Kern County 2015-2016 - California Grand Jury Reports

July 06, 2016 — Administration and Audit Committee Mission Statement

16 pages 9 findings 7 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: A training manual is being developed by the Broadcast Engineer for future KGOV-TV employees.

F2: The Clerk of the Board oversees all activities being aired during a BOS broadcast.

F3: KGOV-TV is funded by the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act Franchise Fund and the Cable Fee Fund.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The website should be updated regularly and edited to remove past events. (Finding F8) • Ensuring the Home page is free of old, irrelevant information. • Keeping up with the community calendar, to make sure that the public knows which are blackout days and opened for business days. NOTES: • The Kern County Law Library should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 29 CC: TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 30 31 KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT PARKING PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The 2015-2016 Kern County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) Administration and Audit Committee (Committee) in accordance to California Penal Code §925 authorizes the Grand Jury to investigate and report on departments of the County. The Committee revisited a previous report conducted by the 2012-2013 Kern County Grand Jury to study and recommend solutions to current parking issues/growth experienced at the Kern County Superior Court Building, 1415 Truxtun Ave, Bakersfield, CA (Superior Court Parking). PROCESS: The Committee interviewed the Assistant CAO for General Services to follow up on any new developments and/or any new roadblocks encountered to meet previous recommendations. Other information was obtained by personal observations. BACKGROUND AND/OR FACTS: A. There are currently more personnel in need of parking than there are parking spaces available at 1415 Truxtun Ave. Kern County Superior Court Parking area. B. The parking permit is not a reservation for a parking spot, but a pass to “hunt” for a potentially available parking space. C. Entry Kiosk security detail is contracted by Kern County Superior Courts. The attendant should only allow entry to vehicles displaying the parking permit. Vehicles in for Fleet Services and vehicles displaying a handicapped placard can enter this area. D. The Grand Jury is allotted five assigned parking spots. E. Docents are assigned parking passes/permits to park in a reserved stall, on the first floor in the parking structure on M Street. There is one reserved parking stall on the first floor of the parking structure for volunteers.

F4: There is a six-second delay system installed to prevent any undesirable material from being broadcasted to the public.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The parking kiosk attendant should have the authority to enforce policies implemented to control the excessive activities of the parking lot. (Findings F2 and F3)

F5: KGOV-TV has no public relations or publicity program available to inform the public of the station’s presence. COMMENTS: The Administration and Audit Committee would like to thank the KGOV-TV staff for their knowledge, openness and transparency in answering the Committee’s questions.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: KGOV-TV should explore and implement avenues to advertise their presence within the community. (Finding 5)

R2: KGOV-TV should implement a “broadcast ready” community outreach program to inform outlying areas of current community services and programs, including cooling centers, animal services, fire updates, and other local events. (Finding 5) 24 NOTES: • Kern County General Services should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessedon the Kern County Grand Jury website: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CC: WESLIE BROWN, TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 25 26 KERN COUNTY LAW LIBRARY PREFACE: ”The primary obligation of the Kern County Law Library is to provide legal information and information services to members of the legal community and citizens who reside or practice in Kern County. Although, Library staff is available to guide and instruct as to what might be appropriate, they cannot provide any type of legal advice or interpret materials.” PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The 2015-2016 Kern County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) Administration and Audit Committee (Committee) visited the Kern County Law Library (Library) to review the operations, procedures and management of the Library in accordance with California Penal Code §933.5. PROCESS: The Committee reviewed the 2013-2014 Kern County Grand Jury report and researched the Library website before visiting. The Committee experienced a thorough tour of the Library. A detailed explanation of resources and services available to Kern County citizens was provided by a Library Associate. A question and answer session was held by the Law Librarian (Librarian) to address any concerns arising from the Committee’s initial trip to the Library were presented during a secondary visit. FACTS: A. The Library is located on the Third Floor, Room 301 of the Kern County Superior Court Building, 1415 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301. B. The Library is funded solely by a fixed portion of the Kern County Superior Court’s (Court) First Document Filing Fee. The Library is a stand-alone entity. It could be inferred by the title that the Library is a department of Kern County, but it is not. The staff is employed by the Library. C. The Library staff of five is supervised by the Librarian. The Librarian reports directly to the Kern County Law Library Board of Trustees consisting of five Kern County Superior Court Judges and two private Attorneys. One Attorney is appointed by the Kern County Board of Supervisors and the other by the Kern County Bar Associationper Business and Professions Code §6301. D. The County of Kern (County) considers the Library to be a Special District in order to provide administrative support services, such as the processing of payroll and personnel documents. The County does not recognize Library employees as county employees. The Library space is provided by, but not maintained by the County. E. Utility services are provided by the County. Phone service and janitorial services are not provided by the County tothe Library. F. The Library has 17 public access computers with internet limited to legal research or legal documentation editing. There are five staff accessible computers and four attorney accessible computer stations. G. In high traffic timeframes, computer access is limited to ensure everyone is allowed a chance to access information. H. The Library houses a Self-Help Center staffed by two court employees. The Library provides workshops on topics limited to Family Law and Small Claims matters. The public is required to register for individual workshops online.

