Lassen County 2012-2013 - California Grand Jury Reports

R1: implemented action. · The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be in the future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendation requires future analysis, with an explanation and the scope

R2: and parameters of an analysis, with a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for

R3: not reasonable, with a detailed explanation therefore. However, if a finding and/or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency/department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency/department. Introduction The Grand Jury is a constitutionally mandated judicial body charged to investigate civil matters but not criminal matters. The Grand Jury's responsibilities include investigating issues regarding city and county government as well as public agencies funded by the government, and issuing reports and recommendations when appropriate. The Grand Jury is mandated by law to respond to citizen's complaint letters and to inquire into the condition and management of public detention facilities within the county. The Lassen County Grand Jury received several written complaints during the fiscal year of 2012-2013. As the letters and formal complaints were received and presented to the Grand Jury, there was careful consideration of each complaint as to the validity and content. Each grievance was inspected and acted upon in a professional and conscientious manner by the Grand Jury. Confidentiality has been strictly maintained as Grand Jury members were cautioned throughout the 2012-2013 term by the Jury Foreman. The following Grand Jury report is based on interviews and information brought to the attention of and investigated by the Grand Jury. High Desert State Prison Reason for Inquiry: California Penal Code 919(b) mandates that the Grand Jury "inquire into the conditions and management of all detention facilities within their county". Inquiry Process: The 2012-2013 Lassen Grand Jury (LCGJ) toured the High Desert State Prison (HDSP) on October 12, 2012.

R4: same level as Custody. The Reception Center is being phased out, and will soon be closed for intake.

R5: There is a 4% Supervisor re-direct program being mandated from Sacramento to

R6: save money. The GJ is concerned that this could affect safety of staff. Under this program 4% of all supervisor positions are left vacant, to be covered by other on duty supervisors. There is a 15% vacancy rate on Custody Supervisor positions. There are 78 operational Correctional Officer vacancies.

R7: On average, 30 non-budgeted Correctional Officer positions are created each week (Hospital Coverage/Medical Coverage/Contraband Watch). Total Support Position jobs are 309; there are 67 jobs vacant, for a 21%+ vacancy

R8: rate. The Grand Jury would like to address the lack of interaction with any Medical Administration Staff during the Mission Overview meeting, and the question and answer meeting when we first arrived. There may have been a Prison administrative error in letting Medical Administrative staff know of our meeting/tour, however even after Medical was notified of the Grand Jury being on a tour, and several Medical Administrative staff seeing us, a representative was never made available to the Grand Jury. Only while on the Custody provided tour of the Medical CTC, at the very end in the last five minutes did a Medical Admin person show up, the Director of Nursing. Overall, the LCGJ was very impressed with the cleanliness of the prison and the openness to all our questions to Custody personnel. The staff members at HDSP are to be thanked for the job they perform in dealing with some of California's worst and most hardened criminals. Recommendations: None

R9: of service after 150,000-160,000 miles. The Chief expressed that this was too long, but with budgets the way they are, this is the best his department can do. The department receives an average of one new vehicle per year. The department has two outfitted Police bicycles and a golf cart for special

R10: events. When these units are used, they receive many positive public comments, and are great for public relations. 2012 Police calls went up by 3,000 over 2011. . A mutual aid agreement is in standing with the Lassen County Sheriff, the California Highway Patrol, and both state prisons. Good relations exist with all local agencies, courts, and district attorney.

R11: Bullet proof vests and all safety equipment are up to date. . All sworn officers receive a minimum of 24 hours of post certified training every

R12: 24 months. The department has a $24,000 dollar annual training budget.

R13: Within the next year, the chief intends to create a volunteer program for non-

R14: sworn officers to work in the department. The Chief stated that in working with the Mental Health department, it is better than it has been in a long time. His department has regular meetings with Mental Health, which have had a very positive effect. In 2012 there were 96 DUI arrests. In 2011 there were 25 DUI arrests.

R15: Personnel: The department has lost four positions over the last two years due to budget issues. These positions were lost through attrition, with no lay-offs. Currently the department has 19 positions, with the following breakdown: 16 sworn officers, one non-sworn person, and two part time Community Services Officers. The sworn officers are broken down as follows: one chief, one lieutenant, one narcotic detective, one detective/general, three sergeants, and nine patrol officers. Statistics: Chief Tom Downing provided the following department statistics, which the LCGJ wished to share with the public: 2010 2011 2012 2011/2012 comparison Incident type +1474 7415 8220 9694 Dispatched Incidents

R16: +1410 1697 3107 2510 Officer Initiated

R17: Vehicle Collisions 97 -14 119 111 Non-Injury

R18: 44 -16 60 88 Private Property

R19: 376 492 +116 816 Traffic Citations

R20: -30 101 193 131 Parking Citations

R21: Arrests +109 547 438 448 Misdemeanor

R22: 188 -16 209 204 Felony

R23: Crimes +1 1 0 Homicide 1

R24: 5 5 6 same Sexual Assault

R25: 24 +9 26 15 Aggravated Assault

R26: -9 104 113 135 Burglary . -8 186 209 194 Theft . +2 13 17 11 Auto Theft . +3 4 0 1 Arson . Miscellaneous 189 -52 245 241 Other Assault -22 126 158 148 Domestic Violence . 157 176 163 -6 Vandalism

R27: +22 2,063 2,085 Case Numbers Issued 2,442 Commendation: Chief Tom Downing came to the LCGJ well prepared for the tour/interview and demonstrated that he has significant understanding of his department and his duties. During the interview the Chief stressed that his purpose is "public safety", and it was apparent that the Chief genuinely cared about doing a good job in his position and for the community. Recommendations: Continue with the plan to create a volunteer non-sworn officer program within the department. Continue to attempt to hire qualified female sworn officers within the department.

R28: (a) (1) The county auditor shall either make or contract with a certified public accountant or public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts and records of every special district within the county for which an audit by a certified public accountant or public accountant is not otherwise provided. In each case, the minimum requirements of the audit shall be prescribed by the Controller and shall conform to generally accepted auditing standards. (2) Where an audit of a special district's accounts and records is made by a certified public accountant or public accountant, the minimum requirements of the audit shall be prescribed by the Controller and shall conform to generally accepted auditing standards, and a report thereof shall be filed with the Controller and with the county auditor of the county in which the special district is located. The report shall be filed within 12 months of the end of the fiscal year or years under examination. (3) Any costs incurred by the county auditor, including contracts with, or employment of, certified public accountants or public accountants, in making an audit of every special district pursuant to this section shall be borne by the special district and shall be a charge against any unencumbered funds of the district available for the purpose. (4) For a special district that is located in two or more counties, the provisions of this subdivision shall apply to the auditor of the county in which the treasury is located. (5) The county controller, or ex officio county controller shall affect this section in those counties having a county controller, or ex officio county controller. (b) (1) A special district may, by unanimous request of the governing board of the special district, with unanimous approval of the board of supervisors, replace the annual audit required by this section with one of the following, performed in accordance with professional standards, as determined by the county auditor: A biennial audit covering a two-year period. (2) An audit covering a five-year period, if the special district's annual revenues do not exceed an amount specified by the board of supervisors. An audit conducted at specific intervals, as recommended by the county auditor, shall be completed at least once every five years. (c) (1) A special district may, by unanimous request of the governing board of the special district, with unanimous approval of the board of supervisors, replace the annual audit required by this section with a financial review, in accordance with the appropriate professional standards, as determined by the county auditor if the following conditions are met: All of the special district's revenues and expenditures are transacted through the county's financial system. The special district's annual revenues do not exceed one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). If the board of supervisors is the governing board of the special district, it may, upon unanimous approval, replace the annual audit of the special district required by this section with a financial review in accordance with the appropriate professional standards, as determined by the county auditor, if the special district satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph (1). (d) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a special district shall be exempt from the requirement of an annual audit if the financial statements are audited by the Controller to satisfy federal audit requirements. The Grand Jury also noted the existence of the California Special Districts Association that provides many services to support the operations of special districts throughout the state. The Grand Jury sees this organization as a strong source of operational support to allow board members to learn and apply appropriate leadership to their respective districts. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the County Auditor's Office require that all

R29: annual audit requirement and take the necessary steps to comply with the California Government Code.

R30: including, increased workloads; the need for staff productive increases; better customer service; economic climate and emerging technologies. Nationwide, many jurisdictions are moving ahead with this technology, including

R31: California, with a goal of mandatory e-Filings in some types of court actions and virtual courthouses. The California Court system agenda is to work toward and includes: electronic . legal files; electronic filing and service; electronic access to cases and documents. The amount of paper that is accumulated by the Courts is clogging the system and

R32: slowing it down. A Judicial Council survey indicated that a majority of courts have implemented or shown an interest in e-Filing initiatives; further, e-Filing will be the number one money saving addition to the California Courts case management system project. The Judicial Council has endorsed e-Filing and has stated: "Providing technology solutions in the near term to improve efficiencies in Court operations, by maximizing the value of document management systems, e-Filing will provide: Information at the time of a decision, consistency in decision-making, faster access (anytime, anyplace, anywhere), concurrent access by clerk and judicial officers, convenient access for subscribers, transparency to the public. e-Filing will provide the following benefits and efficiencies for Judges: 24/7 access to case documents from anywhere; ability to carry an entire electronic caseload in one's laptop; paper on demand, print only what is needed when it is needed; ability to receive filings from parties in minutes, not hours or days; electronically search case file documents; notice and service of process electronically; ability to electronically sign documents anywhere, at any time; validate paper court documents from the electronic repository. e-Filing will provide the following efficiencies and benefits for Court staff: Reduce the handling of paper; eliminate/reduce duplicative data entry; minimize lost records/delay with checked-out files; improve workflow and timeliness; 24/7 access to case documents; electronic backup of Court records; and it will improve the work environment and priority focus on customer support and knowledge of operations. e-Filing will provide the following efficiencies and benefits for attorneys: It will . be cost effective – e-Filing can be less expensive than producing, processing, and tracking paper (time and document cost savings); no contracted couriers, paralegals or other clerical staff making courthouse runs; reduced overtime since late working lawyers can file from just about anywhere at any time; e-Filing will allow for better organization - easy access to all e-Filed documents in a court case. Beyond the fiscal benefits to the courts, e-Filing will provide: Speed (e-Filed

R33: documents are available earlier to Judges and court research attorneys); green footprint (less paper, storage, transportation costs; fewer lost files or documents; there can exist multiple concurrent users of the court file and file information.

R34: required by law for all Departments/Special Districts within Lassen County.

R35: Lassen County Administrative Office