Glenn County Grand Jury
2011-2012
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The jury recommends addressing the long-term impacts of AB 109, and the needs of long- term prisoners in respects to health care, dental care, education and other issues that arise from housing them long term.
R2:
Address the pay structure to keep staff in Glenn County, rather than being a "training ground" for staff to gain experience and leave for higher wages. 22
R3:
Consider a shared maintenance position between counties to avoid having only one staff per- son with knowledge of the jail maintenance issues.
R4:
Address staffing levels to ensure the safety of both inmates and staff.
R5:
Investigate alternative funding to create new programs to fix existing issues. VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED Glenn County Board of Supervisors Glenn County Sheriff 23
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
GSRM does not require harassment training; it only provides it as a service to educate their members. It is up to the department to follow the law for supervisor harassment training.
F2:
GSRM has no authority over any county office and cannot demand employees are
F3:
trained. In the event there is a harassment suit filed, any and all county
F4:
employees trained or not, will not be denied coverage. Other than people in supervisory positions, other staff may receive peer training, but it is
F5:
not a requirement of GSRM. A request of GCOE to provide the status of harassment training to all current supervisory per- sonnel revealed that of the 49 eligible management position (as of 3/1/2012), 8 have been com- pleted, with the remainder to be completed by June 30, 2012. GCOE does not offer peer-to-peer harassment training to subordinates. CONCLUSIONS IV. Checks and balances between the Glenn County Office of Education and the Glenn County Board of Education have improved over the past few years, with ongoing development of poli- cies that dictate their interactions. Harassment training is acceptable from the standpoint of GCOE meeting the requirements of the state and their insurer. V.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F39:
2 - Applicability: This policy applies to all employees (including upper- and mid-management level staff) volunteers, agency representatives and work experience placements assigned to or working at the HRA. 39.4 - Definitions: For the purposes of this policy, conflict of interest is any situ- ation where there is the potential for perceived favoritism or unethical activity in the hiring, evaluating, and/or promoting of an employee who is related to another em- ployee at the HRA, or in the assignment of tasks to that employee. 39.5 - Policy: It is the policy of the HRA to ensure that ethical standards are in place and adhered to with respect to family members employed at HRA, including those who may work in the same unit or division. All HRA employees shall be sub- ject to the same standards of work behavior in that no individual shall receive favored treatment during the course of the hiring process, the evaluation process, promotions or the assignment of tasks or responsibilities. 39.6 - Procedure: Interviewing and Hiring - When an individual who is related to, or friends with, an HRA employee is applying for work at the HRA, the current HRA employee will not be selected to participate in the interviewing and/or hiring process of the applicant. The current HRA employee shall not have access to the in- terview questions nor any applicable testing materials with respect to the hiring of the applicant. Supervision and Assignments - In no case shall employees who are related, either by blood or by marriage, be permitted to supervise the employee to whom they are related. Furthermore, employees who are related or friends with one another shall not receive preferential treatment with regard to the assignment of tasks or duties. If two related employees reside in the same division, a staff member from a different division shall act as the functional supervisor for the employee. This is to ensure that no conflict of inter- est occurs within the division and that the chain of command is not compromised. For example: The SSD Fiscal Supervisor wants to hire someone who is related to another SSD employee. This is permissible, provided that the new SSD employee does not fall within their relative's chain of command. For example: The SSD Fiscal Supervisor wants to hire someone who is related to the SSD Deputy. In this case, conflict of interest could exist by virtue of the fact that the 17 SSD Fiscal Supervisor (who will become the applicant's [SSD Deputy's relative] su- pervisor) is ultimately Supervised by the SSD Deputy. This scenario is only permissi- ble if the applicant [SSD Deputy's relative] will be supervised by an employee from CAD. Evaluations - Employees who are related either by blood or marriage shall not participate in or provide input to the evaluation process of the employee to whom they are related. IV. CONCLUSIONS It is the conclusion of the Glenn County Grand Jury that the hiring of the two individuals into the Glenn County Human Resources Agency did constitute a conflict of interest, as outlined in the Policies and Procedures of the agency. As stated in an Executive Team Update to all HRA Staff and all CWS-CWS, the issue of conflict of interest was addressed, and a promise of a response was given. However, no response could be found, staff admitted that no response was given as a follow-up.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Review with all employees and staff the Human Resources Agency Code 39, Conflict of In- terest, to ensure all employees and staff is aware of the code, and understands its contents.
R2:
When hiring personnel in the Human Resources Agency, make every effort to ensure that Code 39 is being followed.
R3:
To keep lines of communication between staff and employees open and clear, make every effort to follow up with responses to concerns and issues raised.
