and dental care. The Board also maintains comparatively high General and Capital Reserve Funds. The existing property tax revenue tax redistribution formula should be evaluated by the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors to determine if the EDHFD is funded sufficiently to guarantee a reasonable level of quality public safety, and not to over-compensate their employees.
R4:
The Board of Directors must be more knowledgeable, professional, and proactive with its labor negotiation efforts. The Board of Directors should hire professional management assistance when negotiating labor contracts with the Firefighters Union. The Board of Directors does not hire professional negotiation consultants, and has not conducted a comprehensive compensation salary and work performance study of comparable fire departments since 2006. The Directors need to be forearmed with professional level facts and figures to adequately represent the interest of taxpayers. In the past, they appeared to be unprepared to deal with the EDHFD union, which hires a labor attorney specializing in representing public safety unions for their contract negotiations. The Board of Directors needs to be more proactive and should assess and evaluate the long term costs to taxpayers when negotiating contract terms such as education incentive pay, mandatory staffing, management pay, eliminating floaters, as well as zero cost retirement, medical, and dental plans.
R5:
The Board of Directors must include their Fire Chief in labor negotiations to incorporate a management perspective. Currently, the EDHFD Fire Chief is expected to manage a budget in which he has limited input. This was a common complaint of the recently retired Fire Chief. As Table 4 illustrates, the majority of fire departments do include the Chief in their negotiations. The Fire Chief needs the ability to provide management input into compensation and staffing issues before he is expected to implement them.
R6:
The Board of Directors should conduct a comprehensive study to compare its compensation package with other fire departments before approving a contract for 2011-2012. The current Board is comprised of a different set of Directors than those who approved the 2005-2006 Memorandum of Understanding. The Board needs to fully comprehend that their Department pays the highest compensation but has the lowest calls for service ratio in the Sacramento region. When the Grand Jury spoke to Directors they were unable to answer basic questions, concerning overtime budgeting, calls for service, and structure fire quantification. The current board should be equipped with up-to-date facts and figures of compensation and service demand data for comparable fire departments. The Board should be up to date on alternative best practices staffing plans that have proven successful in other fire departments. The Board should also research ways to make the EDHFD a more cost effective organization, such as the use of floaters and volunteers to reduce overtime.
R7:
The Board of Directors should determine whether national standards are applicable to the service demands of El Dorado Hills and not take national studies at face value. With low firefighting service demands, national standards that apply to major cities may not apply to El Dorado Hills. El Dorado Hills has six structure fires per year, but has four fully staffed and funded fire stations that are close in proximity. EDH buildings are relatively new, and well-equipped with sprinklers, alarms, and other fire prevention devices. There are no high rises, tenements, or oil refineries. EDH needs quality firefighting staffing and resources, but not at the same ratio as a major American metropolis with myriad firefighting challenges.
R8:
The Board of Directors needs to consider more efficient methods to deploy EDH Firefighters. The Board of Directors needs to consider staffing alternatives to reduce overtime and operating budget expenditures. Budget priorities need to be identified by EDH community service needs. Examples of cost cutting measures the Board should consider are: Change the orientation of their 35-member EMT qualified volunteer force to more of a “Reserve” force to use as an overtime reduction and back staffing coverage tool. This will also help to assess potential candidates for Firefighter. Temporary closure or a reduction in services in one of the stations with the lowest service demands, and/or re-strategizing response deployments to medical responses. Develop a more flexible and efficient service-demand staffing plan. The recently retired Fire Chief called his agency “overstaffed” which is highly unusual in public safety circles. A union official testified to the lack of ambulance services in El Dorado County. The EDHFD administration should evaluate ambulance and fire services to determine if El Dorado Hills residents have too many resources for firefighting services and not enough for ambulance services. It is abundantly clear that medical care is the EDHFD core service. Employing industry “best practices” as a start for a flexible staffing plan that reflects EDH service demands should be developed and implemented. Reduce or eliminate the rank of Battalion Chief. The Department should find alternatives to staffing Battalion Chiefs for two-day 24-hour shifts, which appears to be an unnecessary layer of supervision. There are well trained and well compensated Captains on duty to supervise two or three subordinates for one to two calls per day. Having 24/7 Battalion Chiefs is good for supervisory continuity in a larger and busier fire department, but it is a costly strategy for a smaller / less busy department like the EDHFD. In the off- chance a captain could not adequately handle a situation, an on-duty or on-call Battalion Chief, Deputy Chief or Division Chief could be contacted to answer a question or respond to command a scene.
R9:
Authorities considering consolidation and annexation of smaller El Dorado County fire departments into the El Dorado Hills Fire Department should closely consider the potential personnel costs before proceeding further. Authorities contemplating annexation / consolidation of EDC West Slope Fire Departments should fully understand the EDHFD MOU. The smaller, more rural, fire districts surrounding EDHFD cannot afford the salary and benefit package currently in force at EDHFD. If consolidation were adopted, it is probable that in the future disparate firefighters of the merged fire districts would attempt to form one bargaining unit. Obviously, allied firefighters from the smaller agencies would start demanding “We want what EDHFD gets!” Further, one avenue publicly discussed for consolidation involves the EDHFD annexing smaller EDC agencies. Annexation would possibly enable the smaller agencies to operate under the umbrella of the EDHFD dual county status. This status enables the EDHFD to avoid paying the 10% “Education Revenue Augmentation Funds” shift of property tax revenues that currently go to schools. It is probable that the property tax revenue that currently goes to schools would instead go to increasing the salaries and benefits of merged firefighters while local schools continue to lay off teachers and increase student to teacher ratios.
R10:
The EDHFD should make broader use of volunteers to reduce overtime. Other fire departments use volunteers more effectively to reduce overtime costs than the EDHFD. Generally, there are three paramedic-licensed firefighters on an “Engine” in the EDHFD. There are many more paramedic-licensed firefighters at nearby stations to lend paramedic assistance if necessary. Once a volunteer is EMT certified (12 volunteers have paramedic licenses), he or she should be satisfactory to fill in on the one to two calls per day service demands of the fire stations to save 24 hours of overtime pay. The Fire Administration explained that a more structured volunteer program is being considered that may result in more of a firefighter “Reserve” Program, where volunteers are paid more substantial stipends. It was explained that some volunteers are persons who have full time jobs and commit their time out of a sense of civic duty, while others are planning careers as firefighters and are trying to gain job experience. The Board of Directors must ensure that the Fire Chief develops a scheduling model that ensures a reduction in future overtime cost to the minimum necessary.
R11:
The EDHFD should continue to research methods to reduce 911 call answering and processing time. The front end of the cell phone call reporting process lengthens response times. To what degree the response time is increased is not known, as only anecdotal evidence has been cited or collected. According to an EDC 911 center administrator, an ongoing state-funded project entitled the “Red Project” will enable El Dorado Hills callers to reach the EDC Sheriff’s Office PSAP directly, avoiding the CHP step. Therefore, the dispatcher answering the call would have an orientation to El Dorado County that a CHP dispatcher may not have. The project is a joint effort between the State, cell phone companies, CHP, and local fire and law enforcement authorities. Panicked El Dorado Hills victims are not going to remember a ten-digit phone number, unless they have it programmed into their cell phones. Until the Red Project is fully implemented, EDH residents should have a dedicated 916 area code number to call to get routed directly to the Cal Fire dispatch facility on their land-line phones and cell phones. The Grand Jury recommends that before the project is implemented, current benchmark data concerning call answering and call processing times should be collected and analyzed to determine what those factors are presently and how they have been impacted with the implementation of the Red Project.
R12:
Representatives of the EDHFD Professional Firefighter Association should ensure that their public statements are factually sound. The general public supports their firefighters for the work they do and the sacrifices they make. Firefighter spokespersons should not violate that support by embellishing facts and figures to justify contract enhancements. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This Report has been provided to the El Dorado Hills Fire Department Board of Directors for response. Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
According to sworn testimony given to the Grand Jury, EDCSO Internal Affairs audited the degrees of EIP recipients in 2002 and found one individual with a degree from Hamilton University. This individual did not appear to warrant EIP. Internal Affairs reports directly to the Under-sheriff and does not conduct investigations without direction from or approval by the Under-sheriff or Sheriff. Testimony indicated that when approached by Internal Affairs, the Under-sheriff ordered Internal Affairs to cease any further investigation. However, when Internal Affairs was interviewed by the District Attorney’s investigator, this audit was said to have been conducted in 2008.
F2:
A simple Web search provided information that Hamilton University was operated by a convicted felon. Hamilton University changed its name to Richardson University and relocated to the Bahamas after Hamilton University was shut down by authorities.
F3:
In 2010, the issue of questionable degrees resurfaced. An Internal Affairs investigation revealed three individuals with diplomas from Hamilton or Richardson University and two other individuals with degrees from other questionable institutions. Internal Affairs turned the matter over to the District Attorney’s office to determine if criminal charges should be brought against these five sworn personnel. Internal Affairs did not obtain statements from the accused officers before turning the matter over to the District Attorney. 7
F4:
The District Attorney’s Office spent eight months investigating the issue but has elected not to prosecute any of the individuals involved, due to a lack of sufficient evidence. Four of the accused deputies declined to provide statements to the District Attorney’s Office. The District Attorney’s investigation revealed that the five officers in question received a total of $166,459.72 in additional pay after the EDCSO Commanders approved their application for EIP. The investigation revealed that the “four year degrees” were approved by EDCSO Commanders even though they were obtained in as little as four weeks of coursework.
F5:
EDCSO Internal Affairs delayed any administrative investigation while the District Attorney’s investigation was ongoing. During this time, two of the individuals in question retired and the other three have remained employed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
An administrative investigation by EDCSO Internal Affairs should determine whether any of the five sworn officers investigated for EIP abuse were culpable of any violation of department policy that would warrant administrative 9 penalties. Appropriate penalties including termination or demotion should be enforced if justified.
F6:
The Modified, Last, Best and Final offer for the EDCSO Deputy Sheriffs Association, Law Enforcement Unit and the El Dorado County Law Enforcement Manager’s Association are the two labor agreements currently in force between El Dorado County and the sworn personnel of the Sheriff’s Office. Both agreements are subject to renegotiation.
F7:
Both labor agreements provide incentives for longevity pay, POST Certificate Awards and Educational Incentive Pay. POST incentives are available as an alternative to longevity pay and these two incentives may not be combined. However, EIP may be combined with either POST incentives or longevity pay. A Captain, for example, receiving the maximum benefit for EIP and longevity pay could receive nearly $32,000 in additional pay.
F8:
In 2010, the County paid in excess of $300,000 in EIP to EDCSO personnel. At the current rate, this incentive program will cost the County in excess of $3,000,000 over the next ten years.
F9:
Neither labor agreement provides a standard for evaluating the legitimacy of college degrees and diplomas. The language of the agreements does not specify either “accredited colleges” or “State approved” colleges as a means of identifying legitimate institutions.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
As provisions of the EDCSO labor agreements are renegotiated, the provision for providing EIP should be modified to include a standard for measuring the legitimacy of the institutions providing the qualifying degrees. Either “accreditation by a governing body recognized by the Secretary of the United States Department of Education” or “State Approved Colleges” recognized by the bureau established by the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 provides easy verification of the legitimacy of the institutions.
R2:
Accreditation by a governing body recognized by the United States Department of Education would be preferred because it is consistent with the standards required by POST.
R3:
A memorandum from the Sheriff should be sent to all employees clarifying that the current MOU language means “two year” or four year” degrees must be Associate and Bachelor degrees from colleges or universities which are accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary of the United States Department of Education.
F10:
Two deputies, two sergeants and one lieutenant received degrees from unaccredited institutions that are being investigated by the U.S. Attorney General as “diploma mills.” All five of these individuals applied for and received EIP. Applications were approved by EDCSO Commanders. 8
F11:
There is no requirement for personnel applying for EIP to provide a duplicate diploma and/or sealed transcripts to the El Dorado County Human Resource Department for independent verification.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
Any future applications for EIP by sworn personnel should include sealed transcripts and a diploma from the accredited college or university. Copies of these documents should be provided to both the Under-sheriff for approval and the Director of El Dorado County Human Resources for independent review.
R6:
The El Dorado County Department of Human Resources should be required to verify the accreditation status of any college or university granting degrees for which EIP is currently being paid or for which an application is submitted. No payment should be made for EIP or POST Award certificates without pre- specified evidence of eligibility from both the Sheriff’s Office and the El Dorado County Human Resource Director.
F12:
The District Attorney’s investigation confirmed that the five employees investigated were the only then current sworn personnel receiving EIP based upon degrees issued by questionable institutions.
F13:
Other local law enforcement agencies offer EIP and POST but the incentives cannot be combined, are currently limited to a maximum benefit of 10% of base salary, and are not available to command rank (Lieutenants and above).
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
In order that the paid compensation of the EDCSO is consistent with other local law enforcement agencies, the CAO should direct the Department of Human Resources to periodically conduct compensation reviews of those other local agencies to ensure that the compensation is consistent and competitive with local standards.
F14:
The EDCSO reviewed the training files of 79 sworn personnel in 2010 to determine the legitimacy of college degrees. However, there were an additional 18 Correctional Officers receiving EIP who were not included in that review.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
In addition to the EDCSO the personnel files of all past and present County, City and Special District employees receiving EIP should be reviewed by an independent auditor to evaluate the legitimacy of all degrees on file. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to the El Dorado County Sheriff, the El Dorado County Human Resources Department and the El Dorado County CAO for response. Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report. 10
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
A total of 18 gender bias/sexual harassment complaints originating in the Sher- iff’s Office were filed over the last three years. Three were filed in 2008, three filed in 2009 and twelve filed in 2010. Six of the 18 complaints were sustained (found to be true).
F2:
Of the six sustained allegations, three individuals did not have records of discipli- nary action related to the complaints in their files in the El Dorado County Human Resources Office. Of the remaining three complaints, one of the accused retired and one was terminated. The third complaint involved multiple accused employ- ees and the final discipline resulted in one termination, a forty-hour suspension, and a Letter of Reprimand.
