Lake County Grand Jury
2013-2014
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
There are no major problems with the procedures in the Office of the Assessor-Recorder. The delay in corresponding with the property owner in Complaint number 17 was a result of the seasonally heavy workload and the absence of a key employee. This committee does not see a pattern of slow response to public inquires. 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 3
F2:
The shortage of manpower in the Community Development Department has caused delays in performing Code Enforcement duties in spite of revised and simplified procedures.
F3:
Marijuana ordinance enforcement is the responsibility of the Sheriff’s Department. During 2013, Code Enforcement in cooperation with the Sheriff’s Office was called between two and three times a month to inspect and tag indoor marijuana grow houses. Delays occur when it is necessary to coordinate the schedules of law enforcement and the Code Enforcement personnel.
F4:
California Health and Safety Code Section: §11469 states that, “Law enforcement is the principal objective of forfeiture.” The monies obtained by asset forfeiture of marijuana abatements is currently shared between the state, the District Attorney, and the law enforcement agencies involved in the abatement per California Health and Safety Code Section: §11489. This section of the code is specific in the ways the money can be utilized: It is for law enforcement agencies, which precludes using it to fund the code enforcement support of marijuana abatement activities.
F5:
There is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the District Attorney and Sheriff’s Office detailing the distribution of seized and forfeited property.
F6:
Lake County Sheriff’s Policy 606 clearly defines the handling of asset forfeiture cases.
F7:
The Committee verified that the Sheriff’s Office is organized and efficient in its handling and processing of asset forfeiture monies in a timely manner.
F8:
The District Attorney’s Policy Manual does not address asset forfeiture.
F9:
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) is waiving permit fees as an enticement to increasing jobs in Lake County. There is no evidence that waiving permit fees is a factor in the decision of individuals or companies regarding initiating a project in Lake County.
F10:
State of California standards are enforced by the State Department of Public Health, Sonoma County branch. The personnel regularly perform sampling, laboratory analysis, and inspection of drinking water facilities in the county.
F11:
When there is a violation of the law with water quality or a processing system there is a range of enforcement options used depending upon the urgency and/or threat to public safety.
F12:
In addition to legal enforcement, there are financial incentives used to achieve compliance in the form of grants and loans to privately managed systems and state funds for public water systems. This approach is taken when the problem is the result of old and outdated equipment or inadequate infrastructure of the water system.
F13:
Special Districts, California Department of Public Health, Drinking Water Division, and Lake County of Lake Public Health Department, express confidence in the high degree of safety and quality of public drinking water supplied to county residents.
F14:
The Grand Jury is concerned about future drinking water demands. With increased population and ongoing drought conditions, the question becomes ‘will there be enough for all?’ 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 38
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury has found the Public Defender Program and its Oversight Committee are performing efficiently and competently. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Public Defender Program and its Oversight Committee continue to function at the current level of performance. 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 12 End Notes: 1. Indigent Criminal Legal Defense Services Agreement between The County of Lake and Lake Legal Defense Services, Inc. Copies of the entire contract can be obtained from the office of the County Administrator 2. California Rules of Court, Title 10 Judicial Administrative Rules, Division 4, Chapter 13, Rule 10.952: Meetings concerning the criminal court system. Appendices:
R2:
County Administration provide budget adjustments to fund a Community Development Technician.
R3:
The BOS reconsider the practice of waiving permit fees on developments.
R4:
The BOS initiate a study of permit fees in surrounding counties with the objective of realigning the permit fee structure to be competitive
R5:
Future fees should take into consideration inflation measurements such as the Consumer Price Index (See End Notes).
