Glenn County Grand Jury
2001-2002
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R01-02:
Publish the narrative descriptions and other illustrative material, such as charts and graphs that describe the individual budget units in the Annual Proposed Budget for review by the board of supervisors and the public at annual budget hearings in June. The Final Budget, which would reflect any changes made by the board to the Proposed Budget, could still be prepared and adopted separately in August as it is currently done, in accordance with the Budget Act. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors: (01-02) Finance Department: (01-02) GLENN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Butte City Cemetery District I. PURPOSE: The neglected condition of the Butte City Cemetery located on County Road “Y” in southeastern Glenn County has caught the attention of concerned citizens, including Grand Jurors. II. BACKGROUND: The Butte City Cemetery (sometimes called the “Pioneer Cemetery”) is an old public cemetery that has received attention from time to time by journalists and scholars and occasional maintenance by volunteers over the years, but there has not been a burial there in 70 years. Recently, concerned citizens have complained about the apparent neglect of the cemetery. III. FINDINGS: · The cemetery consists of twenty-seven gravesites, some with significant monuments, most burials taking place before the turn of the 20th century. · The land is listed as public land with the Glenn County Assessor, but it is not registered with the Glenn County Finance Department or with the California Board of Equalization.
R01-03:
The Board of Supervisors should take the necessary steps to recognize the Butte City Cemetery District as a legitimate Glenn County entity and arrange for the Cemetery’s restoration and regular maintenance. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors: (01-03) ORLAND CITY COUNCIL Dismissal of City Manager I. PURPOSE: Citizens and Grand Jury members expressed concern about the manner in which the Orland City Council dismissed the city manager and then changed its decision at a subsequent meeting. II. BACKGROUND: The Orland City Council dismissed the city manager on March 20, 2001 following a closed session. One city council member complained that the council violated the Brown Act in its closed session deliberation. At a subsequent City Council meeting, the council re-considered its action and decided to re-employ the manager. While the council has the authority to dismiss the city manger, it is required to follow certain procedures in the conduct of its meetings where such action is taken. III. FINDINGS: · Since the action was taken in a closed session, the public is unaware of the actual discussion.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R01-05:
Establish a unit within the Recorder’s Office that will restore and preserve the County documents and artifacts.
R01-06:
Designate a centralized location for storage of all restored documents and historical artifacts.
R01-07:
Purchase necessary scanning equipment for the proper restoration of all County documents and historical artifacts.
R01-08:
Consider utilizing citizen volunteers to assist in historic record and artifact preservation. VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors: (01-05, 01-06, 01-07, 01-08) Assessor: (01-05, 01-07, 01-08) Building & Grounds: (01-06)
R01-25:
City Council and staff should adhere closely to Brown Act provisions when preparing agendas, conducting meetings and making decisions. VI. REQUIRED RESPONSES: Orland City Council: (01-25) City Attorney: (01-25) ASSESSORS’S OFFICE I. PURPOSE: The Assessor’s Office has not been reviewed recently. No specific complaint was raised. II. BACKGROUND: In June 1997, the Assessor’s Office was consolidated with the Recorder, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, Elections and Micrographics. So, not only is the Assessor the County Assessor, but he serves as head of other departments as well. III. FINDINGS: · The County Assessor’s Office does not have at the present time an in- house Auditing Appraiser. The work done by an Auditing Appraiser is currently being accomplished by an outside agency, which this Grand Jury has found to be doing a satisfactory job.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R02-10:
A safe and sufficient storage space should be found for all Glenn County historical records.
R02-11:
During the planning stages of the remodeling, it is suggested that ample storage for non-current records be included in the plans.
R02-12:
The Grand Jury urges the Board of Supervisors and the Court to expedite Phase II plans. A fire hazard exists in the basement, which contains so much flammable material. V. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors (02-10, 02-11, 02-12) Court Executive Officer (02-11, 02-12) Building Maintenance and Inspection Director (02-12)
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R02-03:
Fewer students in the upper elementary grades would eliminate classroom overcrowding.
R02-04:
Encourage more parental involvement, as volunteers, in the classrooms. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Superintendent – Orland Unified School District (02-03, 02-04) Superintendent – Willows Unified School District (02-03, 02-04) Superintendent – Plaza School District (02-03, 02-04) Superintendent – Lake School District (02-03, 02-04)
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R01-01:
The Administrative Manual should be updated to reflect the new language.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R02-18:
Improve lighting by replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs, which last much longer and reduce lighting costs significantly.
R02-19:
Confer with lighting experts in order to maintain old fixtures, but add more illumination.
R02-20:
Install better signage for emergency exits in the event of fire or other emergency.
R02-21:
Expedite Phase II upgrades to address safety and security hazards at the Courthouse. V. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors (02-21) Building Maintenance and Inspection Director (02-18, 02-19, 02-20, 02-21)
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R01-21:
Inquire into more timely and productive methods of hiring procedures to reduce open vacancies.
R01-22:
It is recommended that the department conduct annual surveys of all employees for continued improvement in communication.
R01-23:
Update Policy and Procedure Manual annually.
R01-24:
Develop plan to accommodate increased demands for Long Term Care for our elderly. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors: (01-21, 01-24) Health Services: (01-21, 01-22, 01-23, 01-24) GLENN COUNTY JAIL I. PURPOSE: In accordance with California Statutes, the Glenn County Grand Jury performed a physical inspection of the Glenn County Jail. II. BACKGROUND: Glenn County Jail was built in 1990; it is a Type II facility housing both male and female inmates. It also houses illegal immigrants for the Immigration Department. The Glenn County Sheriff’s Department is responsible for the operation and maintenance of this facility. The inspection of this facility by the Grand Jury is an annual requirement by the State of California. III. FINDINGS: · The jail is staffed with 1 Lieutenant, 1 Sergeant and 18 line Officers. With training, vacation and sickness this leaves the staffing a little short and it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors and Personnel investigate the possibility of increasing the number of Officers. · The pay scale would appear to be approximately 20% lower than in surrounding Counties. Although pay increases have been agreed to, they are over a period of three years after which these Officers will still be behind those of other Counties. This discrepancy leads to the problem of hiring and retaining well-qualified Officers. · Most of the improvements addressed by the two previous Grand Juries had not yet been completed and are scheduled for November 2001. The
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R02-08:
Members of the City Council should more closely adhere to the Orland Municipal Code Chapter 2.16, Conflict of Interest Code. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Orland City Council (02-08)
R02-09:
The Grand Jury cannot decree that the members of this body trust each other. However, it is in the best interest of the City of Orland that its Council Members individually make a concerted effort to work together for the collective good. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Orland City Council (02-09)
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R01-04:
The current requirement for employee liability insurance on their personal vehicles should be lowered to the State minimum requirement, which is $15,000 per person for bodily injury; $30,000 per incident for bodily injury; and $10,000 for property damage. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors: (01-04) Finance Department: (01-04) Golden State Risk Management Authority: (01-04) HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT I. PURPOSE: This was a routine inspection of the Glenn County Health Services Department. There were no complaints filed.
R01-16:
When an inspector notes a discrepancy and the permit holder disputes the inspector’s finding, the inspector should issue a written notice to the permit holder defining the code section in violation.
R01-17:
Inspectors that inspect the same job site at different times should insure that subsequent decisions are consistent with prior inspections.
R01-18:
Consider the development of a process that allows a contractor to receive a certificate of code compliance at job completion when the work performed meets all the requirements a permit was issued for. This would allow the contractor to seek payment from the customer, even if the customer had other issues that prevented the inspector from issuing a final clearance because of other code violations discovered on the job site unrelated to the work the permit was issued for. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors: (01-18) Building and Maintenance Inspection Director: (01-16, 01-17, 01-18) FINANCE DEPARTMENT I. PURPOSE: The Grand Jury reviewed the activities of the Finance Department. II. BACKGROUND:
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R01-09:
Complete a study of the staffing requirements of the jail. Consider a further study of the salaries to make these positions more attractive thereby improving the recruitment and retention of the staff of the Sheriff’s Department and the jail staff.
R01-10:
In the interests of safety and security it is again recommended that the planned improvements be expedited.
R01-11:
Once again, and for the same reasons, a cover for the slicer must be found. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors: (01-09, 01-10) Personnel Department: (01-09) Sheriff: (01-10, 01-11)
R01-12:
We again urge the completion of the remodeling as soon as possible, as the overcrowding is unacceptable.
R01-13:
The windows in the cells should be sealed, as the present facility will probably still be in use during the next wet season.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R01-01:
The Administrative Manual should be updated to reflect the new language. RESPONSE: Glenn County Board of Supervisors Chapter 11.02.06 the Administrative Manual was originally updated and distributed on January 8, 2001, but due to the drop of a footnote while updating another portion of that title, the data was inadvertently deleted. This was discovered and the error was corrected. The procedure has been reviewed to improve the updating sequence. RESPONSE: Department of Finance The Administrative manual should be updated to reflect the new language. The Clerk of the Board transmitted the language referenced to all users of the manual in January 2001. The Department of Finance has followed the provisions of the amendment since the adoption of the resolution. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: This is an acceptable and completed response.