R5: The East quad should be redesigned to accommodate handicapped parking. (Findings F2 and F3)

F6: Virtual Law Libraries can be found in Taft, Ridgecrest and Cerro Coso Community College.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The number of assigned parking permits should be reevaluated to find a more appropriate number for usage. (Finding F4)

F7: Advertisement of the Library is through word of mouth, street fairs, and attorney referrals. 28

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The single handicapped spot in front of the Jury Services building should be relocated due to high volumes of traffic creating a safety hazard to the public. (Finding F6) NOTES: • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 60 DAYS PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CC: TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 34

F8: General information regarding services provided and resources can be found online at the Library website at http://www.kclawlib.org.

F9: Personnel turnover is very low. COMMENTS: The Committee found the Library to be very clean, and its equipment to be in working order. Its staff was very friendly, approachable and knowledgeable.

July 06, 2016 — Cities and Joint Powers Committee Mission Statement and Activities

75 pages 17 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 17 findings

F1: The Grand Jury noted the effective use of technology, such as GPS for location, digital photography for validation and portable computers for documentation.

F2: Anyone wishing to file a complaint for code violation could have difficulty contacting Code Enforcement: • City of Bakersfield website uses terminology not generally known for this type of complaint • When Code Enforcement website is found, there is not a complaint or contact number listed • If a person tries to contact Code Enforcement directly they must do so through the Building Department desk. However, this can impact desk personnel answering questions and transferring calls

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The Grand Jury recommends the City website be changed so the public can easily find how and where to file a code complaint. (Finding F2)

R2: The Grand Jury recommends some form of identification for Code Enforcement is visible upon entering the Community Development Building. (Finding F2)

F3: Citizens who were issued enforcement citations stated there was difficulty in some communications: • The citation is often the first contact a property owner has ever had with the enforcement process • Phone messages are perceived to not be returned in a timely manner • Citizens are not given specific information needed to clear citation quickly • Some small “mom and pop” property owners are likely to need additional help

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The Grand Jury recommends it be emphasized to the Officers of the necessity to give clear directions to property owners. (Finding F3)

R5: Develop an on-line video for the City website that explains the process of investigating, documenting, notifying property owners and holding appeal hearings. City staff, high school or college students could produce and act in the video. (Findings F5 and F6) NOTES: The City of Bakersfield should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. RESPONSE REQUIRED BY CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CC: RICHARD FRANK, TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

F4: Property management companies receive citations for units under their management, but may know little about Code Enforcement procedures.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Develop and schedule workshops for property management companies to understand Code Enforcement processes. (Findings F4, F5 and F6)

F5: Property management company personnel may not know that they can inform Code Enforcement of conditions surrounding the properties they are involved with to help prevent deterioration.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Develop and schedule workshops for property management companies to understand Code Enforcement processes. (Findings F4, F5 and F6)

F6: The legal process is well established and does not allow for common sense deviation. Once becoming involved with Code Enforcement, the process becomes “bureaucratic” and must “grind” to completion.

Related Recommendations (1)

F7: Encampment clean-up in the Kern River bed appeared to be well planned, structured and executed. COMMENTS: Code Enforcement Officers are tasked with responsibilities that can bring property owners discomfort, anxiety and financial stress. When a potential threat exists, law enforcement can be called. The 2015-2016 Kern County Grand Jury would like to thank the personnel of the City of Bakersfield Code Enforcement Section for the cooperation, professionalism and assistance during this inquiry.

F8: Streetscape areas under the responsibility of the Department are not well documented in an easily accessed format. Maintenance staff therefore must depend upon their own knowledge of streetscape areas in their daily work. Such knowledge can be difficult to pass on to other employees and interested third parties. 41

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Department should explore technology to provide increased efficiency and better documentation of work orders, complaints and responses. Such technology should be purchased when funds become available. (Findings F9and F10)

F9: Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping is available for tree location mapping. The cost for consultant services is in the range of $2.00 - $5.00 per tree. The information can be compiled with location, species, size and condition. Maps can be printed from the database.

F10: The City utilizes a work order system called Mainstar and in addition uses the “CitySourced” app which tracks complaints from the public. Additional technology is available that can access the GIS database in the field and could also be used to log complaints and work orders. Adapting this technology to the needs of the Department would allow complaint follow-up, rapid response to important repairs, and better communication and documentation.

Related Recommendations (1)

F11: If enough trees are lost due to the drought the City could be at risk of losing the “Tree CityUSA” designation.

F12: In the event of damage to a tree as a result of an accident, the Department calculates the insurance claim based upon staff time and equipment to remove the damaged tree and prepare the site, and for a contractor to provide and plant a new 24” box tree. This method does not take into account the size, age or species of tree. For example, if a large diameter tree must be removed as a result of an accident, the small diameter replacement tree would take many years to reach the same size and maturity. The benefits of that larger tree are therefore lost in this example of a calculation for aninsurance claim.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Department should implement a standardized method to value a tree for insurance claims after damage by an accident. This method should take into account the size, maturity, condition and species, among other factors, of the actual tree which was damaged. Landscape Tree Appraisal by Purdue University Department of Horticulture and other methods of calculating tree values should be reviewed for applicability in this context. (Finding F12)

F13: The Department would like to offer more recreational activities than currently available. The two City community centers currently offer some after school programs and anyone is welcome to attend. However, these centers may not be easily accessible from all areas of the City.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The Department should initiate dialogue with KHSD and/or neighborhood schools to use facilities for recreationprograms across the city. Costs should be paid by General Fund monies or other sources. School Districts could be asked to sharethe costs.(Findings F13, F14, F15, F16 and F17) NOTES: • The City of Bakersfield should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 200 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CC: TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 CITY OF DELANO Celebrating a Century, Planning for the Future SUMMARY: Beginning as a railroad town, surrounded by agriculture, having amajor impact on the farm labor movement, Delano, the second largest incorporated city in Kern County, is transitioning to an industrial player in the region. How this is being accomplished is the subject of this 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report. PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: Pursuant to Penal Code §925a, the Cities and Joint Powers Committee (Committee) of the 2015-2016 Kern County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) inquired into the operation and management ofthe City of Delano (City). PROCESS: The Committee interviewed the City Manager, Police Chief, Director of Public Works, the City Clerk, City Council members and other staff. The Committee was given a tour of various improvement projects by the Director of Public Works and toured the new Police Station with the Police Chief. A review of minutes and agendas was also conducted. The City website and internet resources were reviewed for relevant information. BACKGROUND: Delano was founded on July 14, 1869 as a railroad town. The name was officially given by the Southern Pacific Railroad in honor of Columbus Delano, the United States Secretary of the Interior. The first Post office opened in 1874. Delano, incorporated in 1915, began celebrating its 100 year anniversary in January, 2015,with the Centennial Galafollowed by golf tournaments, birthday parties and music festivals in later months. Delano was a major hub of farmworker organization efforts and Chicano movement politics. In September 1965, Filipino leaders led the predominantly Filipino Agricultural Workers Organizing Committeein a "walk off" from table grape farms. The National Farm Workers' Association,a largely Hispanic union led by Cesar Chavez, joined the strike within a week. During the strike, the two groups joined forces and formed the United Farm Workers of America (UFW). A celebration was conducted on September 26, 2015, in recognition of the fifty-year anniversaryof the strike. For many years, as people traveled through the central valley, the blinking red lights off in the distance was a landmark. The Voice of America Broadcast Station (VOA) in Delano was the first external transmitting shortwave broadcast station and the beginning of this nation’s ability to broadcast around the globe. Founded in 1942, VOAbegan transmitting short-wave radio programs in 1943, providing as its charter states, “VOA news will be accurate, objective and comprehensive.” The broadcast was done in English and other languages. A 1976 Federal law required that the VOA serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative news source. During World War II the military enjoyed VOA as a touch of home when they were overseas. The last remaining WWII shortwave transmittingstation,VOADelano,operatedfrom 1943 until officially closed on March 10, 2007. In 2014 it was placed on the U. S. General ServicesAdministration(GSA)excess property disposal list. The population of Delano, according to the State of California Department of Finance, is 52,222 including an inmate population of 8,465 housed in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facilities. The City has a diverse population mix due to its agricultural background. Major ethnic groups within the City are Hispanic, Filipino, Asian and Caucasian. In November, 2007, Delano voters approved Measure I, a 1% sales tax increase which became effective in April, 2008. The additional revenue generated by the tax is applied to the City’s General Fund and used to fund capital improvements, equipment, and many programs throughout the community. This additional revenue in 2014-2015 was $5,533,823. This measure is due to expire in April, 2018 sothe City Council has takensteps to seek acontinuation for an additional 10 years. On the 2016ballot this will be designated as Measure A. Throughout the last decade the City has attempted to stimulate commercial growth. Investors were recruited for a major retail projectin the southwest portion of the city. Phase I has seen WalMart, Ross Dress for Less and other similar or smaller retail stores opening in the 90%completed Delano Market Place Shopping Center. Phase II,The Grapevine,will consist of 42 acres of mixed use with commercial development and multi-family residential. Construction is beginning with an estimated completion date of spring,2016. Phase III, The West Pavilion, consists of 77 acres of mixed use with commercial/retail development, multi-family and single family residences. This project's Environmental Impact Report is currently in circulation. Complementing this growth are emerging industrialization efforts. The Wonderful Company (formerly Paramount Farms) has a major processing plant and expansion is possible. Sears Logistics Services, employing 220, is a major part of the industrialization. The City is actively recruiting commercial operations to bring their facilities into the community. According to the State of California Employment Development Department, the current unemployment rate for the City is 11.9%. In 2010, the unemployment rate was 37.8%. The City’s economic growth has definitely improved employment. 53