R4:
Review the assignment of a Functional Supervisor for those employees with familial or friendship ties to those in supervisorial positions within the agency. RESPONSE REQUIRED VI. Glenn County Board of Supervisors Glenn County HRA Director Glenn County Counsel/Personnel Director 18
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Whenever possible, make the Juvenile Hall a budgetary priority.
R2:
Hire a Site Manager in a timely manner.
R3:
Recruit support staff and institute a workable work schedule.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
arrest activity, to include categories of crime and the number of officers or man-hours used in the performance of their duties.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the staffs of the police departments and Sheriff's Depart- ment comply with the law and the policies set for them, and provide maximum public safety to the best of their ability.
R3:
Through the process of this review, it was noted by the committee that increased funding to these public safety departments would yield even safer communities. RESPONSES REQUIRED VI. Glenn County Sheriff's Department Orland Police Department Willows Police Department 20
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Most departments and agencies were actively attempting to implement the prescribed rec- ommendations.
F2:
Some recommendations cannot be implemented due to lack of funding.
F3:
Some are still "works in progress". CONCLUSIONS IV. The Grand Jury is pleased that all county entities took seriously the recommendations of past Grand Juries. V.
F4:
Random drug testing is performed.
F5:
Promotional testing III. Findings
F6:
Promotional testing: Testing is done through the California State Merit System. The agency is to hire from the top five scores, or to show a reason for why they did not use the top five lists. Conclusions IV. While progress is slowly being made in the HRA department, many management improvements are still needed. New Recommendations V.
F81:
failure or refusal to issue an Agreement, or to enter into an Agreement allowing the attendance, to the county board of education having jurisdiction over the district of residence of the parent or legal guardian or person having legal custody. Failure to appeal within the required time is good cause for denial of an appeal, 68 BP 5117(c)
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Orland Police Department is under staffed
R2:
Look into contract hiring to reduce overtime costs.
R3:
Air Conditioning Unit
R4:
Safety Cell Surveillance Camera
R5:
Promotional testing III. Findings
R6:
Computer III. Findings The Jail works under conditions of severe underfunding.
R7:
Revocation of an inter-district attendance permit may not be appealed to the County Board of Education. B. Procedures for Filing an Appeal
R8:
The administrative decision of the Board shall be final, and no reconsideration or rehearing by the Board shall be permitted.
R9:
In the notification or the administrative decision, the parties shall be advised that, should either party desire to seek a judicial review of the county board's administrative decision, that such judicial review must be requested within ninety (90) calcadar days of the date of the Board's determination. cf. BP 5119(a), 9320(a), 9321(a), 9321.1(a), 9323(a) Legal Reference; Education Code sections 46600, 46601, 46602, 48350 et. Seg., Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6; CA Alty, Ceneral Opinion No 96-908 01/10/12 5 . . . ķ. 60
R10:
district of residence To provide a change in school environment for reasons of personal and social
R11:
adjustment 62 C S DOL AR 5117(b) INTERDISTRICT ATTENDANCE (continued) An interdistrict attendance permit shall not exceed a term of five years. Each permit shall stipulate the terms and conditions established by both districts under which interdistrict attendance shall be permitted, denied, or revoked, and any standards for reapplication. (Education Code 46600) Once a student is enrolled in the district school, he/she shall not be required to reapply for an interdistrict transfer and shall be allowed to continue to attend the school unless reapplication standards are otherwise specified in the permit. Existing interdistrict attendance permits shall not be reseinded for students entering grade 11 or 12 in the subsequent school year. (Education Code 46600) The Superintendent/Principal or designee may deny initial requests for interdistrict attendance permits if school facilities are overcrowded at the relevant grade level or based on other considerations that are not arbitrary. However, once a student is admitted, the district may not deny him/her continued attendance because of overcrowded facilities at the relevant grade level. Within 30 days of a request for an interdistrict permit, the Superintendent/Principal or designee shall notify the parents/guardians of a student who is denied interdistrict attendance regarding the process for appeal to the County Board of Education as specified in Education Code 46601. (Education Code 46601) (cf. 5143.6 - Parental Notifications) Students who are under consideration for expulsion or who have been expelled may not appeal interdistrict attendance denials or decisions while expulsion proceedings are pending or during the term of the expulsion. (Education Code 46601) (of 5119 - Students Expelled from Other Districts) (cf. 5144.1 - Suspension and Expulsion/Due Process) PLAZA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT Regulation Orland, California approved: September 21, 2011 BP 5119(a) 63
R81:
failure or refusal to issue an Agreement, or to enter into an Agreement allowing the attendance, to the county board of education having jurisdiction over the district of residence of the parent or legal guardian or person having legal custody. Failure to appeal within the required time is good cause for denial of an appeal, 68 BP 5117(c)