F3:
There are two pending lawsuits filed with the United States District Court against the County of El Dorado, El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department, and individual plaintiffs within the Sheriff’s Department alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
F4:
Operations within the Sheriff’s Department are governed by the following: El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office Policy Manual Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with applicable bargaining units County of El Dorado Policy Prohibiting Discrimination, Harassment and Re- taliation and Reporting and Complaint Procedure Federal and State regulations outlined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and enforced by the El Dorado County Human Resources De- partment
F5:
El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office Policy 329, “Discriminatory Harassment”, prohibits and defines discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Section 329.2 states that “Employees . . . found to be participating in any form of employment-based harassment, discrimination or retaliation against any applicant or employee may be subject to disciplinary action up to and includ- ing termination from employment.” Section 329.4.1 states that for Department Heads, Management and Elected Officials, “Failure to take corrective action when a department head/manager/elected official knew, or should have known, that an employee was being subjected to unlawful discrimination, harassment or retaliation on the job is a violation of this policy and may subject the . . . official to a disci- plinary action up to an including termination or other appropriate sanctions.” Section 329.4.1 states that “A failure to report conduct that may constitute un- lawful discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation to the Department of Human Resources (Equal Employment Officer) or CAO (Chief Administrative Officer) . . . may result in disciplinary action up to and including termina- tion.” Section 329.4.3 states that the Human Resources Director and Department shall be responsible for “Scheduling and auditing periodic training of County management and employees in the area of unlawful workplace discrimination, harassment, retaliation including identification of prohibited conduct, proce- dures for reporting the occurrence of such conduct and prohibition against retaliation for complaints.” Section 329.5.3 states that “if the determination is made that discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation occurred which violates County policy, the Di- rector of Human Resources (Equal Employment Officer) or CAO (Chief Ad- ministrative Officer) shall take and/or recommend prompt and effective reme- dial action commensurate with the severity of the offenses(s), taking into ac- count the principles of progressive discipline as well as the County’s zero tol- erance policy towards unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation.”
F6:
Forty-two percent (6 of 14) women interviewed by the EDCGJ indicated that they have experienced gender bias at some time during their careers with the EDC Sheriff’s Department. Three women stated they would not recommend employ- ment with the Sheriff’s Department to other women. Two stated that they would recommend the Sheriff’s Department only after they explained the difficult work- ing conditions. Nine said they would recommend the Sheriff’s Department to other women.
F7:
In addition to the 18 complaints filed since 2008, the Grand Jury examined three sustained complaints that originated from an allegation in 2007 by three male deputies who reported events where females were subjects of gender bias. The El Dorado County Human Resources Office forwarded the complaint to an outside attorney for review. The attorney recommended that three of the reported inci- dents outlined in the complaint had sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations, specifically stating that one of the comments “was reasonably understood as a
F8:
The above referenced individual was promoted to a command position in 2009 and during his probationary period for that promotion, received another Letter of Counseling for an additional sustained complaint involving conduct which re- flects unfavorably upon the Department. Using a Letter of Counseling twice for the same ranked individual does not adhere to section 329.5.3 of the Policy Man- ual “. . . taking into account the principles of progressive discipline. . . .”
F9:
The Sheriff’s Office Policy Manual states that discriminatory behavior based on gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation is prohibited. There are no writ- ten guidelines for disciplinary action if these policies are violated. When asked if mandatory discipline for violating such policies should be delineated in the Policy Manual to serve as a deterrent, one Sheriff’s Office Commander stated that doing so would take away the discretion of supervisors and managers in assigning pun- ishment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Sheriff’s Office zero tolerance policy regarding discriminatory harassment must be better communicated and implemented by: Establishing set scheduling of formal training for all employees on proper workplace behavior. Ensuring that sustained allegations of sexual harassment and/or gender bias discrimination are duly weighed against individuals applying for promotion. Aggressively implementing Policy 329.4.1 advocating disciplinary action for supervisors when complaints are filed in their sphere of influence and it is de- termined that they “knew, or should have known, that an employee was being subjected to unlawful discrimination, harassment or retaliation on the job”. Performing a review of Internal Affairs to eliminate perceptions of lack of ob- jectivity and confidentiality. Routing all allegations of sexual harassment/gender bias complaints through Internal Affairs to the Sheriff. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are re- quired in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address re- sponses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to the El Dorado County Sheriff and the Director of Human Resources for El Dorado County for response. Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report.
F10:
Some of the women interviewed expressed a lack of confidence in Internal Affairs to handle a gender bias complaint. Their concerns included a lack of objectivity, as well as the potential for compromised confidentiality that could lead to possible retaliation by co-workers.