R6:
The District Attorney add an Asset Forfeiture policy and procedure to the District Attorney’s Policy and Procedural Manual. 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 6 Request for Responses Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 the Grand Jury requests responses as follows: District Attorney (60 days) County Administration via the Board of Supervisors (90 days) Community Development Director via the Board of Supervisors (90 days) Board of Supervisors (90 days) Appendices Memo from Community Development Director End Notes A Consumer Price Index (CPI) measures changes in the price level of a market basket of consumer goods and services purchased by households. A CPI can be used to index (i.e., adjust for the effect of inflation) the real value of wages, salaries, pensions, for regulating prices. 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 7 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 8 Government Services Committee 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 9 The Government Services Committee conducted oversights of the following department and found no significant issues at this time: City of Lakeport 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 10 Oversight of Public Defender Program Summary: The Government Services Committee (Committee) conducted an oversight of the Public Defender Program in Lake County as part of its mandate from the county. Background: The Public Defender Program in Lake County has gone through several variations in an attempt to balance competent representation of the indigent population with the cost of supplying that representation. In the mid 1980’s, the county had public defender services as a county department, but found the county is more cost-effectively served by contracting for the services with an independent company. Since August 2, 2005, the public defender services have been supplied by Lake Legal Defense Services, Inc. (LLDS). The LLDS contract states: “Contractor shall provide competent subcontractors [i.e. attorneys] to provide adequate coverage to all Courts within the County. ‘Adequate coverage’ means generally that the business of the Courts is not delayed because of absence of and/or lack of preparation and/or experience of Contractor and/or its subcontractors. Contractor shall provide for such ancillary and supportive services as may be necessary to ensure adequate representation, including, but not limited to, investigative services, where deemed necessary by the subcontractors, and such other services properly required by its subcontractors designed to assist in the preparation and presentation of the Indigent’s case . . .” (See End Note #1) The Committee also contacted the Public Defender Program Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee was set up by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) in 2005 upon recommendation of the Lake County Civil Grand Jury. As a body that is independent from LLDS, the Oversight Committee meets monthly to review the Public Defender Program’s issues or concerns; and it reviews complaints. The Oversight Committee receives quarterly reports from LLDS on the overall Public Defender Program for Lake County. LLDS reports primarily deal with attorney staffing changes, subcontractor caseloads, transfer of cases between courts in Lake County, and the cost of defending each person represented by them. The Oversight Committee reports yearly to the BOS regarding the operation of the Public Defender’s Department. Methodology: The Committee interviewed a representative of Lake Legal Defense Services Inc., and a representative of the Public Defender Program Oversight Committee. Additionally, the Committee reviewed the Indigent Criminal Legal Defense Services Agreement with the current amendments. The following facts were gleaned from those three sources unless otherwise noted. 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 11 Discussion and Analysis: 1. The term of the LLDS contract with Lake County has been extended by Amendment six times since its inception. The current Sixth Amendment covers a term ending September 30, 2014. 2. The Sixth Amendment to the LLDS contract allocates an operating budget of $964,500 per annum. 3. LLDS has the responsibility to hire, train, and monitor the performance of its subcontractors. It reports, as required or requested, to the Oversight Committee. LLDS has staffing of: a. 7 felony attorneys (including LLDS President) b. 4 misdemeanor attorneys c. 2 juvenile case attorneys d. 1 conservatorship attorney e. 2 investigators 4. Attorneys are paid a flat monthly fee depending upon experience, but not dependent upon caseloads. 5. Eligibility for representation by a public defender is determined by sitting judge after review of Superior Court of California Form MC-210, Defendant’s Financial Statement and Notice to Defendant. [See Appendix A] 6. Cases are assigned by the sitting judge on a rotational basis depending on caseload and/or possible conflict of interest. 7. Cases have several levels of litigation which determine the level of defense necessary for adequate representation. If the caseloads of the subcontractors are such that they cannot accept another client, an outside attorney can be appointed. Outside attorneys’ services are paid at a negotiated rate. 8. A representative of LLDS attends the Lake County Criminal Justice Committee which is tasked with “identify[ing] and eliminate[ing] problems in the criminal court system and to discuss other problems of mutual concern.” (See End Note #2) Findings: F1. The Public Defender Program works well with the courts, the District Attorney’s office, and other Lake County agencies with whom it interacts. The Oversight Committee presently monitors the operation of the Public Defender Program and gives an annual report to the BOS. Recommendations: R1. The Grand Jury has found the Public Defender Program and its Oversight Committee are performing efficiently and competently. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Public Defender Program and its Oversight Committee continue to function at the current level of performance. 2013-2014 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 12 End Notes: 1. Indigent Criminal Legal Defense Services Agreement between The County of Lake and Lake Legal Defense Services, Inc. Copies of the entire contract can be obtained from the office of the County Administrator 2. California Rules of Court, Title 10 Judicial Administrative Rules, Division 4, Chapter 13, Rule 10.952: Meetings concerning the criminal court system. Appendices: