Madera County Grand Jury
2021-2022
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 (7)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The MCGJ finds that the Madera County Office of Education and Madera County School Districts are in compliance with California State mandates for At-Promise students.
F2:
The MCGJ finds the Madera County Office of Education and Madera County School Districts are addressing At Promise youth through their Strategic Plan.
F3:
The MCGJ finds throughout Madera County, all school districts seek to maintain At-Promise students’ connection to a relevant and Career Technical Alternative Education Services program. (CTAES).
F4:
The MCGJ finds that the online food inspection program scheduled for January 2020 has not been implemented.
F5:
The MCGJ finds that private interests in leasing the airport facilities wererepeatedly ignored.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The MCGJ recommends that the Madera County Office of Education and Madera County School Districts continue to follow State mandates for At-Promise students.
R2:
The MCGJ recommends Madera County Office of Education and Madera County School Districts continue to address At Promise youth in their Strategic Plan.
R3:
The MCGJ recommends Madera County Office of Education and Madera County School Districts continue to connect At-Promise students to Career Technical Alternative Education Service program. 64 65 66 67 1920-04 Madera County Food Safety/Food Inspection SUMMARY: The US Federal Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Food Code and the California Retail Food Code provide scientific standards and guidelines that states and localities may adopt for food safety in restaurants and institutional food settings. The code includes temperature standards for cooking, cooling, refrigerating, reheating, and holding food. It also recommends that inspectors visit restaurants every six months. Each state or locality may choose to adopt any or all of the code in its laws or regulations. There arevariations among jurisdictions in standards currently being applied to restaurants and other food establishment inspections.Madera County has no food safety reporting requirements. The Environmental Health Department does not report food safety reports to any State or Federal agencies. All inspection programs performed by the Environmental Health Department, except food inspections, are regulated by the State of California.Madera County Grand Jury (MCGJ) focused onretail food facility inspection, compliance with standards, and recording the results by the Food Inspection Program. BACKGROUND: All food services requiring a food inspection in Madera County are required to be inspected by the Food Safety Program (FSP) under the jurisdiction of Madera County’s Environmental Health Division (EHD). In the past 20 years, MCGJ has reviewed this entity in 2007/2008 and in 2012/2013. Both inquiries discoveredthe program was under-funded and under-staffed causing inspections to be delayed or not performed at all. Insufficient time for available personnel limited meeting inspection goals. The FSP is not required to report food inspections to any State or Federal agency or any public entity. Because of these past reports, the MCGJ was prompted to reexamine the Food Safety Program to see what changes were made in the past seven years to rectify the inspection backlog.
R4:
The MCGJ recommends that, beginning fiscal year 21-22, EHD post online food inspection report results onthe EHD website. 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 1920-05 City of Madera Police Department Unveiling Truths of Local Law Enforcement SUMMARY: The City of Madera Police Department (MPD) is facing challenges in a community that is growing economically and in racial diversity. The law enforcement officer’s job is both physically and mentally challenging. In an instant, officers can be thrown into extremely stressful situations. The City of Madera Police Department is staffed by a pool of young, motivated officers and an experienced command structure. High-risk encounters coupled with a focus on community relationships in the efforts to serve and protect the City of Madera residents. How these officers cope with work related stress and maintain compassion as positive role models is what guided the MCGJ focus. BACKGROUND: When the Madera County Grand Jury (MCGJ) started considering what areas within public safety to investigate, it was decided to reviewthe City of Madera Police Department (MPD) therewere several reasons for this choice,including police stress reduction programs, police in community outreach programs, crime statistics, police department staffing, and procedural deficiencies. The City of Madera Police Department is made up of 70 sworn officers (able to carry a firearm on duty) and 35 non-sworn employees. The department is organized into 3 divisions: Administration: Community outreach, including. (97Neighborhood Watch programs), dispatch, and non-sworn personnel. Operations: The largest division of the department comprised of patrol personnel. Investigations: Detective Unit, Special Investigations Unit, and Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement and Animal Control are part of the police department. The police department also has two K9 (canine) officer. One K9 is trained as a drug sniffing/identifying dog and the other one is a multi-purpose bite/attack dog. The K9 officers are issued bullet proof vests. Summertime temperatures make prolonged wearing of vests problematic for K9 officers. The cost for each K9 officers to be service ready is $10,000 with an additional $10,000 for training. This one-time cost does not include the costs for veterinary care and food for these canine officers which can vary with each K9 officer. The K9 officers work vehicles are unique and specifically designed for K9 officers and their human partner.
R5:
TheMCGJ recommends that immediately the City of Madera and the County of Madera entertain the financial investment interests of private entities. 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
MCGJ finds that in housing areas of the jail, staffing levels are not adequate to ensure the safety of the staff and inmates.