F11:
Although formal training on rules and regulations regarding Equal Employment Opportunity is given every two years for sergeants and above, no formally sched- uled training takes place for sworn and civilian members in the Sheriff’s Depart- ment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Sheriff’s Office zero tolerance policy regarding discriminatory harassment must be better communicated and implemented by: Establishing set scheduling of formal training for all employees on proper workplace behavior. Ensuring that sustained allegations of sexual harassment and/or gender bias discrimination are duly weighed against individuals applying for promotion. Aggressively implementing Policy 329.4.1 advocating disciplinary action for supervisors when complaints are filed in their sphere of influence and it is de- termined that they “knew, or should have known, that an employee was being subjected to unlawful discrimination, harassment or retaliation on the job”. Performing a review of Internal Affairs to eliminate perceptions of lack of ob- jectivity and confidentiality. Routing all allegations of sexual harassment/gender bias complaints through Internal Affairs to the Sheriff. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are re- quired in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address re- sponses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to the El Dorado County Sheriff and the Director of Human Resources for El Dorado County for response. Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report.
F12:
The El Dorado County Recruitment and Selection section 1000.3.6 lists discipline for acts constituting racial, ethnic or sexual harassment or discrimination as dis- qualifying for applicants of positions within the County. Section 1000.3.4 also requires that applicants must be effective in dealing with people without arousing antagonism. In at least one promotion the EDCGJ reviewed, an applicant who re- ceived a Letter of Counseling for discourteous, disrespectful or discriminatory treatment, was promoted to a command rank two years after he received the disci- pline.
F13:
The Grand Jury’s review of two sustained complaints found no verification that the Sheriff was informed about the content of the complaint or took part in disci- plining the guilty individuals.
F14:
Although El Dorado County ranks second from the bottom among Shasta, Placer, Amador, Kings, and Madera counties in the number of female deputies with a rank of sergeant or above, the majority of the female deputies did not have any concerns about the process used to promote candidates for sergeant or above. The process involves testing facilitated by an outside consulting company. However, it should be noted as stated in Finding 21, gaining experience to be successful in promoting to sergeant or above is controlled in part by the lateral assignment process. There were four attempts by women to obtain a promotion to sergeant since 2003, and only one woman was successful. Twenty-six men were promoted to sergeant or above during the same time frame.
F15:
Sergeant openings in the West Slope area are typically filled by sergeants with higher seniority, leaving the South Lake Tahoe position vacant when they trans- fer. The vacant position is then filled by a newly promoted sergeant with less sen- iority. This practice can discourage potential candidates with families or other re- sponsibilities rooted in the West Slope to seek promotion.
F16:
Policy 1001 of the Sheriff’s Office Policy Manual defines the process that is used to select individuals for specialized job assignments. All employees are notified via e-mail of job openings, and applicants are ranked by a panel of supervisors within the Department. If the position has three or more candidates, is full time or involves skill pay, only the top three candidates ranked by the panel are invited to compete in an oral interview. After the interviews are concluded and final ranking is tabulated, the panel’s numerical ranking is forwarded to the Division Com- mander.
F17:
Personnel in the Sheriff’s Office provided the following information regarding detective positions: There is no mandatory rotation of detective positions. There are currently 20 male and zero female detectives in the EDCSO. Over the last five years no women were added to the Detective Unit. In 2008, one female detective left the Investigative Detective Unit because she was promoted to sergeant. Detectives receive a 5% pay increase and a take home vehicle, making this a coveted position for deputies.
F18:
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics website, data from a 2003 census (the latest available) showed that the national average for the percentage of sworn female officers in communities between 100,000 and 249,000 is 12.8%. The per-
F19:
In testimony, the Sheriff indicated there are no plans to recruit female deputy ap- plicants to bridge the Department’s existing gender gap in sworn positions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sheriff’s Office must identify and recruit qualified female and other minority candidates to apply for future openings in the Sheriff’s Office. This outreach would enable the Sheriff to take a leadership role in eliminating bias and the ap- pearance of discrimination that exposes El Dorado County to civil liability.
F20:
Although there is a written policy that defines the process for selecting candi- dates for lateral assignments, the majority of the six deputies interviewed ex- pressed dissatisfaction with the methods used to select candidates for lateral, spe- cialized work assignments. Concerns include: The selection process was too subjective since most assignments did not in- volve written testing, relying instead on the ranking of candidates by a se- lected panel. Not having a chance to appear before the selection panel if they did not re- ceive one of the top rankings. Not getting any feedback or coaching on how they can improve their chances for being selected in the future. The low number of openings due to non-rotation of some assignments such as detective.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The EDCGJ strongly urges the Sheriff’s Office to implement the following re- garding lateral, specialized assignments: Implement a plan to rotate specialized lateral assignments such as detective with the goal of creating more opportunities for deputies to gain valued job skills while at the same time ensuring that expertise within the Department is preserved. Establish objective means wherever possible to measure candidates’ abilities against written job qualifications. Give all qualified candidates the opportunity to compete in oral examinations conducted by the selection panel. Consider alternatives to the practice of allowing sergeants with seniority to force newly hired sergeants with less seniority to locate in South Lake Tahoe since it has the unintended consequence of discouraging those with family or other responsibilities rooted in the West Slope to apply for promotion. Provide a venue for unsuccessful candidates to receive feedback from the se- lection panel.
F21:
The Grand Jury finds that lateral assignments such as Detective, Field Training Officer, and River Patrol are a gateway for promotion into the ranks of sergeant or above. In addition, the El Dorado County Grand Jury concludes that the selection process for lateral assignments is subjective and somewhat arbitrary. Without experience gained from lateral assignments a candidate who applies for sergeant or above has a slim chance of succeeding when competing against a can- didate who has detective or other lateral assignment experience. It is not surpris- ing that only one woman achieved the rank of sergeant since female detectives have been almost nonexistent. Having female deputies on the force who have gained experience from lateral assignments also contributes to a more effective and culturally competent law enforcement organization for El Dorado County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The EDCGJ strongly urges the Sheriff’s Office to implement the following re- garding lateral, specialized assignments: Implement a plan to rotate specialized lateral assignments such as detective with the goal of creating more opportunities for deputies to gain valued job skills while at the same time ensuring that expertise within the Department is preserved. Establish objective means wherever possible to measure candidates’ abilities against written job qualifications. Give all qualified candidates the opportunity to compete in oral examinations conducted by the selection panel. Consider alternatives to the practice of allowing sergeants with seniority to force newly hired sergeants with less seniority to locate in South Lake Tahoe since it has the unintended consequence of discouraging those with family or other responsibilities rooted in the West Slope to apply for promotion. Provide a venue for unsuccessful candidates to receive feedback from the se- lection panel.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Salaries: Salary schedules were reviewed for Sheriff’s Departments in the following Counties: Amador, El Dorado, Placer, and Yolo. Some of these agencies report actual base salaries, while others show salaries including incentives. For comparison purposes the lowest and highest base salaries of each agency were used and compiled to form a median salary, which was $5,264 per month. The median salary for El Dorado County deputies is $5,420. While El Dorado County is slightly above the median ($156), the variables mentioned indicate El Dorado County deputy salaries are in line with those in several nearby jurisdictions.
F2:
Overtime: EDCSO achieved a substantial reduction in overtime. It is reported that at the end of Fiscal Year 2007-08, overtime costs were $4,095,143. In the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2009-2010, overtime costs were $2,015,511. When extrapolated to a full year, that number is $2,687,348, a reduction of $1,407,795, or approximately 34%.
F3:
Budget: The CAO budget proposal for F/Y 2010-2011 provides a ten year history of Sheriff’s Office financials and staffing patterns. In F/Y 2001-2002 the Sheriff had 362 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions and a budget of $22.5 million. The budget and staffing peaked in F/Y 2007-2008 at 399 FTE and a budget of $43.3 million. During the three intervening years since F/Y 2007-2008, the Sheriff’s Office had to adapt to substantial reductions in budget and staff, with staffing reduced from 399 FTEs to 377, and the budget reduced from $43.3 million to $40.5 million, a $2.8 million reduction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
It is imperative that future cost cutting be achieved through careful analysis, rather than simply eliminating staff by across the board cuts.
F4:
Position classifications: Sworn deputy sheriffs are the front line for law enforcement responsibilities. Sworn positions have a rank structure including deputy sheriff, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, undersheriff, and sheriff (an elected official). The majority of jail personnel are non-sworn correctional personnel, but also have a rank structure including correctional officer, sergeant, and lieutenant. Many other civilian personnel are assigned who perform financial, dispatch, and other administrative support functions throughout the Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Re-classifying Positions: In other jurisdictions cost savings have been achieved by reclassifying positions and staffing them with civilian personnel. Further study is required to determine if any potential cost saving with the EDCSO could be achieved. Several job functions that could lend themselves to potential savings include: Converting sworn civil court bailiffs to civilian court attendants Civilian personnel monitoring building security X-ray machines Lower level process serving in the Civil Unit Vehicle abatement (abandoned vehicle removal) There may be merit and cost savings associated with the consolidation of some support staff positions. This would be done by cross-training selected personnel who are currently performing support services in a single unit. By cross-training, their skills would be enhanced, enabling them to assume responsibilities in multiple units and broader job responsibilities. This concept has the potential to reduce personnel costs while affording greater flexibility in staffing patterns. Such a practice follows a general trend in law enforcement in moving from specialist to generalist duties, and it has been adopted in other jurisdictions successfully.
