Humboldt County Grand Jury
2013-2014
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (12)
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Historic and Design Review process could be streamlined if the U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Standards are followed.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The City of Arcata should direct staff to use the U.S Secretary of Interior’s Standards for projects that have historic resources, thus streamlining the historic and design review process, saving both City staff and the affected homeowners time and money. (F1, F4, F5,
R4:
The City of Arcata needs to become proactive in educating landowners as to the benefits of owning a historic property. (F1, F6, F7, F8)
F2:
The Zoning Administrator is empowered to interpret Land Use Code as to whether or not a building is eligible to be a historic resource in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Documents pertaining to land use policy, codes and ordinances should be approved by the Arcata City Council prior to posting on the City’s website. (F2, F10)
F3:
Arcata City staff was inconsistent as to whether the Lord House was historic.
F4:
Confusion exists among Arcata City staff as to the process and protocol in the design review process.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The City of Arcata should simplify the design review process and make it less confusing for all applicants. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F10)
R5:
The City of Arcata should request staff to provide applicants who have potentially eligible historic structures clear and unambiguous requirements for the permit process. (F1, F4, F5,
F5:
The City of Arcata, as lead agency, did not go through the review process as outlined in their Land Use Code or California Environmental Quality Act as to whether or not the Lord House was eligible as a historic resource.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The City of Arcata should simplify the design review process and make it less confusing for all applicants. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F10)
R5:
The City of Arcata should request staff to provide applicants who have potentially eligible historic structures clear and unambiguous requirements for the permit process. (F1, F4, F5,
F6:
The owners/complainants were unclear as to which codes applied to their project.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3:
The City of Arcata should simplify the design review process and make it less confusing for all applicants. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F10)
R4:
The City of Arcata needs to become proactive in educating landowners as to the benefits of owning a historic property. (F1, F6, F7, F8)
R5:
The City of Arcata should request staff to provide applicants who have potentially eligible historic structures clear and unambiguous requirements for the permit process. (F1, F4, F5,
F7:
The Arcata City Staff sent out contradictory memos during the design review process for this project, and during interviews of city staff, they gave the jury conflicting and confusing testimony.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The City of Arcata should simplify the design review process and make it less confusing for all applicants. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F10)
R4:
The City of Arcata needs to become proactive in educating landowners as to the benefits of owning a historic property. (F1, F6, F7, F8)
F8:
A difference exists between how City Staff and the Historic Landmark Committee interpret Arcata’s Land Use Code with respect to the designation of the Lord House as a significant historic resource.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The City of Arcata should simplify the design review process and make it less confusing for all applicants. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F10)
R4:
The City of Arcata needs to become proactive in educating landowners as to the benefits of owning a historic property. (F1, F6, F7, F8)
F9:
The Lord House is listed in Susie Van Kirk’s book, a compilation of notable historic resources compiled by the city in 1979. Furthermore, the Lord House was found eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the highest designation for a historic structure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City of Arcata needs to continue its inventory of all architectural resources to assist the Historic and Design Review Commission and the Historic Landmarks Committee. (F2, F3,
F10:
The Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of the City of Arcata’s Land Use Code is posted on the City of Arcata’s website without approval of the Arcata City Council.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The City of Arcata should simplify the design review process and make it less confusing for all applicants. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F10)
R6:
Documents pertaining to land use policy, codes and ordinances should be approved by the Arcata City Council prior to posting on the City’s website. (F2, F10)
F11:
The appeals process cost of approximately $2,000 may be prohibitive to many landowners.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The appeals process should be less monetarily prohibitive. (F11)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
After a serious disaster, citizens most likely would be on their own for days, or possibly weeks. People need to have a plan to take care of themselves, their loved ones, the dependent elderly, and pets.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Individuals need to be proactive and get their emergency plan in place, for it is very likely no one will or can come to their aid for 72 hours following a disaster. This means that you should build an emergency supply kit including pet food and medical supplies, talk about a family emergency plan, be informed what disasters you might experience, and know how to turn off your gas and power. Your plan should include a text tree (using cell phones to contact friends and relatives), food, water, medicine, and shelter. First aid kits, flashlights and a battery or manually powered radio are also recommended. (F1)
R2:
KNOW YOUR ZONE!: If the disaster is an earthquake and it shakes for more than 30 seconds, first and foremost, the main idea is to remain calm and try to get through the shaking: duck, cover and hold. You then need to decide what zone you are in, and if you are in a tsunami run-up zone, head immediately to higher ground and away from the coastline. In the mountains, watch for falling rocks, landslides, and/or falling trees (limbs). Know your way out in forest fire-prone areas. Know dangerous/past flood zone areas. (F1)
R3:
The Office of Emergency Services should continue in its efforts to inform citizens of Humboldt County about the Community Emergency Response Training program to increase their knowledge of disaster survival techniques. (F1)
F2:
The Office of Emergency Services Director has decades of experience with several types of natural disasters, but plans on retiring in the next year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should work quickly to replace the retiring Office of Emergency Services Director to insure continuity in this very important position. (F2)
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Humboldt County Grand Jury found that the complaint against the Fortuna City Manager was without merit.