F2:
MCGJ finds that the custody areas lack routine maintenance. MCGJ finds that a lack of a daily structured regimentation contributes to a lack of self-pride by
F3:
MCGJ recommends that immediately a daily regulated schedule be implemented for inmates. Required Respondents: Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury request responses as follows: From the following elected county officials within 60 days: Board of Supervisors 200 West Fourth Street Madera, CA 93637 Sheriff Tyson Pogue Madera County Sheriff Headquarters 2725 Falcon Drive Madera, CA 93637 Invited Respondents: Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury request responses as follows: From the following governing bodies within 90 days: Assistant Sheriff Darin McMechan Madera County Sheriff Department-Jail Division 2725 Falcon Drive Madera, CA 93637 Assistant Chief Chris Rodriguez Madera County Jail 195 Tozer Road Madera, CA 93637
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R13-14:
officers on each of three shifts. This provides a ratio of 1 officer to 31-33 inmates on each shift. The number of inmates in each housing unit varies and officers are assigned based on availability. During the MCGJ visit and witnessed, in one unit, only one officer was charged with handling an entire unit whereas, in other units more than one officer was available to maintain safety for the officers and inmates. Environmental Conditions: The exterior and the interior of the Administrative and Training portion of the facility is well-maintained and manicured. Although the Grand Jury did not see the outdoor areas intended for inmates, it was described as having a 12-foot perimeter fence topped with razor wire. The yard is enclosed with 2-story high block walls, so inmates are not visible to the public at any time. Information provided by the jail indicates that inmate housing areas are fully equipped with lights and a surveillance system. Lighting and temperature of the housing unit are within the California Title 24 standards and are maintained by on-site maintenance personnel. Title 24 standards includes ADA accessibility. The facility is not new, however, routine maintenance has been deferred for an extended period of time. The look of the inmate housing area of the building is aged and has significant wear. This is evidenced by worn flooring, and detached rubber floor coving. Orientation of Inmates: The intake area is typically staffed by three officers although the time may be divided as they attend to arriving inmates. A watch commander also assists as arriving inmates are searched for contraband with a pat search, body scan, and metal detectors. Incoming inmates are divided into three types of holding cells: intake cells, safety cells, or sobering cells. The various cells require differing levels of monitoring. Processing of inmates includes checks for wants and warrants, pictured, fingerprinted, and booked. Inmates are then evaluated for either release or housing. Those moving onto housing are further evaluated based on their classification, in order to minimize disruptive housing issues. The MCGJ was not provided with a daily schedule for inmates. Time appears to be at-will of inmates. Incoming inmates are oriented to the facility both verbally and in written form. Topics addressed during the orientation include correspondence, visiting, telephone use, inmate grievance procedures, available programs, how to participate in activities, medical services, housing assignments, court appearance, voting registration, inmate discipline, and rules for the module and facility. Housing: At this facility most inmates have individual cells. Individual cells are provided as safety measures as many inmates are involved in gangs and need to be housed separately. However, those without gang ties may be housed in dorm units of 10 inmates. The average detainment is 34-36 days. The most common cause for detainment is Driving Under the Influence (DUI). Kitchen/Nutrition: Contracted kitchen service provider, Aramark, supervises between six and 12 select inmates who work in the kitchen area preparing and packaging meals while learning marketable skills. Those working in the kitchen are screened by medical and are trained in culinary safety, the rules of the kitchen, food preparation, proper food storage, hygiene, and cross contamination. Personal Appearance of Inmates: Inmates and their surroundings appeared dirty and disorganized. Inmate grooming was found to demonstrate a lack of concern for their personal appearance. Evidence of personal hygiene was lacking. Clothing was untucked, and their hair was both unwashed and uncombed. The interior of the multi-inmate cells also lacked regular cleaning as used food containers, dirty laundry, and unmade beds were viewed by the MCGJ. Each inmate is issued clothing and linens. Medical Services: During the week one RN, one LVN, one CNA as well as two mental health clinicians are available to handle the needs of the inmates. One FNP, one health service administrator, and a medical director are available for eight hours per week. Medical services are provided by Well Path, the county' contracted provider. Limited dental services are also available. Program-Vocational: Classes are available to inmates on preparing resumes, doing mock interviews, and completing classes to meet court directives. A solar program is an on-going program for solar installation. Inmates are very excited about participating. Once released, those completing the in-custody part of the solar installation program, are eligible to move to the continuation of the program at the non- profit GRID facility. Once completing the program, inmates may earn up to $70,000 per year. Findings: 1. MCGJ finds that in housing areas of the jail, staffing levels are not adequate to ensure the safety of the staff and inmates. 2. MCGJ finds that the custody areas lack routine maintenance. MCGJ finds that a lack of a daily structured regimentation contributes to a lack of self-pride by 3. inmates. Recommendations: 1. MCGJ recommends that staffing levels in housing areas be increased immediately to ensure the safety of both the staff and inmates. MCGJ recommends that long-deferred maintenance issues be immediately addressed. 2. 3. MCGJ recommends that immediately a daily regulated schedule be implemented for inmates. Required Respondents: Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury request responses as follows: From the following elected county officials within 60 days: Board of Supervisors 200 West Fourth Street Madera, CA 93637 Sheriff Tyson Pogue Madera County Sheriff Headquarters 2725 Falcon Drive Madera, CA 93637 Invited Respondents: Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury request responses as follows: From the following governing bodies within 90 days: Assistant Sheriff Darin McMechan Madera County Sheriff Department-Jail Division 2725 Falcon Drive Madera, CA 93637 Assistant Chief Chris Rodriguez Madera County Jail 195 Tozer Road Madera, CA 93637
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The MCGJ finds there are unfilled and unfunded Correctional Officer positions.