R01-02:
Publish the narrative descriptions and other illustrative material, such as charts and graphs that describe the individual budget units in the Annual Proposed Budget for review by the Board of Supervisors and the public at annual budget hearings in June. The Final Budget, which would reflect any changes made by the Board to the Proposed Budget, could still be prepared and adopted separately in August as it is currently done, in accordance with the Budget Act. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors Narratives on each budget unit as noted are already included in the Annual Proposed budget. Other budget data though would be difficult to capture, with the uncertainty of funding that has dictated the initial preparation of unit budgets these last few years. Budget presentations including graphs depend on which version or percentage reduction the Board is requesting at the time. Such presentations often do not reflect what is approved in the Final Budget and could be misleading to the public. RESPONSE: Department of Finance The narrative descriptions and other illustrative material were published in the “Tabulation of Department Budget Requests for fiscal year 2001-2002”, which was published and adopted before the Proposed Budget was adopted.
R01-03:
The Board of Supervisors should take the necessary steps to recognize the Butte City Cemetery District as a legitimate Glenn County entity and arrange for the Cemetery’s restoration and regular maintenance. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors This matter will be forwarded to the Glenn County Counsel for further research to recognize the Butte City Cemetery District as a legitimate Glenn county entity, for the Board to consider and take the appropriate action. The Agricultural Department has been spraying the weeds for the last two years. In addition, the Agricultural Department is in the process of trying to secure chain-link fencing from surplus to enclose the cemetery, with the help of the Valley View Conservation Camp. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: This is an acceptable response. Follow up is recommended for future Grand Juries to ensure this segment of Glenn County’s history is well cared for and preserved.
R01-04:
The current requirement for employee liability insurance on their personal vehicles should be lowered to the State minimum requirement, which is $15,000 per person for bodily injury; $30,000 per incident for bodily injury and $10,000 for property damage. RESPONSE: Director of Finance I agree. I would be pleased to prepare the amendment to the County policy should the Board decide that was prudent. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of Department of Finance dated August 27, 2001, and this matter will be placed on a future agenda for the Board’s consideration. RESPONSE: Golden State Risk Management Authority , item IV of the 2000-01 Grand Jury Report requires a response from the Golden State Risk Management Authority. The Grand Jury recommends that the County lower their current automobile liability requirements for employees that use their personal vehicles for County business. The Grand Jury cited that the higher liability limits are a financial hardship on lower income employees. It is the recommendation of the Golden State Risk Management Authority that the policy that is in place should not be amended to lower the limits. Lowering these limits increases the County’s exposure considerably. First, and most obvious, the County’s coverage would trigger as secondary coverage at a much lower level. The minimum limits required by the State do not limit the amount a party can be held liable for as a result of a loss. The Authority has claims history that supports this fact. Second, the argument that the cost of the higher limits can be prohibitive on lower income drivers is not sound. Insurance rates in California are weighted heavily on an operator’s driving record. The difference in rates for higher limits of liability are the most cost prohibitive for impaired risk drivers. The County would be exposing itself to the liability of higher risk drivers. Third, the practice of employees using their own vehicles in the course of employment should be minimized or eliminated. The County is taking on a significant additional liability. The most troublesome issue is determining at what point the County’s liability ends. When the limits of liability are unsatisfactory, claimants are looking for some “deeper pockets”. Who is to determine if the vehicle was being used in the course of employment or not? Once the employees’ vehicle is put into service on behalf of the County, what time of day or night is it “out of service”? For that matter, what day of the week was it, or was it not being used in the course of employment? In addition, the County has little control over the condition of the vehicle and its various safety devices. The Authority paid in excess of $227,000 on a 1994 loss that involved an employee operating their personal vehicle while allegedly on duty for the employer. In that action, the vehicle had minimum limits of liability and involved serious injury. The facts of this loss reinforce and support the Authority’s position on this matter.
R02-23:
The Board of Supervisors needs to recognize that the Marvin Chapel Cemetery District is the legal owner of the Butte City Cemetery and provide sufficient funds to that District to repair and maintain it. Without sufficient funds, Marvin Chapel Cemetery District cannot provide the proper maintenance of the cemetery that our pioneer ancestors deserve. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors (02-23)
R02-24:
The County needs to develop a consolidated countywide program for mosquito control to include the Mosquito and Vector Control District and the Rice Pest Abatement District. In the event they cannot provide a countywide district, there should be in place an emergency plan to respond to an influx of one or more of these mosquito borne viruses. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors (02-24)
R02-25:
Request that the contracting veterinarian install above the concrete floor, a suitable platform which would not interfere with the cleaning process and would give the dogs a clean place on which to lie. Also obtain food and water dishes that could be clipped to the fencing. It may be necessary to include this as a requirement when the contract is renewed.
R02-26:
The City of Orland should include cat control in their contract with Animal Control. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Animal Control Officer (02-25) Orland City Council (02-26)
R02-27:
Mental Health Division staff should keep abreast of changes in statues that relate to services they provide clients.
R02-28:
The Mental Health Division should coordinate with existing social service agencies and programs designed and funded to handle this type of situation.
R02-29:
The 2002/2003 Grand Jury should review Health Services Agency’s use of funds in this type of situation. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Health Services Agency Director (02-27, 02-28)
R02-30:
The Grand Jury feels that more time spent in open session would be beneficial to the governed. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Orland City Council (02-30) Willows City Council (02-30) Board of Supervisors (02-30)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R02-22:
County resources should be pooled to more aggressively work together to develop more substantial and secured sources of funding for this necessary service to Glenn County’s senior citizen population. As our population ages and the number of seniors increase, the demands on this program will also increase.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R02-13:
Remodeling plans should include a separate entry and staircase to the courtroom to be used exclusively by the jailers and offenders appearing in court.
R02-14:
Contact consultants regarding security, alarm and surveillance systems for all areas of the courthouse during the planning stage of the remodeling phase.
R02-15:
Staff should contact and visit other courthouses and learn from other courts which systems work the best.
R02-16:
The Board of Supervisors is urged to expedite phase II plans because of lack of adequate security at the courthouse.
R02-17:
A secure holding area for in-custody individuals should be a high priority. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Building Maintenance and Inspection Director (02-13, 02-14, 02-15)
Additional Recommendations
32
Not linked to specific findings.
R00-04:
When County Counsel is required to review and make comments prior to Board of Supervisor action, Counsel should have more input than “Approved As To Form”, as required in Title 4, Section 4.02.01 of the Administrative Manual. RESPONSE: County Counsel The recommendation should be directed to the Board of Supervisors. The recommendation indicates a desire for the County Counsel to participate in policy decisions instead of reviewing documents for legal sufficiency. This would be a significant change from existing practices and the job description of the County Counsel. Unless the Board of Supervisors formally directs the County Counsel to provide policy guidance in document review, the role of the County Counsel is limited to reviewing the legal sufficiency of documents. 2000-01Grand Jury Evaluation: This response avoids the issue. This recommendation should be reviewed by future Grand Juries. RESPONSE: County Counsel It may help to explain that a County Counsel works for the Board of Supervisors and is available to County department heads for legal issues that may arise affecting the County. The statement “Approved as to Form” means just that –that the contract meets the requirements as to the description for the parties to the contract; that it contains the terms under which the contract is to be performed; that where possible, it contains an indemnification clause that protects the County from liability; that the contractor has adequate insurance; and any other contract clauses that may be required for that particular contract to make it a complete, legally binding contract. It is not the task of the County Counsel to act as judge and jury and review a County contract’s subject matter and then tell the Board of Supervisors whether the County Counsel believes it should be signed. The County Counsel is not a sixth Board of Supervisor member. The County Counsel’s role is to inform the Board of Supervisors of the law and to interpret whether the Board’s decision does or does not meet the requirements of the law. However, the County Counsel only gives this input when the Board requests it. You can see that there is a substantial difference between a policy decision, i.e., should or should not the “County” do this or that, and the task of the County Counsel to “approve as to form,” which means the contract is complete and meets legal requirements. Policy decisions are not included in the County Counsel’s job description as set forth in the California Government Code. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: This Grand Jury agrees with the County Counsel’s response. The County Counsel should not take on the role of an elected Supervisor in policy developments.
R01-05:
Establish a unit within the Recorder’s Office that will restore and preserve County documents and artifacts. RESPONSE: Assessor The Recorder presently devotes approximately $5,000 per year to restore and preserve historic documents under his authority. This process is done by a private firm that specializes in restoration techniques. Thus the Recorder does have a procedure in place, but this admittedly does not address other historical documents or artifacts. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of the Assessor, dated August 27, 2001. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: The Recorder does an enormous amount of restoring in the limited amount of money allocated to this project. However, this Grand Jury is concerned with the “other historical documents or artifacts,” that are currently being stored.
R01-06:
Designate a centralized location for storage of all restored documents and historical artifacts. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached responses of the Assessor, dated August 27, 2001 and the Building Department, dated August 9, 2001. In addition, should the County budget improve in future years, the Board should consider financing this restoration process. RESPONSE: Building Department Presently, there is no open/available space for safe storage of restored documents and historical artifacts. I feel this is a matter requiring the County Facilities Planning Committee’s review. RESPONSE: Assessor/Clerk Recorder As in the recommendation above, the Recorder does have a location for those documents he is restoring, the Recorders’ vault, but I believe the Grand Jury’s intent here is for a central location for all restored documents and historical artifacts. As a County Official in charge of a variety of departments, I find merit in the Grand Jury’s recommendation. Unfortunately, the restoration process and provision of the right kind of storage facility is expensive. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: The Grand Jury agrees that the need for a centralized location is expensive. However, continued effort must be made to find a location for these historical documents and artifacts.
R01-07:
Purchase necessary scanning equipment for the proper restoration of all County documents and historical artifacts. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of the Assessor, dated August 27, 2001. RESPONSE: Assessor/Clerk Recorder I find myself in agreement with Grand Jury on this recommendation also. We will be reviewing the possibility of starting an initial scanning process within the Micrographics Department during this next year. Allowing for budgetary and staffing constraints, we hope that this process will expand to the other offices within the County. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: The process in the Micrographics Department has been started. However, as stated before, this Grand Jury is concerned with “other historical artifacts”.
R01-08:
Consider utilizing citizen volunteers to assist in historic record and artifact preservation. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of the Assessor, dated August 27, 2001. RESPONSE: Assessor I agree, once a process and storage facility is in place. Trained citizen volunteers could certainly assist. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: It has been recommended that the abandoned wing in the Glenn County Medical Center could be used for storage of historical documents and artifacts. There is an enormous amount of documentation that is at risk of being destroyed. It is imperative that future Grand Juries look into how the County is handling this problem. Our government officials must remember their solemn obligation to and responsibility in preserving our heritage.
R01-09:
Complete a study of the staffing requirements of the jail. Consider a further study of the salaries to make these positions more attractive thereby improving the recruitment and retention of the staff of the Sheriff’s Department and the jail staff. RESPONSE: Personnel Director In Glenn County, each individual Department Head is charged with determining the appropriate staffing levels for the operations he or she oversees. Should the Department Head request the Personnel Director’s assistance in determining the proper staffing level, this office is more than willing to help. The salary and classification study done on behalf of the County determined that the Correctional Staff was approximately 20% behind market. Since that time the County has granted raises of 14% to the correction staff with an additional 5% increase to be granted in October of this year. In July of 2002, there will be a raise of up to 4% with an additional 5% to be granted in October of 2002. Over two years the County will have increased the salary by a total of 28% in an attempt to remain competitive in attracting and retaining qualified individuals. In addition, during negotiations, the County agreed to grant Sheriff’s Corrections “Safety Retirement” in July of 2003, again in an attempt to remain competitive in the market place. Glenn County through its negotiations with the Employee’s Representation Unit has negotiated a compensation package that will keep us competitive in attracting and retaining qualified employees. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of the Personnel Director, dated August 28, 2001. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: The recommendation is being implemented.
R01-10:
In the interests of safety and security it is again recommended that the planned improvements be expedited. RESPONSE: Sheriff 1. Security of the fenced area outside the kitchen needs to be addressed to discourage contraband and escape. This project has not been undertaken due to budgetary constraints. In addition, It is planned that some construction (an additional freezer, generator replacement and possible equipment movement) will be taking place in the area and therefore it was determined that implementation of the security project should taken place AFTER the construction projects were completed. 2. Complete all remodeling and improvements already funded as soon as possible to insure the safety of inmates, staff and community. The improvements pending will be completed, as funds are available. Some of these projects will be completed with State and Federal funds because of revenue shortfalls in the County budget. In order of priority, they have been addressed as follows:
R01-11:
Once again, and for the same reasons, a cover for the slicer must be found. RESPONSE: Sheriff This issue has been addressed and proper security measures are in place. This meat slicer is covered with a vinyl cover that is in place whenever this piece of equipment is not in use. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: Satisfactory
R01-12:
We again urge the completion of the remodeling as soon as possible, as the overcrowding is unacceptable. RESPONSE: Chief Probation Officer The construction plans are complete at the design development phase and are to be mailed to the Board of Corrections by August 22, 2001. We hope to go out to bid within sixty days and start construction before the end of the year. Major construction such as this is most complicated and often a long, drawn-out process, especially as this is a grant project. RESPONSE: Building Maintenance and Inspection Director The Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall addition is in the design development stage and in line with the Grant’s projected timetable. Construction documents will be transmitted to the Board of Corrections for comments and/or approvals in December 2001. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of the Chief Probation Officer, dated August 21, 2001. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: Further follow up is required.
R01-13:
The windows in the cells should be sealed, as the present facility will probably still be in use during the next wet season. RESPONSE: Chief Probation Officer Plans are underway to do a total reconstruction of all existing windows as soon as possible and prior to the winter season. Buildings and Grounds are aware of and involved in this initial project. RESPONSE: Building Maintenance and Inspection Director Building and Grounds will continue to make the necessary repairs on the windows within the cells. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: Re-inspection during the rainy season is needed.
R01-14:
Transportation needs, such as maintenance and need for a larger capacity vehicle, should be investigated. RESPONSE: Chief Probation Officer During the past six months, this department has received two new vehicles from grant resources and three new vehicles through the County’s trade-in process. It is anticipated, by the time juvenile hall construction is completed, that two nine-passenger vans will be in place to provide adequate transportation. Currently, with our new vehicles in place, juvenile hall can meet its transportation needs.
R01-15:
Government entities with Glenn County should make every effort to ensure that purchases that can be credited to a point of sale within Glenn County are in fact so credited as such. This will return a portion of sales tax revenue to local jurisdictions. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board agrees with the Grand Jury’s recommendation and will make every effort to ensure that purchases are made within Glenn County where possible. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation The Grand Jury accepts the Board of Supervisors response and hopes that they are in fact ensuring that purchases are made from Glenn County businesses.
R01-16:
When an inspector notes a discrepancy and the permit holder disputes the inspector’s finding, the inspector should issue a written notice to the permit holder defining the code section in violation. RESPONSE: Building Maintenance and Inspection Director Building Department Policy is to always write out the discrepancy on a “Notice of Inspection” form. The original, which includes our phone number, is left at the job site at the time of inspection and a copy is retained at the Building Department. Actual code section text is available upon request. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation As long as the code section is cited with a brief narrative description, this response is acceptable.
R01-17:
Inspectors that inspect the same job site, at different times, should ensure that the subsequent decisions are consistent with prior inspection. RESPONSE: Building Maintenance and Inspection Director The duty of the Building Inspector is to ensure code compliance. On a rare occasion, the human factor gets in the way. However, if a different inspector arrives on site and notices a significant code violation, it is his/her responsibility to address the problem. Avoidance of a problem could result in County liability for property damage, personal welfare, health and safety. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation The majority of citizens look for one thing in the enforcement of rules, regulations, codes and laws, that is consistency in application. If a “significant code violation” is overlooked by one inspector, but detected by another, the Grand Jury hopes that corrective action is taken to insure that it is not overlooked in the future.
R01-18:
Consider the development of a process that allows a contractor to receive a certificate of code compliance at job completion when the work performed meets all the requirements a permit was issued for. This would allow the contractor to seek payment from the customer, even if the customer had other issues that prevented the inspector from issuing a final clearance because of other code violations discovered on the job site unrelated to the work the permit was issued for. RESPONSE: Building Maintenance and Inspection Director A “Notice of Inspection” form, along with the job card (customer required to maintain on site), details approvals and/or required corrections. (See Exhibits “A” and “B” attached.) This is adequate documentation of the job status. In addition, we have drafted a letter. (See Exhibit “C” attached.) However, in the event of a code violation that may affect health and safety, a final clearance may be withheld. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of the Building Department, dated August 9, 2001.
R01-19:
Repair the damaged roads and parking areas at the airport RESPONSE: Public Works Director On April 18, 2000, Glenn County entered into a new lease agreement (Contract #497) with Nancy’s Café at the Willows Airport. Section 26 of the lease agreement specifies the restaurant parking lot will be resurfaced at the “sole expense of Lessee…” The work will be completed by “not later than December 31, 2002”. Exhibit “A” for the contract identifies the area to be paved and is attached. The parking lot should be resurfaced by the end of the year 2002. The road repairs are still hampered by the airport budget. In fiscal year 2000-01, the Willows Airport borrowed $15,000 from the Road Fund to pay for the removal of the Airport’s underground fuel storage tank. The Willows Airport did not have sufficient revenue to pay for this required removal. These funds have not been repaid because of lack of funds. In the Spring of 2001, the Pubic Works Director requested $10,000 to meet the Airport’s on- going expenses from the Board of Supervisors because of lack of revenue. The Board of Supervisors loaned the funds to the Willows Airport Enterprise Fund. The loan also has not been repaid because of lack of funds. At the end of fiscal year 2000-2001, the Willows Airport Enterprise Fund had a balance of $95.00. As you can see the lack of funds is a constant problem, which makes the funding of even minor repairs difficult. Nancy’s Café’s lease agreement addresses resurfacing of the restaurant’s parking lot. The Airport Advisory Committee concurs that the damaged roads and parking areas of the Airport need to be repaired. The Willows Airport does not generate sufficient revenue to afford the repair work. The Public Works Staff is researching the availability of various funding resources for the Airport. The repair work will be performed when the revenue is available. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of the Pubic Works Director, dated August 1, 2001. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation These responses are accepted.