F2:
The Fortuna City Council and the Fortuna City Manager failed to adequately and or effectively communicate to city staff members the goals and objectives of the new City Manager, and how those goals would impact day-to-day expenses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Fortuna City Council and the Fortuna City Manager improve internal methods used to communicate with the city’s staff. (F2, F3)
F3:
The City of Fortuna does not have a clear, written policy regarding reimbursement of business expenses for city employees.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Fortuna City Council and the Fortuna City Manager improve internal methods used to communicate with the city’s staff. (F2, F3)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Finance Office of the City of Fortuna write a clear and transparent policy for all city employees using city-issued credit cards, explaining the procedural steps for reimbursement of business expenses. (F3) WHO SHALL RESPOND The Grand Jury requires that both the Fortuna City Council and the Fortuna City Manager respond to Recommendations 1 and 2. Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F4:
The City Manager’s submitted his office appointment calendar (Outlook) did not completely match the reimbursement requests submitted for meals, conferences, and transportation; however, the personal calendar he provided did.
F5:
The City Council of Fortuna sought a “people friendly” City Manager who would work to help revitalize the City of Fortuna’s business interests.
F6:
The City Manager was fiduciarily responsible and actually saved Fortuna a substantial amount of money by executing his duties in the manner he did, especially as it regards his moving allowance and automobile stipend.
F7:
The new City Manager elected to use city vehicles rather than the monthly transportation stipend, thus saving the City of Fortuna a few thousand dollars in the first year of his tenure in that position.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
While some county departments do a reasonably efficient job of following up on complaints that involve them directly, they do not have a consistent process of referring complaints to other county departments, nor of following up on referrals to those departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The County Board of Supervisors should establish a policy mandating that the department receiving a citizen complaint immediately assumes ownership of the complaint on behalf of the County, regardless of department responsibility, and does not cede control of the complaint until a positive, verifiable hand-off to the appropriate department is achieved. (F1)
F2:
County departments could be more transparent and fair, save staff time and have better relations with the public if there were a more efficient and uniform way of handling complaints.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The County Board of Supervisors should strongly encourage each of the departments currently using OnTrack to expand this system’s capabilities to handle citizen complaints to those departments and also encourage those departments to reallocate resources to accomplish this. (F2, F3, F4)
R3:
The County Board of Supervisors should also approve funding or reallocate resources to expand OnTrack to departments which do not currently use OnTrack to allow them to implement this system’s capabilities. By moving to a more automated system of information sharing, cost savings could potentially be realized through savings of staff time. (F2, F3, F4)
F3:
An automated system to pass information among departments already exists, called OnTrack. This system could be expanded by the County to provide a comprehensive, interdepartmental system of handling citizen code compliance complaints throughout multiple departments.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The County’s existing OnTrack system should be expanded to create a complaint resolution system capability. Because OnTrack is currently shared by multiple departments, the current capabilities should be expanded and the interdepartmental sharing of current data leveraged to enable sharing of citizen complaint information. (F3, F4)
R2:
The County Board of Supervisors should strongly encourage each of the departments currently using OnTrack to expand this system’s capabilities to handle citizen complaints to those departments and also encourage those departments to reallocate resources to accomplish this. (F2, F3, F4)
R3:
The County Board of Supervisors should also approve funding or reallocate resources to expand OnTrack to departments which do not currently use OnTrack to allow them to implement this system’s capabilities. By moving to a more automated system of information sharing, cost savings could potentially be realized through savings of staff time. (F2, F3, F4)
F4:
All county departments that deal with the public could link on to the OnTrack system, enabling interdepartmental communication, and giving the public access to information regarding the status of their complaints.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
The County’s existing OnTrack system should be expanded to create a complaint resolution system capability. Because OnTrack is currently shared by multiple departments, the current capabilities should be expanded and the interdepartmental sharing of current data leveraged to enable sharing of citizen complaint information. (F3, F4)
R2:
The County Board of Supervisors should strongly encourage each of the departments currently using OnTrack to expand this system’s capabilities to handle citizen complaints to those departments and also encourage those departments to reallocate resources to accomplish this. (F2, F3, F4)
R3:
The County Board of Supervisors should also approve funding or reallocate resources to expand OnTrack to departments which do not currently use OnTrack to allow them to implement this system’s capabilities. By moving to a more automated system of information sharing, cost savings could potentially be realized through savings of staff time. (F2, F3, F4)
R4:
OnTrack currently has a citizen portal and an internal County portal. This inherent capability can be expanded to allow citizens to check the status of their complaint. (F4, F5)
F5:
OnTrack currently has a citizen portal and an internal County portal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
OnTrack currently has a citizen portal and an internal County portal. This inherent capability can be expanded to allow citizens to check the status of their complaint. (F4, F5)
F6:
Although the Planning and Building Department has made significant strides to improve their customer service throughout our investigation process, the department remains understaffed in its efforts to improve customer service to County citizens.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
One staff member should be added to the Planning Department to assist in the handling of citizen complaints. Although the department has made significant strides to improve their customer service throughout the investigation process, the department remains understaffed in its efforts to improve customer service to County citizens. (F6)
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
There are very few public services available for young children in crisis who are not connected with a social welfare system. Children connected to a social service system may have more resources available.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Professionals of Child Welfare Services (CWS) should be called as first responders in addition to police when children are in crisis, whether or not such children are already CWS clients. (F1, F2)
F2:
At present there is no alternative to police being the first respondents to young children in crisis who do not have a social worker. Children who are connected to the social service system may have a wider choice of first responders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Professionals of Child Welfare Services (CWS) should be called as first responders in addition to police when children are in crisis, whether or not such children are already CWS clients. (F1, F2)
F3:
Some police officers take Crisis Intervention Training on a voluntary basis, but with the exception of one law enforcement agency, this training is not mandatory for all.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Crisis Intervention Training should be mandatory for all law enforcement officers. The Citizen Enforcement Liaison Committee and the Department of Health and Human Services have offered to pay for such training. (F3)
R2:
The curriculum of Crisis Intervention Training should include responses to children younger than 16 in a life-threatening situation. (F3)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
As of November 13, 2013, there was no clear and easily accessible access to the School Accountability Report Cards on the first page of the following charter schools’ websites: Northcoast Preparatory and Performing Arts; Six Rivers Charter High School; and Trillium Charter School.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Northcoast Preparatory and Performing Arts, Six Rivers Charter High School, and Trillium Charter School need to display a clear one-step link to the School Accountability Report Card on the first page of their website, labeling that link “School Accountability Report Card (SARC)” in order to make the school’s data easily accessible to the public and thereby comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law (Ed Code, section 33126(d). (F1) 4 http://internet.humboldt.k12.ca.us/freshwater_sd/FreshwaterElem_SARC%202012.html, December 13, 2013.
F2:
California Department of Education published website data and self-reported, hard-copy data often appear to be inconsistent and / or contradictory, especially in the case of Freshwater Charter School’s administrative salary / salaries.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
All charter schools need to check the published California Department of Education data against their own “in house” records to make certain that the data the California Department of Education publishes is accurate. (F2) REQUEST FOR RESPONSES for PART I Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the following responses are required; the Governing Boards of the following schools; (cid:1) Northcoast Preparatory and Performing Arts (R1, R2) (cid:1) Six Rivers Charter High School (R1, R2) (cid:1) Trillium Charter School (R1, R2) The Governing Board of Freshwater Charter School should respond to recommendation 2 to clarify the published administrative salary found at the California Department of Education’s Ed Data website and the self-reported administrative salary submitted to the Grand Jury. SUMMARY – PART II – Mattole Valley Charter School When doing the investigation of Humboldt County’s charter schools, the Humboldt County Grand Jury found many problems with its attempt to obtain clear, transparent, and accurate data for the Mattole Valley Charter School on its website. Such a lack of accuracy and transparency is a violation of Education Code, section 33126(d). The Mattole Valley Charter School’s website also lacked easy access to the School Accountability Report Card and other information that parents might need in order to make informed choices for the education of their children. DISCUSSION – PART II – Mattole Valley Charter School The Mattole Valley Charter School is the least transparent with its public records of all schools the Grand Jury investigated this year. What should be a very simple internet search for the average person wishing to learn about the Mattole Valley Charter School – finding API scores, number of teachers, budgets, and general school qualifications – leads to a frustrating series of dead ends that offer little or no meaningful information without searching further on its website using a “hit or miss” method. The Mattole Valley Charter School Website is http://www.mattolevalley.com/, and it requires many steps to access any useful information. When Mattole Valley Charter’s information is finally accessed by going first to http://www.mattolevalley.com/resources/student-parent-resources/, one must select “resources,” which leads to another menu. On that menu, there is a link that leads to the School Accountability Report Card. However, when one searches the School Accountability Report Card for Mattole Valley Charter School, one does not know if the data is for Mattole Valley Charter School, its sponsoring agent, Mattole Unified School District, or both. If this sounds confusing, it is. Just getting to Mattole Valley Charter School’s School Accountability Report Card is hard enough for the average person making an inquiry into the school. Reading Mattole Valley Charter School’s School Accountability Report Card is just as confusing for the average person with limited to average internet skills, because of the numerous
F3:
The position of Superintendent of Mattole Unified District and the Director of the Mattole Valley Charter School are performed by one individual for both institutions, blurring the line between the District’s Local Educational Agency’s oversight obligation for the sponsored Charter School.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Two distinct positions need to be created with one clearly distinct person for each position: one person for the Superintendent of the Mattole Unified District and another person for the Director of the Mattole Valley Charter School in order to avoid any possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest between the two institutions. (F3)
F4:
California Department of Education published website data and self-reported; hard-copy data are inconsistent and / or contradictory with each other, especially as it relates to the number of teachers employed and average daily attendance (ADA) data for Mattole Valley Charter School.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Superintendent of the Mattole Unified School District or his designee needs to check the published California Department of Education’s data against the actual district data to make certain that both sets of data are accurate and consistent. (F4)
F5:
The 12 “learning centers” of the Mattole Valley Charter School have no individual data published for the public, either on the Charter School’s own website or on any California Department of Education website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Mattole Valley Charter School needs to establish meaningful, easily navigated websites for each of its learning centers, including a separate School Accountability Report Card for each of the learning centers in order to assure the public that students in those “learning centers” are receiving sound education. (F5)
F6:
The Superintendent of Mattole Unified School District has not been given a formal, written evaluation for several years according to witness testimony.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Governing Boards of the Mattole Unified School District and the Mattole Valley Charter School are urged to give both the Superintendent of the District and the Director of the charter school an annual, formal, written evaluation. (F6) REQUEST FOR RESPONSES for Part II Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the following responses are required: (cid:1) The Governing Boards of the Mattole Union School District and / or the Mattole Valley Charter School. (R1 through R6) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Affordable adequate housing is scarce, and homeless veterans often sleep outdoors, or on the streets.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors should designate in the Housing Element of the General Plan Update that certain areas be identified where sanctuaries and or campgrounds can be established. (F1).
F2:
Homeless veterans frequently encounter barriers preventing them from accessing services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should encourage Department of Health and Human Services to obtain funding, jointly with other community agencies, through HUD and other sources to build "micro housing villages" and sanctuaries for homeless veterans.
F3:
Services are not grouped in one location.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should encourage the Humboldt County Health and Human Services Department to expand alcohol and substance abuse treatment to include more local detoxification services.