F5:
Patrol Staffing: It is incumbent on law enforcement to deploy their limited resources in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. The EDCSO deploys patrol personnel based on a nationally recognized Patrol Allocation and Deployment Study developed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (I.A.C.P.). This study is a workload-based analysis using information produced by the Computer Aided Dispatch system (CAD). The computer captures raw data and compiles it in ten different categories of officer status. The predominant category is dispatch related activity which includes calls for service, report writing, and time spent at the jail resulting from an arrest. Also factored into the equation are vacation, sick time and training. The compilation of this data is used to make staffing decisions for the number of deputies required in each of the EDCSO patrol zones. The Patrol Allocation Study indicates the South Lake Tahoe patrol zone has three to four more positions than are justified by the workload. These figures were affirmed by the former Sheriff in printed material used in his budget presentation to the EDCBOS November 1, 2010. The Patrol Allocation Study contrasts sharply with the historical method of making decisions based on one officer per 1,000 population. This had been the historic method used in making patrol deployment decisions and is still used in many patrol jurisdictions. The CAD based patrol staffing and deployment approach is a superior method in making sound personnel and geographic patrol coverage decisions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Patrol Staffing: Staffing in the SLT patrol zone should be reduced to the level indicated by the Patrol Allocation Study.
F6:
Vehicle “take home” policy: Currently, all EDC Sheriff’s detectives, managers above the rank of sergeant, and selected other positions are authorized take home County vehicles without restriction. This policy represents significant cost to the County and does not appear to be in line with current trends in law enforcement. The ability for employees to take EDC vehicles home seems to fall somewhere between operational need and a departmental perk, depending on the position. There are approximately 63 EDC Sheriff’s Office take home vehicles being driven by staff. A vehicle summary prepared in January, 2011 showed the following costs associated with the 63 take home vehicles: Fuel $134,883 Maintenance $346,500 Total $481,383 In addition to the above costs, three vehicles listed as “take home” are unassigned (two in narcotics, one in detectives). A Ford F350 crew-cab diesel truck for boat patrol is listed as “take home.” This is a particularly expensive commute vehicle. Recently, Placer County Sheriff’s Office restricted the practice of “take home” vehicles and saved approximately $500,000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Take Home Vehicles: The EDCSO practice on take home county vehicles should be revised and made job related, which would provide substantial savings. Take home vehicles for command staff may be appropriate. Other take home vehicle assignments should be made based on careful analysis. For example, a take home vehicle policy should consider how frequently an employee is called from home outside of normal working hours. Detectives should not be taking cars home just because they are detectives, the weekly on-call detective should be the only detective to routinely take a vehicle home. It is rare that numerous detectives are required to respond to a crime scene without delay. Some other disciplines require a great deal of personal gear (SWAT Team, Bomb Squad, and K-9), although the 24/7 on-call factor should apply here as well. An exception to this would be with the narcotics unit, since the nature of this job and working hours required must remain flexible. Even where it is deemed proper for an employee to take a county vehicle home, there should be restrictions. Some jurisdictions restrict commute driving only to locations within the county of employment. It would, by extension, seem proper to restrict vehicles to the State of California as well. Employees living outside these boundaries can leave their vehicles at the duty station nearest their residence and commute from there. Another option would be to charge the current county mileage rate for all commute driving. A reform of the take home vehicle policy may not be popular among the staff, but it represents a prudent use of public funds. As mentioned earlier Placer County realized substantial savings by implementing such a policy. The Grand Jury was informed there is no written policy on vehicles or take home vehicles. A written policy on vehicles should be developed as soon as possible and distributed to all personnel in the office.
F7:
Fleet Management of Patrol Vehicles: Until recently deputies assigned to patrol were not assigned a particular vehicle for their shift, but would obtain a vehicle based on personal preference. This practice was not a good model for fleet management. EDC Department of Transportation (EDCDOT) and EDC Sheriff’s Office informed the Grand Jury this practice has changed. Vehicles are now being assigned to and shared by one officer on day shift and another on night shift. It is reported that in addition to the obvious benefits of improved accountability, maintenance, and damage tracking, the vehicles are receiving better care as the assigned officers tend to take greater pride in assigned equipment they feel is “theirs.
F8:
Institutional Food: Food served to inmates meets State standards for nutrition and quantity. It is currently prepared on site by a combination of county employees and inmates. The South Lake Tahoe Jail Facility runs a model culinary program in partnership with the local community college. In addition to preparing food for inmates and staff, food is prepared for community events on a contract basis. A significant cost reduction of $12,000 per year for inmate food was achieved recently by shifting the cost of condiments from the County to the inmate population through the commissary program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Institutional Food Reform: Another area for potential savings may exist if the method for food preparation is modernized. This could be accomplished by switching from traditional food preparation to a “Cook/Chill” system. Cook/Chill is a process whereby food is prepared on or off site, chilled for preservation, reheated and kept warm at the service area just prior to serving. While Cook/Chill is commonly associated with larger institutional food service operations, new compact quick chill equipment designs place a Cook/Chill system within the reach of many types and sizes of food service operations. Cook/Chill methods are used extensively by restaurants, hotels, caterers, and on airplanes and ships. It was learned during interviews that a Cook/Chill program had been considered, but was not adopted. The projected savings of $50,000 was not considered cost effective. However, if substantial annual savings can be achieved in a reasonable time frame, it is worth further consideration.
F9:
New Personnel: Two key vacant positions have been filled in the EDCSO since January 1, 2011, which will potentially contribute significant improvement in the organizational development and management of the EDCSO, particularly as it relates to financial and operational controls. First, the new Undersheriff brings qualifications and experience to the agency which will allow him to employ effective management of day to day operations, and apply discipline to financial controls. Second, the appointment of a new financial manager brings a background in financial management to the Department, gained as a senior staff member for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Both of these individuals bring what has been missing in the management of the Sheriff’s Office, and both fill critical positions that have been vacant for more than one year. The fact that both are new to the department and neither is tied to the past in the organization is a major plus.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
Additional areas worthy of mention: Two additional areas of potential savings were brought to our attention by an official outside EDC. These were not investigated by the EDCGJ due to time constraints but are mentioned here as being deemed worthy of consideration; Telephones: A substantial amount of money is spent each month by duplicating telephone service. Basically all EDCSO personnel have a desk set telephone in their work area, the cost of which (currently about $179,000 per year) is billed to the Sheriff’s Office. Some of these same employees may be assigned cell phones. It seems prudent to maintain a limited number of desk telephones to guarantee service in the event of a cellular outage, but routinely maintaining both types of telephones for an employee seems to serve no purpose other than spiking the cost of communication. Service Centers & Leased Facilities: The Sheriff’s Office currently spends approximately $200,000 per year on rent or leases. Also, the leased facility on Pierroz Road in Placerville houses the investigative unit and narcotics units. We understand this space was leased in anticipation of planned expansion of the investigative section which has not occurred. It would be beneficial for the EDCSO to evaluate physical plant needs at all Sheriff’s facilities, and analyze those needs to identify areas which might lend themselves to space consolidation and ultimately a cost saving. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to the El Dorado County Sheriff, El Dorado County BOS, and El Dorado County CAO for response. Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
EDC does not have a written policy or procedure to direct the handling of a Consent Calendar. Past practice has been for the CAO to review all agenda items and indicate by writing on the item the letter “C” for consent, or “D” for discussion. The contract matter under review had neither letter designation. According to one prominent official the CAO knew that at least one member of the BOS was very interested in having the contract move forward, and allowed this item to “slip by.”
F2:
The EDC Fiscal Review Process (Policy B-12) was adopted March 1, 2005. The policy was not followed in this case.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The EDC BOS should revise Policy B-12 to require Auditor/Controller review of contracts exceeding $100,000.
F3:
The items under review substantially exceeded the dollar amount specified in BOS Policy B-12. In addition, the contract had been reviewed by Human Resources on 4/25/08, Risk Management and County Counsel on 5/14/08, none of whom detected the problems later discovered by the Auditor/Controller Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The EDC BOS should revise Policy B-12 to require Auditor/Controller review of contracts exceeding $100,000.
F4:
EDC does not have a written policy delineating guidelines covering what items are appropriate for inclusion in a Consent Calendar and the mechanics of inclusion (or removal) of such items. Development and implementation of, and adherence to such a policy, are seen as key components for the efficient function of EDC Government, and a positive step forward building confidence in the BOS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The BOS should adopt a written policy for use of the Consent Calendar.
F5:
The EDC Grand Jury was informed that in addition to any member of the BOS, any member of the public may request an item be pulled for further discussion or correction.
F6:
Printed copies of EDC BOS meeting agendas contain no information informing the public how to have an item pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
EDC should provide instruction for the public on printed agendas explaining the method for pulling a Consent Calendar item for discussion. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to the BOS Chairperson for response. Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
All witnesses interviewed confirm that during 2010 the conduct of business by the PFPD BOD was dysfunctional, plagued by disharmony, conflict, and tension. One member of the Board characterized the conduct of business as a “convoluted mess”.
F2:
The actions of the BOD resulted in a lawsuit by the Chief of PFPD against the BOD. This lawsuit was settled and ultimately cost the District $122,500. The lawsuit and settlement may have been contributing factors in the resignation of three of five BOD members resigning in August 2010, including the individual involved in the multiple complaints.
F3:
The Fire Chief is seen by all parties interviewed to be competent in managing the day-to-day operations of PFPD.
F4:
A grievance procedure is not readily available for use by employees. There is no grievance form. A grievance procedure exists, but is referenced only in the BOD’s Policy Manual Section 4.2 (Personnel - Grievance & Appeal).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A grievance procedure and grievance form should be developed without delay and be made available to all employees. RESPONSES Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Report provided to PFPD BOD Chairperson for response. Elected officials under statute are given 60 days to respond, and non-elected officials are provided a 90-day response period from the release date of this report.
F5:
There are no written bylaws to govern the District. There are several policy manuals which overlap, and are not directed to the proper areas of authority and responsibility. The BOD is using policies and procedures in lieu of bylaws.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The urgent need for bylaws demands the immediate attention of the District. LAFCO should be consulted for assistance. The bylaws should include a process for the removal of a Board Member from office.
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.