R01-20:
Heavy trucks be required to park in a designated area with signs to direct them. RESPONSE: Public Works Director Most of the heavy trucks park on the west side of Nancy’s Café. No Parking Signs are in place along the south side of State Highway 162. Trucks have been noted parking adjacent to the “No Parking” signs.
R01-21:
Inquire into more timely and productive methods of hiring procedures to reduce open vacancies. RESPONSE: Director of Health Services As stated last year, the Health Services Agency continues and will continue to work with the Personnel Department who is responsible for the timing of recruitments, notices and hiring procedures. The just completed, but not fully implemented, Classification and Salary Study, has been some help and continued efforts to keep that study from becoming outdated will be made. Regular discussions with the Personnel Director regarding improved methods for timely recruitments will continue. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of Health Services Director, dated July 23, 2001. On September 4, 2001 the Board directed the Personnel Director to develop a proposed recruitment plan that would “decentralize” certain recruitment processes to selected county departments that should result in a more timely and productive method of recruiting and hiring. 2001-2002 Grand Jury Evaluation This is an acceptable response.
R01-22:
It is recommended that the Department conduct annual surveys of all employees for continued improvement in communication. RESPONSE: Director of Health Services Currently, lines of communication within the agency follow the chain of command and include: 1. Unit Supervisor’s weekly meeting with their Units. 2. Supervisors meeting regularly with other Unit Supervisors and administrative staff in a Management Team meeting for sharing of communications from the staff. The minutes from these meetings are made available to all staff. 3. Unscheduled attendance by upper management at Unit meeting and scheduled attendance as requested by Unit staff. 4. Monthly Resolution Group meetings with the Director, Deputy Directors and line staff without Unit Supervisors present. Line staff represent their individual units and have their questions and concerns addressed by upper management during these meetings. 5. The role set model, which allows all staff access to upper management as requested by staff. 6. Entire unit trainings with outside consultants around team building on an as required basis. For instance, a three-day team building with a two-day follow up occurred in the past 18 months and a similar event is scheduled for Drug and Alcohol staff and upper management.
R01-23:
Update Policy and Procedures Manual annually. RESPONSE: Director of Health Services The Policy and Procedures Manual is updated annually, reviewed regularly and will continue to be reviewed regularly. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation This is an acceptable and clear response.
R01-24:
Develop plan to accommodate increased demand for long term plan care for our elderly. RESPONSE: Director Health Services Long term care for our elderly and other citizens continues to be a community issue as identified in the Grand Jury Report and we are very much interested in having such facilities available. We will continue to work with existing providers in attempts to bring such facilities into our community and keep abreast of grants and other opportunities for development of long-term care and other facilities in the Glenn County community. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of Health Services Director, dated July 23, 2001. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation This response is sensitive to the needs of our elderly. It is recommended that future Grand Juries follow up in this matter, as the number of elderly in need of these services is increasing.
R01-25:
City Council and staff should adhere closely to Brown Act provisions when preparing agendas, conducting meetings and making decisions. RESPONSE: City Attorney In the recently-completed Grand Jury Report for 2000-2001, the Grand Jury commented on the dismissal of the Orland City Manager and directed that a response be provided by the City Attorney and Orland City Council to the recommendation contained in the report. The following is respectfully submitted in response to the Grand Jury’s request: On March 20, 2001, the Orland City Council, acting in closed session, voted 4-1 to terminate the City Manager’s contract effective immediately. Although I was serving as City Attorney at the time, I was not in attendance at that meeting, nor was I informed in advance by any Council member of any intention by the Council to take such action. In response to the above-noted Council action, I immediately requested a special session to be held to discuss what, if any, potential litigation may arise as a result of the Council’s conduct. During the course of that meeting, the City Manager requested that he be allowed to participate, and in the course of considerable negotiations during that closed session an agreement was reached whereby the City Manager would be reinstated to his position until August 3, 2001, at which time he would conclude his employment with the City of Orland. The terms of this negotiated settlement were memorialized in a settlement agreement, which was presented at the special meeting of the City Council on March 27, 2001, in open session. Since the above events occurred, I have conducted one formal training session concerning leadership/management, which included an overview of the Council members’ responsibilities with regard to the Brown Act. In addition to the above formal training, I have maintained an ongoing dialogue with the Council members, making myself available to them to respond to specific questions pertaining to agenda items, attendance at meetings, conduct of meetings, appropriate matters to be considered in open and closed session and confidentiality of closed session information. I have provided the Council members with written material obtained from the League of California Cities, in an attempt to further familiarize them with the requirements of the open meetings law. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation The City Attorney has taken the necessary steps to insure the City Council is well aware of what they can and cannot do in regard to the Brown Act. RESPONSE: City Council The City Council has been asked to respond to the recommendation contained in the 2000- 2001 Grand Jury Final Report, recommendation 01-25, which states “City Council and staff should adhere closely to Brown Act provisions when preparing agendas, conducting meetings and making decisions.” This matter was agendized and discussed in open session at the regular meeting of the Orland City Council on Tuesday, September 4, 2001, and direction was given for the City Attorney to compile comments and responses from various Council members, for presentation in this final letter to be approved by the Council at our regularly-scheduled meeting on September 17, 2001. The draft presented for consideration at that meeting was considered by members of the Council to be an inadequate response to the Grand Jury's recommendation and the mater was put over to the October 1, 2001 meeting, at which time a revised response was presented.
R01-26:
Orland City Council conduct a research into the wage scale for all officers and endeavor to bring them up to par with other communities. RESPONSE: Orland Chief of Police The three-year contract between the police officers and the City of Orland expired on June 30, 2001. The union representative for the police department has done a wage comparison as well as an actuarial study for retirement benefits that will be presented during negotiations that are about to begin. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation Satisfactory
R01-27:
City or County should investigate the possibility of securing a piece of land to be used by all County Law Enforcement Agencies. It is understood that a parcel of land near Black Butte was under consideration. RESPONSE: Sheriff The Sheriff’s Office is working in conjunction with the Glenn County Office of Education on a countywide firing range. The range would be located on land owned by the Office of Education. At this time the project is in the hands of the Federal Office of Education. As soon as the finalized agreement is received from Washington, D.C. work can progress on this much-needed item. RESPONSE: Orland Police Chief Law enforcement agencies in Glenn County are working together with the Glenn County Office of Education to create a countywide range. Once a finalized agreement is received, work can progress. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of the Glenn County Sheriff, dated August 22, 2001. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation Further follow up is required on this matter.
R01-28:
Willows Police Department should embark on an extensive program to improve its image and Community Relations. Every effort should be made to demonstrate the valuable services performed by this Department and that the Department is always aware of the concerns of the citizens. RESPONSE: Willows Police Chief and the Mayor The Willows Police Department has had a 90 percent change in personnel over the last three years. Of the eight new members, including the Chief, only three are from Glenn County and one from Chico. The new officers from outside Glenn County are not known to most of the residents and may often be viewed with skepticism because they have different methods or style of handling issues. The new officers, like any new member of our community must go through the process of acquainting themselves to the community. This takes time, and the new officers, as with anyone else, must establish a circle of friends and expand outward into the community. The Department encourages officers to get out of their vehicles and interact with members of the community on other than official business. New officers in a new community can create a different image. Since the officers do not “know” everyone, the initial contacts may be misconstrued as cold or uncaring although proper and professional. The officers are encouraged to be sensitive to the individual needs, but are often met with “…when officer ______ was here he would not have done it this way.” Enforcing the law is usually an unpleasant task. When that is done by an unfamiliar face and fueled by an inaccurate media, it is easy to create the impression of an unfriendly Department. Once that has occurred, only time and perseverance by the officers will be effective in changing the mind of the community. The new officers, including those from Glenn County, are also very proactive. That, coupled with new laws that mandate arrests in some instances, may add to the perception that the Department is not community oriented. However, in reality nothing could be further from the truth. The philosophy of the men and women of the Willows Police Department can best be summarized by our Mission Statement that is the result of their collaborative efforts. “The mission of the Willows Police Department is to enhance our relationship with our community by demonstrating honesty, integrity, and professionalism in every act, thus ensuring the safety, serenity and quality of life of every individual.” The City and the Willows Police Department will continue to make every effort to establish a relationship within the community, which reflects mutual respect and confidence in our officers. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation Satisfactory
R01-29:
In Officer training, reinforce the need for proper restraint on the part of an arresting Officer, safety of both parties still being the main concern. RESPONSE: Willows Police Chief and the Mayor Every officer is trained and retrained in proper control and arrest techniques to ensure the safety of the officer, the public, and the person being arrested. The California Penal Code is clear about an individual’s responsibility when being arrested:
R01-30:
Willows Police Department, as a manpower consideration, should explore the need for Reserve Officers or a VIPS program as used in neighboring communities, giving a greater visibility to the Police Department at schools and community functions. RESPONSE: Willows Police Chief and the Mayor The Grand Jury addressed part of the response to this issue in the Background section of this report on . Their inquiry when they were compiling their information was why we did not have VIPS or Reserve Officer programs. They did not address other programs that were in place. The Willows Police Department has both a Community Service Officer (CSO) and Cadet Program. The CSO and the School Resource Officer (SRO) attended most school functions during the last year in addition to teaching the DARE curriculum to all five sixth grade classes at Willows Intermediate School (WIS).
R01-31:
The need for more space is still of great concern. If a move to a larger facility is impossible then temporary, secure storage space should be sought. RESPONSE: Willows Police Chief and the Mayor This has been an issue that is based on the availability of funding and has been discussed at every level of City government for many years. Efforts are currently underway to acquire funding to build a new City Library. If that effort is successful the tentative plan is for the Police Department to relocate into the space currently occupied by the Library. The Police Department has had a couple of secure off-sight storage facilities for many years. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: Satisfactory
R01-32:
Upgrading of the computer/internet communications should be given a high priority thus making all sources of information available to the Officers of the Department. RESPONSE: Willows Police Chief and the Mayor Last fiscal year the Police Department received $100,000 from the State of California to upgrade the technology within the Department. The process of upgrading both the computer hardware and software has been ongoing since the Spring of 2000. It is expected that the entire process of upgrading the computer systems in the Department will be completed by the beginning of October 2001. The Department has had Internet capability since early March of 2001. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: Follow-up is recommended for implementation.
R01-33:
Willows Police Department, together with other Law Enforcement Agencies in Glenn County, has to share firing range facilities in other Counties. Glenn County should give consideration to this much-needed training facility for use by all law enforcement in this County. We understand that consideration had been given to a parcel of land near Black Butte. RESPONSE; Willows Police Chief and the Mayor The Willows Police Department along with the other law enforcement agencies in the County have and continue to work collaboratively on this issue. Aside from the cost, there are also safety and environmental concerns that must be met before action of any kind can be taken. Acquiring land and then developing the site are expensive propositions with little or no return. A gun range in Glenn County would be a luxury when there are many basic needs that should be met first. RESPONSE: Glenn County Sheriff The Sheriff’s Office is working in conjunction with the Glenn County Office of Education on a countywide firing range. The range would be located on land owned by the Office of Education. At this time the project is in the hands of the Federal Office of Education. As soon as the finalized agreement is received from Washington, D.C. work can progress on this much-needed item. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: Satisfactory
R01-34:
The Department Heads should formulate a policy manual of standard practices employed in the Department for the instruction of new officers following in line. RESPONSE: Orland Fire Department The Orland Fire Department Policy Manual of Standard Practice for new officers does not exist as a policy manual, but does exist in our by-laws. The chief officers are elected annually by the membership and the captains are appointed by the chiefs. The membership is divided equally between four captains who are responsible for their training. This training is for the purpose of creating engine drivers who are responsible, confident and clear thinking individuals, who at any time could be the chief by virtue of the fact that that fireman was the driver of the first truck to respond and would remain the command officer until relived by a senior firefighter or elected officer. We believe in experience and quality training to create the next officers who would ensure that this method will prevail. In situations that firefighters sometimes face, no written policy could even begin to cover. We know that when we elect officers to lead our organization, that person has the knowledge of what is expected and has the confidence and experience to safely lead during a major incident and even more important, to know when not to be the chief and when to ask for assistance from others with more experience. 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: Satisfactory
R01-35:
In the interest of safety, it is recommended that the upgrade of all communications equipment be completed as soon as possible. RESPONSE: Willows Fire Department The following improvements have been or are in the process of being made: 1. A new telephone system has been approved by the City Council and will be installed by the end of August 2001. 2. We have a Nextel phone at the fire station, which affords us the ability to contact City and County agencies directly. 3. The City is upgrading the computer system, which will create networking for interdepartmental communications such as E-mail. We are also scheduled to be on line with the Internet. The latter improvements are in process 2001-02 Grand Jury Evaluation: The new telephone system has been installed. This response is satisfactory.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R01-14:
Transportation needs, such as maintenance and need for a larger capacity vehicle, should be investigated. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors: (01-12, 01-14) Chief Probation Officer: (01-12, 01-14) Building and Grounds Department: (01-12, 01-13) ORLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT I. PURPOSE: Conducted a routine visit to Orland City Police Department. No complaints received. II. BACKGROUND: Orland Police Department serves the City of Orland with a population of just less than 6000. Manpower consists of the Chief, two Sergeants, nine Officers and five reserves. The Department operates five vehicles leased and maintained by the County. The Department also operates a volunteer force known as VIPS consisting of twenty-two volunteers and two donated cars. The Department is fully computerized and laptops are being installed in all cars, digital cameras are used for crime scenes and suspects. III. FINDINGS: · Benefits for the Officers appears to be very good, however it was noted that the pay scale for the Chief and Officers were lower than surrounding areas. · The City or County does not have firing range facilities; Orland PD must perform the firearms training at a neighboring County facility. IV. CONCLUSIONS: Orland PD appears to be in good shape. The Chief has done much to bring this department into the computer age. Officers have access to computers to check cases and this is being expanded to include laptop communication in all vehicles. There appears to be a good working environment and good relationship with the community, especially with regards to the schools and any associated problems. All manuals have been brought up to date. A good Volunteer Program (VIPS) is in place and is a working unit.
R01-26:
The Orland City Council conduct research into the wage scale for all Officers and endeavor to bring them to par with other Communities.
R01-27:
City or County should investigate the possibility of securing a piece of land to be used by all County Law Enforcement Agencies. It is understood that a parcel of land near Black Butte was under consideration. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Orland City Council: (01-26, 01-27) Board of Supervisors: (01-27) Sheriff: (01-27) WILLOWS POLICE DEPARTMENT I. PURPOSE: Conducted a routine visit to Willows City Police Department. Some citizens questioned arrest procedures and allegations of use of excessive force by arresting Officers. II. BACKGROUND: The Willows Police Department is responsible for security in the City of Willows, with a population of approximately 6300. The Department manpower is made up of the Chief, two Sergeants, an investigating Officer and six Officers. There is no Reserve Officer program, mainly due to a lack of volunteers willing to undergo the lengthy training period. Four vehicles are leased and maintained through the County. III. FINDINGS: · There appears to be some concern on the part of the citizens of Willows that the arresting practices of the Willows PD might be excessive. The Chief believes that his Officers behave correctly and the concerns may have been exaggerated by the local Media, also a lack of understanding of arrest procedures by the populace. · There is a serious problem of space, especially storage for records, evidence, etc. There is a possibility of added space, but it depends greatly
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R01-34:
The Department heads should formulate a Policy Manual of standard practices employed in the Department for the instruction of new Officers following in line. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Orland VFD: (01-34) WILLOWS FIRE DEPARTMENT I. PURPOSE: This was a routine inspection of the Willows Fire Department. There were no complaints filed. II. BACKGROUND: The Willows Fire Department serves the City of Willows, the Willows Rural Area, County and when required the California Department of Forestry. One Fire Chief, thirty to forty volunteers and five permanent firefighters provide the manpower. There is one Training Officer for fire fighting techniques. The Department operates three vehicles, 1972 grassfire truck, 1978 ladder truck and 2001 International with all the latest equipment. There is also the use of a CDF truck if needed for City, County or forest fires when called upon. Maintenance is provided by the City/County yard, the firefighters perform routine cleaning and oil changes. Bids are put out for spare parts, etc. Manuals are updated regularly. The Willows City, Rural Fire Department and fundraisers by the fire fighters provide funding for this facility. III. FINDINGS: · Communication facilities, intercom, phones, wireless, etc. were in the process of being updated. IV. CONCLUSIONS: It was the opinion of the Grand Jury that this Department was operated in a highly efficient and professional manner. There were no apparent problems and the
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R01-15:
Government entities with Glenn County should make every effort to ensure that purchases that can be credited to a point of sale within Glenn County are in fact so credited as such. This will return a portion of sales tax revenue to local jurisdictions. V. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors: (01-15) UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION I. PURPOSE: The Grand Jury performed a routine review of U. C. Cooperative Extension Office of Glenn County. II. BACKGROUND: The U. C. Extension Office had not been evaluated by a Grand Jury in several years. III. FINDINGS: · The Cooperative Extension Services is a cooperative services supported by the University of California and the County of Glenn. · The Cooperative Extension provides important agricultural information to local farmers and other residents.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
47
Not linked to specific findings.
R00-01:
The Board of Supervisors should review creating and filling a County Administrative Officer position. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board will review and consider the position of a County Administrative Officer position. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This recommendation has not been implemented.
R00-02:
The Board of Supervisors should review its sole source purchasing policy and eliminate, as much as practical, non-competitive purchasing. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board believes the purchasing policy is clear and has been reviewed over the past two years; however, will continue to review for any changes that may need to be made. In addition, this has been thoroughly reviewed by the Revenue, Expenditure and Fiscal Committee and changes that have been made have been made, have come as their recommendation. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This recommendation has been implemented.
R00-03:
Review staff reports and research should be of higher quality. RESPONSE: Department of Public Works There are several incorrect statements of fact in the report concerning this item. Competitive bidding was in fact pursued through the California Multiple Award System (CMAS) which is based on statewide bids available to any public agency. The price received for the items of equipment was that price available to all agencies through CMAS. The bidder whose equipment was selected was the only manufacturer willing
R00-04:
When County Counsel is required to review and make comments prior to Board of Supervisor action, Counsel should have more input than “Approved As To Form”, as required in Title 4, Section 4.02.01 of the Administrative Manual. RESPONSE: County Counsel The recommendation should be directed to the Board of Supervisors. The recommendation indicates a desire for the County Counsel to participate in policy decisions instead of reviewing documents for legal sufficiency. This would be a significant change from existing practices and the job description of the County Counsel. Unless the Board of Supervisors formally directs the County counsel to provide policy guidance in document review, the role of the County Counsel is limited to reviewing the legal sufficiency of documents. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This response avoids the issue. This recommendation should be reviewed by future Grand Juries. ORLAND FREE LIBRARY
R00-05:
Explore funding opportunities to expand the Library building. RESPONSE: Orland City Council The City has long been desirous of expanding the facility presently housing the Orland Free Library. For many years, it has been documented that usage of the building and services is 50% Orland residents and 50% Glenn County residents. Funding for operation and maintenance of the Library has not been equally shared by Glenn County, which has contributed about 40% in the recent past. There is no indication that Glenn County will share in cost of expansion. Nevertheless, 4 years ago the City applied for and received grant to study the possibility of
R00-06:
Actively pursue funding and hiring for a Children’s Library. RESPONSE: Orland City Council Based on budgetary realities, prior City Councils have eliminated a part- time position and full-time Children’s Librarian position from the Library staff. The city’s budget position has not changed significantly in the interim and demands for additional police support have received priority over other department requests for expenditure. During consideration of the 2000-2001 preliminary budget, it was agreed by City Council members present to try to find funding for this position. At this time, the City Librarian is preparing report on additional services that would be provided and cost benefit analysis. The City Council has agreed to consider refunding this position if financially feasible and a higher priority than requests yet to be funded for other departments. RESPONSE: Orland City Librarian: See City Council response. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This response is acceptable.
R00-07:
Increase part time employee hours and ensure that salaries are comparable. RESPONSE: Willows City Council Pursuant to guidelines established by the Pubic Employees Retirement System (PERS), part-time employees are limited to nineteen (19) hours per week. If the City exceeds the hours established by PERS, the City is subject to the imposition of retirement and other benefits that would exceed the City’s ability to fiscally support the position. Since his arrival, the City’s Librarian has attempted to set the average part-time employee’s hours at nineteen (19) hours per week. With respect to salaries, the City of Willows is aware that comparable salaries play a role in attracting and retaining qualified personnel in all City departments. The City will continually explore new opportunities for increased revenue in order to ensure comparable salaries for all city personnel. RESPONSE: Willows City Librarian See City Council response. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This response is acceptable.
R00-08:
Enact a policy for time limits for computer use. RESPONSE: Willows City Council A policy establishing time limits, as well as other criteria for the use of library computers, was enacted by the Library Board of Directors at their meeting of February 10, 2000. This policy appears in the Library Procedure Manual as Procedure 5, along with the Internet User Agreement Form. RESPONSE: Willows City Librarian See City Council response. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This recommendation has been implemented.
R00-09:
Explore avenues such as grants or corporate donations to increase the number of computers and/or ports available for use. RESPONSE: Willows City Council The computers currently utilized within the Library are primarily the result of successful grant proposals. The use of grant funding for future expansion and upgrade of the Library’s computer system is under on- going review. Three (3) computers were recently (June 2000) added to the Library, as a result of using equipment left over from an upgrade grant from “The Library Corporation.” A difficulty that currently exists is finding space for the computers and their stations that are close enough to the circulation desk to allow appropriate monitoring. Currently the Willows Library has within its computer inventory a total of fifteen (15) computers, two (2) circulation computers, seven (7) computers for internet use, and six (6) computers for cataloging, etc. RESPONSE: Willows City Librarian See City Council response. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This recommendation has been implemented. FINANCE DEPARTMENT
R00-10:
Continue with employee training as well as Purchasing Officer training on the proper use of the Cal-Card. RESPONSE: Finance Department The Department of Finance is currently developing a new document that will outline the responsibilities, liabilities, and limits of each Cal-Card user. The document will require signature attestation by each user that they understand the authorized use of the Cal-Card. Additionally, each department’s authorized Cal-Card liaison, who will be responsible for obtaining the signature attestation, will be trained in the proper use of the cards. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This response is accepted and the procedures for the Cal-Card use has been implemented.
R00-11:
Designate a centralized County Purchasing Agent to handle more complicated purchases or those that affect many Departments. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors This position has been reviewed by the Board of Supervisors in the past. The Department of Finance response to this recommendation outlines the current research done on implementing this position. Refer to attached to response from Department of Finance dated August 4, 2000. RESPONSE: Finance Department If the Grand Jury is proposing an Independent Purchasing Agent with their own Centralized Department, I disagree with this recommendation. The costs of a Centralized Purchasing Department in a county this small would offset the benefits. Glenn County is already implementing a number of procedures that would be used by a Centralized Purchasing department, such as countywide contracts with certain vendors, to obtain more favorable pricing, cooperative purchasing of items used by numerous departments, and mandated competitive bid processes. Any additional savings obtained using an Independent Purchasing Agent would be minimal. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This recommendation has not been implemented.
R00-12:
With Cal-Cards numbering more than 100, we recommend that a department designate a person to hold on to cards and check them out to traveling employees as needed. This would allow for safekeeping. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the response of Department of Finance (below). RESPONSE: Finance Department I agree with this recommendation and note that a number of departments are already using this procedure to control access to the Cal-Card. I will notify each department of this recommendation procedure by August 31, 2000. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation:
R00-13:
Review the hiring process so that positions can be filled more expediently and the workloads could be more equitably distributed. RESPONSE: Director of Health Services The hiring process at the Health Services Agency has been reviewed and is expediently followed. When the filling of a new position is required, the paperwork is completed within the first 24 to 48 hours and forwarded to the Personnel Department to begin the recruitment process. There are four individuals in the Agency with signature authority to ensure that the request for recruitment does not get delayed at the Agency level. This recommendation is intended to allow workloads to be equitably distributed. I find this somewhat confusing since in the report by the Grand Jury it states, “There are approximately 70 employees in the Health Services Department which has an allocation of 75 employees.” This is a very low vacancy rate at any given time for an agency the size of the Health Services Agency. However, without specifics by the Grand Jury, I suspect that the focus of the recommendation is on the professional level classifications since this is the area of greatest turnover. Given this assumption, I want to report that applications for staff vacancies at the professional level are few in number and success in recruitment is less than ideal for reasons that are similar to every county in the State of California. There is a severe human resource shortage in the professional health services arena statewide and for every professional graduate there are 6 to 10 jobs. Competition amongst the counties for this scare resource has resulted in the problems I believe the Grand Jury is referring to with this recommendation. We hope that the new classification and salary study, soon to be completed, will help address some of these recruitment problems. RESPONSE: Personnel Director This Department provides recruitment and testing services to all County Departments. Unlike the private sector which can hire anyone they choose with little or no process involved; County’s and other public entities are bound by “Merit System Principles”, statutes, regulations, and case law which make the recruitment process a time consuming and lengthy process. In the past year, this office has added an additional extra-help
R00-14:
Department supervisors continue to meet with staff at all levels to encourage communications. RESPONSE: Director of Health Services The supervisors do meet with their staff at all levels on a regular basis. See attachment of the master meeting schedule of all units and their regularly scheduled meeting times and dates. This schedule is distributed to all units in the Agency so that supervisors are able to attend other unit meetings when necessary and appropriate. In addition to these scheduled meetings, there are other meetings that line staff have with department management. Every four to six weeks, line staff meet with top management without the supervisors in attendance. The meetings are held at a local restaurant with management providing coffee or other beverages for the meeting. Each unit in the Agency has at least one representative from line staff to meet with the Director and the Deputy Directors in order to ensure ongoing clear communications, answer questions that do not easily flow through the formal chain of command, hopefully quell rumors and develop intra- agency social events and training events. The combination of the regularly scheduled meetings with the supervisors and the regular line staff meetings with top administration will continue as a proven effective way of encouraging communication. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: Regularly scheduled meetings with supervisors and regular line staff meetings with top administration are being implemented. Continued meetings will ensure ongoing communication in the Agency.
R00-15:
Provide equitable salaries. RESPONSE: Director of Health Services Equitable salaries are intended to be addressed through the current salary study initiated by the Board of Supervisors. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of Health Services Director dated July 17, 2000. The implementation process is on going. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This item appears to be a continuous and on-going problem for all small counties. All salaries are reviewed and compared to larger counties and raised accordingly, only to have the larger counties raise their salaries again. The resulting seesaw appears to keep Glenn County salaries lower than most. Also, many employees have bargaining units to address salary issues. The Grand Jury concurs that providing equitable salaries is on going.
R00-16:
Update Policies and Procedures Manual. It would be a resource for employees who have questions, but may not be able to obtain an immediate answer from a supervisor. RESPONSE: Director of Health Services The Policies and procedures Manual is in the process of being updated from its last update of 1995/1996. By September of this year, all sections will have been updated and we will continue to maintain the effort to update the manual on an annual basis. The Manual continues to be available at all units for reference by all employees. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: The Manual has been updated and a program put into place to keep it current, as well as available to all employees. Recommend yearly updates. ANIMAL CONTROL
R00-17:
Orders to Comply and Notices to Appear should adhere to California Penal Codes. RESPONSE: Animal Control Office
R00-18:
The Cites of Orland and Willows should have a Public Hearing so that the residents can express their concerns about the problem of stray cats in their respective City Councils. RESPONSE: Animal Control Office The Animal Control Officer agrees. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This recommendation was intended for action by Orland and Willows City Councils and was referred to them. There was no response from Orland. Willows recognized the problem as a reoccurring one, but suggested that it could be placed on the agenda at the request of a member of the community. This recommendation was made as a result of complaints to the Grand Jury and has not been complied with. Suggest we repeat this recommendation to both City Councils.
R00-19:
Develop a Policies and Procedures Manual. RESPONSE: Animal Control Office I will be reviewing policies and procedures manuals from other agencies to see if there would be any benefits or advantages. State and local statues dictate most of the Animal Control functions, which may be just duplication in a manual. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This requires follow-up to ensure compliance. GLENN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
R00-20:
As the transition occurs for separating the Family Support Division from the District Attorney’s Office, re-evaluate the needed number of investigators in each of the Divisions.
R00-21:
Develop a Policy and Procedures Manual for the operation of the District Attorney’s Office. RESPONSE: District Attorney’s Office A Policy and Procedures Manual in the Criminal Division is not warranted because of the small size of our office. The Child Support Division does have a Policy and Procedures Manual. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: The requirement for a Policy and Procedures Manual is not determined by the size of the department, but more by the importance of its function. It will be used as a guide, not only by those now in the department, but by those joining at a later date. Suggest this recommendation be reissued.
R00-22:
Complete the repairs in the facility housing the District Attorney’s Office. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors In preparation for the transition of the Family Support Division, the first phase is to move Family Support out of the present facility and then evaluate the needs of the District Attorney Staff at that time. RESPONSE: District Attorney’s Office The Board of Supervisors should insure the necessary repairs are made to the District Attorney’s Office.
R00-23:
Establish a secure storage location for the evidence displays. RESPONSE: District Attorney’s Office The Board of Supervisors should insure there is a secure storage area for evidence displays. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: We agree with the District Attorney. This recommendation should have been referred to the Board of Supervisors. It is our suggestion that this be done as soon as possible.
R00-24:
The District Attorney facility should meet applicable ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) standards and/or California Accessibility standards and codes. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors ADA and/or California Accessibility standards and codes will be addressed at the same time as Grand Jury Recommendation 00-22 above. RESPONSE: District Attorney’s Office The Board of Supervisors should insure the District Attorney building is accessible by all persons.
R00-25:
Security of the fenced area outside the kitchen needs to be addressed to discourage contraband and escape. RESPONSE: Glenn County Jail We have met with County Architect to address this issue. Our suggested plan is to move the fence further south toward the sidewalk thus providing an additional secured area for the walk-in freezer and a larger generator. Once the plan is finalized, we will include the additional security measures in the budget. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: The Grand Jury agree with the plan as explained and urge an early implementation.
R00-26:
Complete all remodeling and improvements already funded as soon as possible to ensure the safety of the inmates, staff and community. RESPONSE: Glenn County Jail All remodeling in the interior of the facility has been completed. The improvements should be completed near November 2001. In order of priority, they will probably be addressed as follows: 1. Install additional closed circuit security cameras in and around the facility. 2. Install additional walk-in freezer 3. Replace current generator with a larger capacity unit 4. Widen the sally port entrance
R00-27:
Keep meat slicer closed when not in use. RESPONSE: Glenn County Jail This issue has been addressed and proper security measures are in place. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: During a committee’s visit to the jail facility kitchen the slicer was observed covered only with dishtowels. The Grand Jury urges the immediate implementation of the 1999-2000 Grand Jury recommendation. If the manufacturer cannot provide a secure cover then every effort should be made to manufacture one locally. This provides a threat to the security of inmates and staff.
R00-28:
Streamline the hiring process. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of the Personnel Director, dated August 29, 2000. RESPONSE: Personnel Department This Department provides recruitment and testing services to all County Departments. Unlike the private sector which can hire anyone they choose with little or no process involved; County’s and other public entities are bound by “Merit System Principles”, statutes, regulations, and case law which make the recruitment process a time consuming and lengthy process. In the past year, this office has added an additional extra-help clerical position to improve turn around time. However, it should be noted that the individual department’s internal process, background investigations and mental fitness evaluations might also delay the process.
R00-29:
Complete Policy and Procedures Manual by December 2000. RESPONSE: Glenn County Jail Our revisions of the Manual have been delayed by the computer project. However, that project will be nearly complete in early August. The procedures portion has been completed and submitted to the Board of Corrections for approval. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: The Grand Jury understands the reason for the delay, but urges the early completion and implementation of this Manual. GLENN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
R00-30:
Complete Policy Manual by December 2000. RESPONSE: Sheriff’s Department As stated in the Jail responses, our revisions were delayed by the computer project. We have always had a Policy Manual in place and the revisions will be accomplished by December 2000.
R00-31:
Board of Supervisors supports the Sheriff’s efforts to provide an enhanced developmental training program to assist qualified staff with educational expenses. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of the Sheriff, dated August 21, 2000. RESPONSE: Sheriff’s Department The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Department enjoy a tremendous relationship based on mutual respect and cooperativeness. The Board has implemented, via negotiations with the respective employee associations, an educational incentive program. Employees now can begin or continue higher education with the County providing up to $150 per semester for tuition and/or books. The Board has also provided an additional $25,000 to fund our continuing professional training budget. We anticipate a total budget of $125,000 to train our staff. Most of these expenses will be reimbursed by the California Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: The Sheriff appears to have more than adequately answered this Recommendation. The cooperation between the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Department should be commended.
R00-32:
Glenn County complete a salary comparison with surrounding Counties. Bring County salaries in line with other Counties in order to retain employees. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors Salary survey has been completed and the County is in negotiations regarding implementation. RESPONSE: Sheriff’s Department The Board of Supervisors has completed a countrywide classification study and the next step is the salary comparison. The Board is aware of
R00-33:
Complete the above-mentioned remodeling as soon as possible. RESPONSE: Chief Probation Officer Currently, the contracted architect is developing and designing the schematics for the remodel project. It is anticipated that this project will be completed by August 2001, one year ahead of the Board of Corrections approved timetable. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: The Grand Jury is more than satisfied with this response and trusts the timetable holds up to expectation. During our visit to this facility it was pointed out that the windows in the cells leak very badly, we refer this to Public Works or Building and Grounds Department for immediate attention during this season of inclement weather. ORLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
R00-34:
Expedite updating the Policies and Procedures Manual. RESPONSE: Orland Chief of Police See City Council response. RESPONSE: Orland City Council
R00-35:
Hold regular meetings to review procedures and policies with the staff. RESPONSE: Orland Chief of Police Since the present Chief of Police has assumed his duties, monthly staff meetings have been held, which include review of procedures and policies. In addition, the Chief and Sergeants meet weekly to address issues related to procedures and policies. Recently a second monthly meeting has been held with Field Training Officers to review procedures and policies that affect officers in field training. When the Policies and Procedures Manual has been updated, concentrated training will be provided to insure that all staff are able to access needed information in timely manner. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This recommendation has been implemented.
R00-36:
Authorize additional funding for reserve officers. RESPONSE: Orland Chief of Police See City Council response. RESPONSE: Orland City Council Reserve Officers are non-compensated personnel. Each new Reserve is provided a one-time allotment to facilitate the purchase of uniforms and other mandatory equipment. The City Council has authorized an allotment of five Reserves since 1995. It has proven very difficult to
R00-37:
Acquire title to the property at the landfill site. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of County Counsel, dated August 23, 2000. RESPONSE: County Counsel Partially agree. In order for the County to acquire title to the landfill site, either the property owner must sell the site to the County or the County must pursue eminent domain proceedings. Negotiations regarding purchase are being pursued by the affected department. Should purchase not be possible and upon direction by the Board of Supervisors, the County Counsel or counsel retained by the County will pursue acquisition as required by California law. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This is an acceptable response.
R00-38:
Install permanent electrical power and telephone service at the landfill site. RESPONSE: Department of Public Works We have contracted to install the facilities to bring permanent power and telecommunications facilities to the disposal site and are currently in discussions with the affected utility companies to supply service. If all proceeds as planned, such service should be available by late summer 2001. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation:
R00-39:
Explore ways and means for construction of an indoor tipping area. RESPONSE: Department of Public Works In July 2000, the County applied for an interest free loan from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) for funds for the construction of an indoor tipping area. This application was endorsed by the Board of Supervisors and Environmental Health, our Local Enforcement Agency. We have estimated that annual savings in constructing all weather access roads, removing and transporting dirt for daily cover and patrolling litter at the disposal site would generate more than sufficient funding to repay the loan funds. We anticipate a response to our application before the end of the year. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This response is acceptable.
R00-40:
Continue the education program in the schools and public awareness programs on recycling and services that are available at the landfill site. RESPONSE: Department of Public Works All education, public awareness and recycling programs are dependent on the availability of funding and they will be continued so long as funds are available to do so, whether through the County’s budget or through grants made available by State and Federal agencies. Glenn County has been a major recipient of such grants in past years due to an aggressive grants management program instated by the Department of Public Works; it is anticipated that this policy will continue. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This recommendation is being implemented.
R00-41:
The fuel storage tanks project should be elevated as a priority item for the Public Works Department so that a savings on gasoline purchases can begin to be realized. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of the Public Works Director, dated August 28, 2000.
R00-42:
Look into alternative fuel credit card options (like the Cal-Card for purchasing) where one card can be used for a number of participating stations. This would eliminate the need for controlling a large amount of individual credit cards. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of the Public Works Director, dated August 28, 2000. RESPONSE: Finance Department The Department of Finance recently met with the Public Works Department regarding the use of commercial card-lock vendors, such as Pacific Pride and CFN. The Department of Finance will review these options for January 1, 2001. RESPONSE: Department of Public Works In September 2000, we will present to the Board of Supervisors a proposal for the consolidation of all gasoline credit cards into one or two card lock systems that are available throughout the state, at a price considerably lower than that available through commercial dealers. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This response is acceptable. The Public Works Department has implemented the use of the CFN and Pacific Pride cards. They are in the process of gathering all fuel cards that are currently in use and discontinuing all cards (i.e., Chevron, Shell) except universal cards.
R00-43:
Grand Jury item 99-63 be assigned to the Public Works Department and Service Center with assistance from the Finance Department. Examine the use of private vehicles for county business to determine if there would be a cost savings if more employees used county vehicles. The issue of insurance coverage in relation to the use of POV should be a consideration in this analysis. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of the Pubic Works Director, dated August 28, 2000. RESPONSE: Finance Department A new Glenn County fleet management policy was established July 1, 2000. Part of the enabling resolution requires that the results of the operations be reported to the Board of Supervisors after three months of operations. A number of changes are planned for the services center, including: 1) transferring a number of additional vehicles to the service center in the form of the small truck fleet now in public works, 2) the sale of a number of surplus vehicles now at the service center, and 3) county departments returning underused vehicles to the service center. All these changes will have a fiscal effect on the service center’s operations and until the changes come about, the results of operations cannot be estimated. Once the operation of the service center stabilize, a comparison of possible savings by requiring more employees to use county vehicles will be possible. The Department of Finance will complete this comparison by March 31, 20001. RESPONSE: Service Center Manager See response from Department of Public Works. RESPONSE: Department of Public Works In June 2000 the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy regarding the use of and charges for, County owned vehicles. This policy is appended hereto as Attachment C. Since the adoption of this policy a study of the utilization of all County owed vehicles has been conducted and many of the older, underused and unsafe vehicles have been turned over to an auction service to be sold or disposed of as scrap. We will continue to
R00-44:
A vehicle utilization analysis is necessary to determine if vehicles are underutilized, what their current condition is, and what their individual disposition should be. RESPONSE: Service Center Manager See response 00-43. RESPONSE: Department of Public Works See response 00-43. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This response is acceptable.
R00-45:
If the above analysis shows underutilization and employees will continue to use their private vehicles, the older vehicles and marginal vehicles should be considered surplus, auctioned off and not replaced. RESPONSE: Service Center Manager See response 00-43. RESPONSE: Department of Public Works See response 00-43. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation:
R00-46:
The rate of reimbursement should be equal throughout all county departments. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board concurs with the attached response of the Department of Finance, dated August 4, 2000. RESPONSE: Finance Department All county employees are paid at the same rate, which is the current rate allowed by the Internal Revenue Service. I cannot further comment since the report does not indicate which departments are reimbursing for a lesser rate and none of the financial records indicate that a lesser rate is paid of county employees. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This response is acceptable.
R00-47:
Glenn County Departments should enforce its Harassment Policy at all County locations. Under Chapter 12.06 of the Administrative Manual, “Visual conduct such as derogatory posters, photographs, cartoons, drawings or gestures” could be considered a form of prohibited unlawful harassment or discrimination. RESPONSE: Board of Supervisors The Board agrees with the recommendation of the Grand Jury. RESPONSE: Service Center Manager See response from Department of Public Works. RESPONSE: Department of Public Works At the time of the Grand Jury member tour of the Service Center the Public Works Department was unaware of the poster situation that was immediately remedied by removing all questionable posters, photos, calendars and drawings from the Service Center. 2000-01 Grand Jury Evaluation: This recommendation has been implemented.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R02-05:
The Road Division Management should consistently apply policy and procedures at all maintenance yards insuring that safety meetings are routinely held, accurately documented and that employee attendance is mandatory. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Glenn County Public Works Director (02-05)
R02-06:
Develop a long-range plan to control parking on the north side of the Willows Airport property that provides safe traffic patterns and minimizes damage to airport facilities and parking lot surfaces. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Public Works Department (02-06) Board of Supervisors (02-06)
R02-07:
The members of the Orland City Council should adhere to the Brown Act. Each member of the City Council should keep closed session meetings, authorized by law, confidential. Closed sessions should be strictly limited to those topics authorized by law for closed sessions. The public business should be conducted in the open. Excessively long closed sessions or multiple sessions undermines public confidence and should be avoided.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R01-19:
Repair the damaged roads and parking areas at the airport.
R01-20:
Heavy trucks be required to park in designated area with signs to direct them. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Board of Supervisors: (01-19, 01-20) Public Works: (01-19, 01-20) Airport Advisory Commission: (01-19, 01-20)
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R01-35:
In the interests of safety it is recommended that the upgrade of all communications equipment be completed as soon as possible. VI. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Willows Fire Department: (01-35) PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGENCY I. PURPOSE: Response to a citizen inquiry. II. BACKGROUND: The Grand Jury received a letter from a citizen wishing verification that the heavy equipment purchased for the Glenn County landfill had in fact been handled through the vendor’s Willows facility. A portion of the sales tax is returned to the governing body for sales transactions occurring within its jurisdiction. The vendor in question has sales outlets in other jurisdictions within California. The Public Works and Development Services Agency Director had written a letter stating that the vendor had informed him that the sale had been handled through the Willows store. III. FINDINGS: · The Grand Jury contacted the City of Willows Finance Director for assistance in determining if in fact the above sales tax was being received by the City of Willows. The Finance Director with the assistance of the Glenn County Department of finance determined the following: The County entered into a lease agreement with Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation to lease/purchase both pieces of equipment. Sales tax is charged and collected ratably over the life of each lease. As such, as the County pays each annual installment, sales tax is collected by Caterpillar and paid to the California Board of Equalization. Since the sales tax is paid ratably, no significant “spike” in sales tax was noted in the Caterpillar account, nor will it be expected over the life of the lease.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R01-28:
Willows PD should embark on an extensive program to improve its image and Community Relations. Every effort should be made to demonstrate the valuable services performed by this Department and that the Department is always aware of the concerns of the citizen.
R01-29:
In Officer training, reinforce the need for proper restraint on the part of an arresting Officer, safety of both parties still being the main concern.
R01-30:
Willows PD, as a manpower consideration, should explore the need for Reserve Officers or a VIPS program as used in neighboring Communities, giving a greater visibility to the PD at Schools and Community functions.
R01-31:
The need of more space is still of great concern. If a move to a larger facility is impossible then temporary, secure storage space should be sought.
R01-32:
Upgrading of the computer/internet communications should be given a high priority thus making all sources of information available to the Officers and Department.
R01-33:
Willows PD, together with other Law Enforcement Agencies in Glenn County, have to share firing range facilities in other