F4:
Participants in permanent housing programs tend to be more successful in being mainstreamed back into the community than those in temporary or transitional housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should explore ways to reduce barriers to accessing services.
F5:
There are homeless veterans not receiving the benefits for which they are eligible.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
There are early release guidelines in the Policy and Procedures Manual from the Humboldt County Correctional Facility which allow release of arrestees at any time and arrestees are often released late at night or early in the morning,
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury of Humboldt County recommends that the Humboldt County Correctional Facility change its early release policy to eliminate releases between 9:00 pm and 6:00 am. (F1, F2)
F2:
Three deaths have occurred in the last year involving early morning releases from the jail,
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury of Humboldt County recommends that the Humboldt County Correctional Facility change its early release policy to eliminate releases between 9:00 pm and 6:00 am. (F1, F2)
F3:
Currently when inmates are arrested, whatever money they have on their person is taken from them. The money is tallied and on release they are given a check for that amount. If they are held only for sobering, their cash is returned to them upon release,
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury of Humboldt County recommends that Humboldt County Correctional Facility return to the inmates the cash money that was taken at the time of arrest rather than issuing a check or debit card. (F3)
F4:
When inmates from eastern, northern and southern parts of the county are released, they are not returned to the place of their arrest, but let out onto the streets of Eureka. In many instances, this policy appears to violate Penal Code Section 686.5,
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury of Humboldt County recommends that Humboldt County Correctional Facility and the Board of Supervisors enter into an agreement with Humboldt Transit Authority to provide tickets for out of town inmates at the time of release to return them to the place they were arrested. If no public transportation serves the place of arrest, and it is more than 25 air miles from Humboldt County Correctional Facility, correctional staff must make other, appropriate arrangements pursuant to Penal Code Section 686.5. (F4, F5)
F5:
Public transportation is unavailable approximately between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury of Humboldt County recommends that Humboldt County Correctional Facility and the Board of Supervisors enter into an agreement with Humboldt Transit Authority to provide tickets for out of town inmates at the time of release to return them to the place they were arrested. If no public transportation serves the place of arrest, and it is more than 25 air miles from Humboldt County Correctional Facility, correctional staff must make other, appropriate arrangements pursuant to Penal Code Section 686.5. (F4, F5)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
There are missed opportunities for roadway maintenance if an area supervisor runs out of materials to do the necessary work.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1:
Increase the dollar amount allocated to material purchases. (F1, F2)
R2:
Encourage and develop partnerships with cities, special districts, and other outside agencies. (F1, F3)
R4:
The County is encouraged to establish the Debt Capacity Ad Hoc Committee, mentioned in the Mid Year Budget report, for the possibility of a future bond issue to improve County facilities and infrastructure. (F1, F2)
R5:
The County is encouraged to research and acquire funding for economic development in non-urban areas. (F1, F5).
F2:
There is no easy cost effective means to manage roadway maintenance with insufficient materials to do the necessary work.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Increase the dollar amount allocated to material purchases. (F1, F2)
R4:
The County is encouraged to establish the Debt Capacity Ad Hoc Committee, mentioned in the Mid Year Budget report, for the possibility of a future bond issue to improve County facilities and infrastructure. (F1, F2)
F3:
In order to do the needed road work, it is necessary to retain skilled full time staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Encourage and develop partnerships with cities, special districts, and other outside agencies. (F1, F3)
F4:
Roadway area supervisors have discretion to perform necessary roadway work. However, a logical plan of road maintenance and servicing is impossible without the necessary supplies to maintain the County’s roadways. The result can only be a gradual deterioration of the road infrastructure over time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Continue to support the best possible use of limited maintenance funds while ensuring the latitude for decision-making authority for each area supervisor. (F4)
F5:
Humboldt County rural road expenditures for maintenance appear to be distributed equally in all areas of the County. We were unable to determine specifically if any areas of the county received preferential or substandard roadway maintenance given the limited study size, the variable nature of Humboldt County Roads, and constrained roadway maintenance funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County is encouraged to research and acquire funding for economic development in non-urban areas. (F1, F5).
F6:
Complaints are handled appropriately, given the Public Works Department’s limited funding.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
There is no unequivocal evidence that the Humboldt Lodging Alliance has been submitting the information required by its contract with the County and the applicable state laws referenced therein to the County on a regular and timely basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The County should provide training in the Brown Act and the Public Records Act to appointed officials of the Humboldt Lodging Alliance.
F2:
The County Administrative Office does not have a systematic method for logging or documenting the submissions of the reports and other documents required in its contract with the Humboldt Lodging Alliance. Indeed, it does not have a method for logging the required information from any of the organizations or associations that have contractual relationships with the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The County should monitor the operations, minutes, and financial records of the Humboldt Lodging Alliance to ensure that the Brown Act is being followed.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
The Humboldt Lodging Alliance expenditures should conform to the requirements of the District Management Plan.
R4:
The County should ensure that there is no commingling of funds between the Humboldt Lodging Alliance and the Humboldt County Convention and Visitors Bureau. Responses were requested from the following: The County Administrative Office, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, and the Humboldt Lodging Alliance. RESPONSES TO THE 2012-2013 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS All three parties agreed with Recommendation 1 (R1) concerning Brown Act and Public Records Act training. The Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Office both stated that the Administrative Office with the assistance of County Counsel would provide training and educational materials concerning these laws. This training has not yet been provided but is tentatively scheduled for the end of May 2014. The Humboldt Lodging Alliance agreed with Recommendations 2 through 4 (R2-R4) concerning monitoring of its activities and records, and stated, “The above documents,” namely operations, minutes and financial records, “are available for inspection and may be requested through our administrator, the Humboldt County Convention & Visitors Bureau.” The 2013-2014 Grand Jury finds this response troubling. It is not at all clear what form such a request would have to take. The website of the Humboldt Lodging Alliance is inadequate for this purpose. As of the date this is written, there are no meeting agendas posted. There is one set of minutes posted, from May 2013. There are no reports of activities, though the organization has existed for almost two years. On February 25, 2014, the executive director of both the Humboldt County Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Humboldt Lodging Alliance presented an annual report to the Board of Supervisors. This presentation was referred to in both the agenda and the minutes for that meeting as a report from the Humboldt County Convention and Visitors Bureau. Witnesses to that presentation testified that it was unclear as to whether or not, and to what degree activities of the Humboldt Lodging Alliance were included in that report. There was neither a copy of the report attached to the meeting minutes nor a copy of this report posted to either the Humboldt Lodging Alliance or the Humboldt County Convention and Visitors Bureau websites. We note that the Agreement for Services between the County of Humboldt and the Humboldt Lodging Alliance, dated June 12, 2012, Section 7.1 states “Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, should Contractor fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner provided, ….County may terminate this Agreement by giving Contractor written notice of such termination, stating the reason for termination, if Contractor does not cure the reason given within 10 days of receiving written notice.” The Humboldt Lodging Alliance is explicitly obliged to prepare and submit an annual report on its activities under the Agreement for Service with the County. With respect to Recommendations 2 through 4 (R2-R4) of the 2012-13 report, the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Office both noted that the County does not have the resources necessary to offer the oversight proposed. The Grand Jury has learned that the county has a variety of agreements with numerous nonprofit organizations as well as other governmental or quasi-governmental entities. Each of these organizations has requirements to provide information to the County on a regular basis. However, there is currently no systematic method for tracking whether the required information is at least being submitted in a timely fashion. The 2013-14 Grand Jury acknowledges that the County may not have sufficient resources to engage in the intensity of monitoring recommended by the 2012-13 Grand Jury. However, the County could lessen its long term administrative burden by creating a systematic monitoring system, such as an Excel spreadsheet, that would list what reports, information, and documents are required from each of these agencies. It would then be a simple matter to determine when and if the agencies are in compliance with these requirements. If, after systematically monitoring these submissions, the County staff find evidence that information is not being submitted in a timely fashion, the County should consider reassessing the contract with the entity that is failing to respond. When the County develops new contracts or modifies existing contracts are modified with such agencies, the contract should contain clauses about the need for the agency to submit required information in a timely manner, and the consequences that that will result if the agency fails to submit such information.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.