F14: According to the Department, approximately 17 years ago, the Bakersfield City and Greenfield School Districts opened their facilities for after school programs that wereplanned, organized and supervisedby the Department: • Consisted of homework help, sports, arts and crafts and non-competitive games • Schools funded half and the District funded half to cover staffing, supplies and equipment • Schools started their own programs and the Department contracts were phased out over a twelve year period • According to the Department, the costs became prohibitive when the schools began charging fees for custodians, room rentals and other costs. The Department states, “It is frustrating to see the gates locked after school and in the summer, keeping the kids out once the school bell rings” 42

Related Recommendations (1)

F15: The Kern High School District (KHSD) currently has a joint use agreement with the Department to use city pools for swim team practices and some swim meets. • KHSD donated money to help build the McMurtreyAquatic Center • The schools have first priority in use of the pools, outside of the City programs

Related Recommendations (1)

F16: As stated by the Department, “More dialogue with community leaders, school administrators and board members would result in greater opportunities for children during their out of school hours”.

Related Recommendations (1)

F17: According to the Kern County Superintendent of Schools, all school districts within the County have a reasonable policy to allow community use of school facilities. Educational Code §38131 (a) states: “There is a civic center at each and every public school facility and grounds within the state where the citizens, parent teacher associations, Camp Fire girls, Boy Scout troops, veterans' organizations, farmers' organizations, school-community advisory councils, senior citizens' organizations, clubs, and associations formed for recreational, educational, political, economic, artistic, or moral activities of the public school districts may engage in supervised recreational activities,…” COMMENTS: The Committee would like to thank the Department Director and staff for their cooperation in this inquiry. The Committee concluded that under the current unusual circumstances, the staff is working diligently to protect and preserve the investment in parks and streetscapes that have been made over many years.

Related Recommendations (1)

July 06, 2016 — Edit and Final Report Committee Mission Statement The Edit and Final Report Committee of the 2015-2016 Grand Jury has

1 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

December 08, 2015 — Kern County Special Districts and County Services Committee

108 pages 31 findings 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 31 findings

F1: The District operates on a modest budget that proposes to operate at an approximate $260,000 deficit this year.

F2: The District Board of Directors has agreed to supplement this year’s budget for the District from the $1.3 million cash reserves.

F3: The oil industry is at a low period of $/barrel pricing for its product. This is expected to last for at least the next two years. The projected tax deficit will result in a revenue problem for the District extending into at least 2017.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The Committee recommends that the District complete its financial evaluation of the GHSC, including: (a) afinalized Provost and Prichard engineering study (b) a professional independent cost analysis of all options (c) discussions with the City of Tehachapi on the Forced Main option These steps should be done before any final commitment for acquisition. The Committee reminds the District that the constituents utilizing the Sewer Company represent less than 10% of the Golden Hills community. This recommendation does not preclude the issuance of a non-binding Letter of Intent by the GHCSD to reflect its interest in pursuing purchase of the company. (Findings 3,4)

F4: The District and Board of Directors has not drafted a formal contingency plan for operation of the District in the out years without the tax revenue necessary, other than to rely on limited District reserves. The contingency plan may include support from the Buttonwillow Community Resource Center which receives funding from the environmental facility.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the District develop a formal contingency plan for expected budget shortfalls in the out years. The contingency plan should be communicated to the community when completed. (Finding F4)

F5: The District has a committed Board of Directors as well as having excellent facilities and staff for such a small community. The programs offered have had outstanding reviews based on the District’s Facebook page. 90

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Committee recommends that the Board follow the correct protocol for a GHCSD property acquisition decision. As defined in CSD law: (a) discuss in closed session and vote on the potential interest and reasons for a property acquisition (b) present to the community for discussion and (c) make the Board decision by vote in open session At the same time, it is recognized that a Board decision can be made independent of community involvement in the case of urgent need forimmediate action. (Finding 5)

F6: The District only posts the Meeting agendas at the District Office and does not post Meeting minutes. COMMENTS: The Committee would like to thank the General Manager for help in answering our questions and a tour of the Facilities. The District appears well run and has an excellent facility much needed for this community. The Committee wishes to acknowledge the commitment of the General Manager, District Staff and Board of Directors to the community of Buttonwillow.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the District post board minutes at the District Office in addition to the Board Meeting agendas. The Grand Jury also recommends that the Board agendas and minutes be posted in a second location. The Grand Jury recommends that the District approach the Buttonwillow Chamber of Commerce about posting agendas and minutes on their website. (Finding F6) NOTES: • The Buttonwillow Recreation and Parks District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CC: TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301APPENDIX: 92 93 GOLDEN HILLS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT PREFACE: The 2015-2016 Kern County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) found that board members have failed to include participation of the residents in many of the decisions impacting the community. Ralph M. Brown Act §54950 states: “Public commissions, boards, councils and other legislative bodies of local government exist to aid in the conduct of people’s business. The people do not yield their sovereignty to the bodies that serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislativebodies that they have created.”

F7: The District reportedly purchased the Golden Star and Moon Drive properties for water rights. They originally had no intention for developing the two properties, other than offer a location for a Kern County fire station on the Golden Star property. In the Greater Tehachapi Area Specific and Community Plan, dated December 2010, any development of land under 2.5 acres is subject to the requirement of a public sewer system. Any request for a sewer exception must go to the Kern County Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services. If either of these two properties were to be developed they would have to use the existing GHSC system. The development costs would be extremely high. This would result in major sanitation construction on Kern County roads to get to the GHSC. One consideration would be a bond ballot initiative that would cost the entire community of Golden Hills. However, if the District purchases the GHSC, grant monies could be possible.

F8: In open session of the Special Board Meeting of January 28, 2015, members of the Board criticized the General Manager about changing the entry code on the door to the staff office area. This disallowed unrestricted entryto Board members. Members of the Board wanted unrestrained entry to the staff offices and files. Management said “No”. The Board subsequently voted to direct the General Manager to give the Board the code for the office area. The District Handbook for Golden Hills staff states that the General Manager is responsible for all the staff employees in regard to all handbook policies. He also has the obligation and authority for ensuring these policies are followed along with all issues associated with the Privacy Act. If this policy is violated, the General Manager is expected to remediate the action and issue any disciplinary action to the employee. The Board of Directors having the same code and potential accessibility twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, compromises the ability of the General Manager to comply with his duty. The 99 General Manager has no power over the Board if a violation occurs. Conversely, not having the codes allow a level of protection for the Board if a violation were to occur.

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: The GM is responsible for the security of the files, equipment and building access. It is recommended that the Board members acknowledge in writing the GM’s responsibility for security and request him to implement all actions necessary. (Findings 8,9) 105

R6: The Committee recommends that a change in policy authored by the Board should be a written change in the District policy manual. A verbal vote by the Board without the change in writing is not considered formalized policy. (Findings 8,9)

R9: Any individual who feels that he/she is being subjected to a hostile work environment, or who is a witness to such, should file a formal complaint according to the Grievance Procedures outlined in the Golden Hills District Handbook, pages 20-21. (Findings 8,9,12,14,15,22,23,25)

F9: On March 25, 2015, the President of the Board requested the District’s Password to the CalPERS account from the General Manager and was denied. At approximately the same time the request was also made by the Board President and Vice President to the Human Resources Manager and was again denied access. The Board President and Vice President are elected officials and should not have access to these types of accounts because of the Privacy Act. CalPERS is very explicit about Privacy Act violations.

F10: Starting in January 2015, the GHCSD has minimized the meeting minutes to the extent that no substantial substance has been explained on the topic issues. It has been announced by the Board that any member wishing a full description of a meeting can obtain it by requesting a recorded disc (at a fee).

F11: The Committee accessed all of the Regular Board Minutes and Special Board Minutes from the GHCSD website for 2014 and 2015(ten months). The frequency of closed meetings is excessive by Brown Act standards. Board of Director Meetings Total Meetings (Closed Session) No Action Taken 2014 Regular Board Meetings 11 11Closed Session (100%) 8 sessions 2014 Special Meetings 10 5 Closed Sessions (50%) 4 sessions 2015 Regular Meetings (to date) 14 14Closed Sessions (100%) 13sessions 2015 Special Meetings 16 10Closed Sessions (63%) 9sessions

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: It is recommended that issues such as writing of personnel policy should not be taken up by the Board over a period of months without sufficient professional knowledge for input. In this case, an external sourceshould be consulted. (Findings 11,12) 106

F12: Since December 2014, the primary topic of monthly closed session meetings is the General Manager’s performance review. Of 14 Regular Board Meetings, 11 had Closed Sessions to discuss the General Manager’s Evaluation and of 16 Special Board Meetings, 6 had Closed Sessions to discuss General Manager’s Evaluation. CSD law states that there should not be a closed session other than for a rare need. Personnel issues are allowed. However, continued evaluation of an employee over an extended period of time is ineffective and derisive. It can also be expected to change the work attitude of the person involved. 100

F13: Acting on the issue of lack of transparency identified by previous Grand Juries, the General Manager made the decision in late 2014 to purchase video streaming equipment for the board room. This equipment was installed February 2015, but has not been turned on for use, citing the lack of a policy directive. In the course of interviewing the Directors, it was reported to us that the purchase of the equipment ruffled the feathers of some of the Board members because it was not vetted with the Board beforehand. Yet, it is in the minutes that the purchase of the equipment was approved by the Board. The General Manager had authority to make discretionary purchases up to $30,000 without Board approval.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: An absence of a policy statement by the Board President for use of the visual streaming equipment is reportedly due to lack of information that would define a best procedure for the District. The Committee recommends that the General Manager assign the task to a staff member to survey Districts that own the same or similar equipment. The objective is to compile their procedures and policy statements. From this information, it is believed that the District should write a satisfactory policy. (Findings 13, 28)

F14: Complaints and comments received from senior management and clerical employees evidence several problems with “workplace harassment” by the Board of Directors. This includes: • Interference with work performance • Intimidation • Ridicule • Threats Also, management and staff personnel have reported that some of the Directors go directly to them to assign work tasks. The GHCSD Code of Conduct §§4.04 and 8.03 says that all work activity must be assigned through the GM. Staff members have stated that the current practice is highly disruptive in their performing normal work duties. The problem has been reported to the GM and to the Board but no corrective action has been taken.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: It is recommended that all staff members be informed by their immediate supervisors as to the proper chain of command for all work activity. Preferably, this will be a written instruction to each employee. In no case should a Director request that an employee of the District be asked to do a work assignment without the request going through the General Manager. (Finding 14)

F15: The General Manager, as reported by other staff members, has been coerced into doing (or not doing) what the Board demands even though requests are non-compliant with District policy. It has been said that the main threat is job security. As one example, the GM admittedly is not involved in the process of developing the Agenda packet. He attributes this to Board exclusion and the fact that the new Board Secretary does work almost exclusively for the Board of Directors. In the past, the Board Secretary did work for senior staff as well as for the Board members.

F16: In the Regular Board Meeting of November 20, 2014, some people (four identified by name) expressed their desire that the 2014 Public Employee Performance Evaluation be continued to a later date to afford additional time for review. These people were mostly related to or had friendships with the aforementioned “prominent businessman and resident”. If the Board had agreed with this action, the contracts with the employees would have expired and they would have been at risk to be dismissed with 30days’ notice. 101

F17: The 2014 Board of Directors voted on new contracts for the three senior managers before the 2015 Board took office in December. The new contracts extended the severance term from 12 months to 18 months in the event that the employee was terminated (for other than cause). The vote was 3 Aye-2 Nay and was passed. The two dissenting board members moved onto the new board along with two newly elected board members. The four members of the current Board that did not or could not vote yes to the new contracts stated to the Committee that the contract terms were essentially forced on them.

F18: The 2014-2015 Grand Jury Report to Golden Hills had the finding; “Directors are not following the Brown Act in failing to agenize items discussed in closed session.” The Board’s response to the Report stated; “The District does not have sufficient information to respond to this finding because the finding does not describe any items discussed by Directors in close session that were not properly described on an agenda”. In the regular meeting minutes of August 21, 2014, on reporting of “Memo to the Board” dated July 15, 2014, (that was turned over to the Legal Counsel for response) Legal Counsel responded that the author of the memo to the board had made some good points and that “the District would (sic) to be more diligent in announcing what will be addressed in closed session. Further, although the code is silent on the issue of public comments on closed session items, the Attorney General’s Brown Act Booklet states it would prudent to do so”.

F19: In the regular Board Meeting of May 15, 2014, one director cautioned the board; “to remain free of conflicts of interest and then discussed the same Director’s endeavor of forming a 501 (c) (3) entity entitled Golden Hills Community Center.” Earlier, on May 1, 2014, the same director had a meeting with a “prominent businessman and resident along with two other residents in hopes of building interest in the community center on the Golden Star property. This was documented in a memo to Legal Counsel. However, information about the property involved was still being discussed in closed session and was therefore a violation of the Brown Act.

F20: In the regular meeting of October 16, 2014, wherein the matter of the Golden Hills Community Center was on the agenda for discussion, the same director (refer to F19) stated, “I have received a generous offer from a “prominent businessman and resident” to provide design services, and ...did not feel the need to recuse myself from other discussion concerning usage of District properties.” Subsequently, in the same meeting, Legal Counsel provided the Board with his interpretation of the Political Reform Act relative to conflict of interest, and stated; “Provisions of the law would mandate recusal of the director if a contract involved affecting District lands.” Unfortunately, the Director had already pursued the Community Center designoffer.

F21: The 2015 election campaigns of the two new board members were run by the same “prominent businessman and resident”. All expenses were paid by this resident, with the exception of $500 that each candidate contributed. One of the other directors, a realtor,has represented the same individual in the sale of at least one property. 102

F22: The campaigns of the two elected Directors focused on financial irresponsibility and identified excessive salaries and staffing for the GHCSD. As collaborated by three sources, the aforementioned “prominent businessman and resident” made the verbal statement in the office on two occasions that “after the election, all of the managers will be gone”. Manager names were specifically identified in this pronouncement. It was reported to the Committee that this has made managers and staff feel that their jobs are in jeopardy. At the time of this report, some hourly employees are negotiating with the same union that they rejected a number of years before.

F23: At a Special Meeting of July 23, 2015, the same “prominent businessman and resident” made the statement from the podium that the three managers’ contracts are what prevent the current board from being able to fire them. “Approving those contracts was one of the worst decisions made by the previous board.” The Committee can only assume that the daughter, who is a board member, was in agreement with the statement from the podium. In fact, an ex-Director informed the Committee that the daughter asked some of the GHCSD staff “How much would it cost to cash them out?” This resident-daughter relationship is likely impacting ongoing events.

F24: One of the Directors, as well as one resident made the statement that an individual previously identified as a “prominent businessman and resident” has been developing close relations with some of the Board members and feels that he has control of the Board. This has been voicedby managerial sources as well. If the situationexists, all affected Board members could be relieved of their position.

F25: The Board advised the GM that the 2015 merit pay increases that he approved for selected staff were reduced by the Board 50% and the balance put on hold until the 2016 budget is approved. Heretofore, employee merit salary increases have been entirely at the discretion of the General Manager (CSD Law §61051 {d}). The Board stated that the level of increases exceeded the adjustment for cost of living and was considered to be excessive.

F26: A GHCSD agenda meeting is done on Tuesday, the week prior to the regular meeting. After the Board Secretary compiles the agenda, it is given to the Board President for review and approval. It is then reviewed by the District Legal Counsel for necessary changes. To comply with the requirement to make it available 72 hours prior to the CSD meeting, it would need to be posted no later than Monday PM for a Thursday meeting. The approved agenda is also given to Announced Solutions IT Services, the GHCSD webmaster, for posting on the web site. This is an involved process in a short period of time. According to interviewed sources, it does not always go as intended, meaning that the posting is lateat times, most often on the website.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: It is required that the 72 hour Brown Act rule for posting of agendas be followed. It may require that the Agenda meeting be moved up one day to allow sufficient time. (Findings 26,27)

F27: According to the senior managers, changes to agenized items are frequently made only a few hours prior to the meetings. This does not comply with Brown Act requirements. The practice fails to inform District members 72 hours in advance on what will be discussed and considered for vote. 103

F28: Because of the problems created in not posting agenda items properly, the minimization of meeting notes in 2015, the ongoing decision to not use the video equipment and the large number of closed meeting sessions, there is the perception that the Board is not attempting to work on the transparency of its actions. The 2014- 2015 Grand Jury Report mentionedthe problem of “lack of transparency” as well.

F29: In early 2015 the Board changed Legal Counsel, which is totally within the purview of the Board. In the February agenda (72 hours prior to meeting), the former Legal Counsel is named in the closed session agenda to speak about water rights. Yet, in the open session February minutes (72 hours later) a new Legal Counsel is named. Since there is no mention of this potential change in previous agendas or minutes, the Committee believes that this had to have been previously agreed to by the Board in some unofficial forum. It is an obvious Brown Act violation. Legal Counsel was not officially changed until the March Regular Meeting by Board Action. At least one Board member stated that the change was made for “cause”. The Committee contacted the former Legal Counsel and he stated that he was asked to re-interview for the position with GHCSD that he had held for the past 23 years. The termination appeared to the Committee to be based on retribution for negotiating the three new contracts for the senior manager positions. And, secondly, for stating in open session that a Director would probably be subject to a conflict of interest citation if that Director pursued the use of GHCSD land for a community center while a member of the Board.

F30: There is a strong division of trust between Directors and management. Directors feel that managers are not doing their job and that they are demonstrating signs of rebellion. The management personnel, on the other hand, are seeing that the Directors want more direct control over: • personnel decisions • salaries • operational functions Heretofore, the above have been management discretionary decisions. Until the operational structure is back in line, the District does not have a good operating team.

F31: The Committee has heard comments from several sources that Golden Hills is a “bedroom community” and that people who live that style are tagged as “commuter residents.” The meaning is that they leave early in the morning, return at night and basically relax in the evening in their homes before doing it all over the next day. The inference is that these people do not have the time or energy to get involved in the issues of local government. This partially explains the relatively low attendance at the District meetings, other than a few involved citizens. COMMENTS: The Committee met and talked with all members of the Board of Directors and the senior management. Without exception each individual presented himself (or herself) with professionalism, intelligence, amicability and commitment to their job and to the Golden Hills community. It should be a great team but it is not. The problem is centered on self-motivated agendas of some the board members that interfere with cohesion between management and Directors. This generates distrust and a hostile work environment. An Ad Hoc committee was recently formed to address these problems. The Committee has high hopes that the Ad Hoc committee takes its job seriously and not be reluctant to have meaningful discussions with management on the issues and what to do about it. A former Director said it best in a letter to the Board last year when he said, “Get your differences resolved before they become fodder for those who impose an agenda that would harm our community”. The Recommendations of this Grand Jury report will address corrective actions on many areas.

Related Recommendations (2)

R12: To facilitate community participation, the Committee recommends that the Board should make every effort to implement the installed video streaming equipment. Constituents would then have the option of viewing those sessions at home. Evening meetings held in the Board room are not convenient for those who have commuted back to Golden Hills. Also, those over 50 years old (almost 40% of the Golden Hills population) often find that they have a night vision problem and do not want to drive to attend an evening meeting. (Finding 31)

R13: The Committee recommends that the District place the 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report on the GHCSD website and on the Golden Hills Community Services building. It is suggested that each resident of Golden Hills take time to read the report and to participate actively in their community. The governing body of the District is there to serve the community. Each member of the Board must act responsibly and according to established law to serve the community. Residents are encouraged to attend the regular and special meetings and speak up if theyare not getting the full informationin the agenda package that they deserve. The Grand Jury makes its recommendations to assist the community in defining problems that exist. However, it is up to the community to demand that the Board and management staff address the issues. (Finding 31) NOTES: • The Golden Hills Community Service District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CC: TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 “stonewalling as a defense” LAMONT PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT The Lamont Public Utility District (District) Board of Directors has stated “No comment” on the approximate $210,000 missing from receipts or the revealed corruption involved on the McKee water line extension. The Board is taking the stance that the issues are under investigation and therefore they have nothing to say. Based on the investigation conducted by the 2015-2016 Kern County Grand Jury (Grand Jury), and reviewed with the Kern County District Attorney’s office, this position is simply not valid. While it is true that their insurance company is looking into the missing receipts issue, it does not preclude an open discussion of the people and procedures that were responsible. Likewise, the McKee waterline project is not something that has to be kept under wraps. In fact, the issue of the $240,000 waterline extension was settled by the District for a total amount of $30,000 paid by the guilty parties. Why only $30,000? A letter of explanation to the public is appropriate. PREFACE: The District was established on November 3, 1943. Its mission is “to provide safe and reliable water and sewer service in an efficient and responsible manner and at fair and reasonable prices with courteous, timely and responsive customer service”. The District also serves as liaison with Pacific Gas and Electric for the 400 street lights in the unincorporated areas of Lamont and Weedpatch. The District operates seven potable water wells in various locations throughout the service area. To provide peak-time capacity and pressure, the District has six well facilities equipped with booster pumps and hydro pneumatic tanks and one well on a variable frequency drive. Additionally, three of the wells are equipped with onsite storage tanks with capacities ranging from 125,000 to 450,000 gallons. Each well also includes a chlorination injection system to provide disinfection. In 1997, the District signed a ten year services contract with Southwest Water Co. (ECO Resources). On the expiration date of the contract, the District went back to being a public agency. The District kept five of the ECO Resources employees including the Office Manager (OM). All of the support equipment and supplies had to be purchased new for startup. PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: After receiving numerous complaints, the County Services and Special Districts Committee (Committee) of the Grand Jury conducted an investigation of the District operations pursuant to Penal Code §933.5. Also, the committee wished to determine to what extent the District had implemented the recommendations from the 2013-2014 Kern County Grand Jury report. PROCESS: The Committee interviewed the Board of Directors, the General Manager (GM), the new interim General Manager, and the Office Manager for the District. The Committee attended District Board meetings on January 25, 2016 and February 22, 2016. The 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report was reviewed. Additionally, the committee reviewed the Board Meeting Minutes covering the past twelve months and read the enacted 2014 policies and procedures for Cash Handling, Accounting, Purchasing and the Conflict of Interest Code Amendment. FACTS: A. The District has an elected five member Board of Directors with staggered four year terms. A Board of Directors has been seated since 1943 as well as during the ten years that the services were under contract with Southwest Water Co. Directors are compensated $100 for each Board Meeting. Two new Directors were elected in 2014. B. A Policy and Procedures manual, which was assembled on February 25, 2016 from various separate documents was presented to the Committee on February 25, 2016. Copies of the District job descriptions were provided on March 1, 2016. C. The General Manager position has gone through a number of interim hires, most lasting not more than six months. The latest GM was at the position about a year and a half and then resigned on January 31, 2016. He had been a consulting engineer for the District for two years and had no previous GM experience. The current interim GM was hired very quickly thereafter at the same $150,000 annual salary. D. The Office Manager who was brought in from ECO Resources in 2007 continues in the same position. At one time, however, the person was named for a short term as the Interim General Manager. The OM currently handles financial and Human Resources (HR) functions in addition to the general office administrative responsibilities. E. California law requires that the District file an audit report annually (CA Code 26909b). With prior approval by the Board of Supervisors, the audit can be done biannually, or if a small district, every five years (CA Code 26909f). F. As a result of the forensic 2009-2013 Audit Reports, it was found that there was approximately $210,000 missing from cash and check receipts. This form of payment is used by customers that come into the District office and give the money directly to the office clerks. At the request of the Board, the loss is being investigated by Great American Insurance Group. G. An extension to the McKee water line was started in 2013 and completed recently. This water line extension leads to a commercial development that is owned by one of the current Board of Directors, who is the sole beneficiary of the line extension. H. A study of the office was done in 2013 during which inspectors found asbestos in the building. This was reported by the 2013-2014 Kern County Grand Jury. The problem was recognized by the District in their response to the report stating that they included the repairs in the 2014-2015 budget and would be looking at alternatives to address the issue. I. A settlement was made with Dow Chemical/Shell Oil for $5.5 million in 2014 for problems related to water contamination in the District. The settlement was brought forward by Dow/Shell to forestall any possible litigation costs. They had previously settled with other complainants. The $5.5 million is ear marked for corrective actions. J. According to the complaints received and from observations of the Committee, the control of the Board Meetings is very poor. The Directors interrupt each other and the residents in the room tend to yell and disrupt the meeting. This problem has reportedly intensified since the election of the two new Directors. In the 1996-1997 Kern County Grand Jury Report, the recommendation was made that “the Board needs to be trained in the proper procedure to run a meeting. This should include the Brown Act and Government Code Section 1090.”

Additional documents

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

LAW and Justice Committee Mission Statement The California Penal Code is the foundation for the Grand Jury. The Law and110 pp.