F2:
The MCGJ finds that the booking and intake area is small.
F3:
The MCGJ finds a lack of mental health treatment options available in Madera County.
F4:
The MCGJ finds there is a limited conduit for released inmates to find employment.
F5:
The MCGJ finds MCDC works well with individual inmates with limited financial support.
F6:
The MCGJ finds that the MCDC was very accommodating and open to taking questions.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
TheMCGJ recommends that, by the beginning of the fiscal year 21-22, the Department of Corrections secure funding to fill vacant positions.
R2:
TheMCGJ recommends that, by the beginning of the fiscal year 21-22, the MCDC redesign the workflow of the booking/intake area.
R3:
The MCGJ recommends that, by the beginning of the fiscal year 21-22, Madera County Probation and Department of Corrections investigate an outsourcing option for mental health services.
R4:
TheMCGJ recommends that, by the beginning of fiscal year 21-22 MCDC and Madera County Probation work cooperatively to seek employment opportunities in the local area.
R5:
The MCGJ recommends that theMCDC continue to work cooperatively with inmates to provide work opportunities to increase a financial support system for released inmates.
R6:
The MCGJ recommends thatthe MCDC continue their work in providing open communication to the MCGJ. 20 21
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The MCGJ finds that the Madera County Office of Education and Madera County School Districts are in compliance with California State mandates for At-Promise students.
F2:
The MCGJ finds the Madera County Office of Education and Madera County School Districts are addressing At Promise youth through their Strategic Plan.
F3:
The MCGJ finds throughout Madera County, all school districts seek to maintain At-Promise students’ connection to a relevant and Career Technical Alternative Education Services program. (CTAES).
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The MCGJ recommends that the Madera County Office of Education and Madera County School Districts continue to follow State mandates for At-Promise students.
R2:
The MCGJ recommends Madera County Office of Education and Madera County School Districts continue to address At Promise youth in their Strategic Plan.
R3:
The MCGJ recommends Madera County Office of Education and Madera County School Districts continue to connect At-Promise students to Career Technical Alternative Education Service program. 64 65 66
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The MCGJ finds that current staffing levels, determined by permit fee income, leave inspection requirement goals unattainable.
F2:
The MCGJ finds that the lack of available vehicles hinders timely inspections.
F3:
The MCGJ finds that the FSP does not assign “risk” categories for establishments with repeated infractions.
F4:
The MCGJ finds that the online food inspection program scheduled for January 2020 has not been implemented.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The MCGJ recommends that,beginning fiscal year 21-22,the EHD study the fee structure and elements of inspection (# Inspections*Inspection and Travel time + fee =Budgetary Allotment). The calculation will provide the number of staff and time required to complete all inspections. Further, if funding is inadequate, request funding from the general fund or raise fees to complete all required FSP inspections on a timely basis. 68
R2:
The MCGJ recommends that, beginning fiscal year 21-22,the EHD work within the department to set up a schedule for vehicle usage assignments.
R3:
The MCGJ recommends that, beginning fiscal year 21-22,EHD assign risk categories to establishments with inspection failures and impose fines.
R4:
The MCGJ recommends that, beginning fiscal year 21-22, EHD post online food inspection report results onthe EHD website. 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 1920-05 City of Madera Police Department Unveiling Truths of Local Law Enforcement SUMMARY: The City of Madera Police Department (MPD) is facing challenges in a community that is growing economically and in racial diversity. The law enforcement officer’s job is both physically and mentally challenging. In an instant, officers can be thrown into extremely stressful situations. The City of Madera Police Department is staffed by a pool of young, motivated officers and an experienced command structure. High-risk encounters coupled with a focus on community relationships in the efforts to serve and protect the City of Madera residents. How these officers cope with work related stress and maintain compassion as positive role models is what guided the MCGJ focus. BACKGROUND: When the Madera County Grand Jury (MCGJ) started considering what areas within public safety to investigate, it was decided to reviewthe City of Madera Police Department (MPD) therewere several reasons for this choice,including police stress reduction programs, police in community outreach programs, crime statistics, police department staffing, and procedural deficiencies. The City of Madera Police Department is made up of 70 sworn officers (able to carry a firearm on duty) and 35 non-sworn employees. The department is organized into 3 divisions: Administration: Community outreach, including. (97Neighborhood Watch programs), dispatch, and non-sworn personnel. Operations: The largest division of the department comprised of patrol personnel. Investigations: Detective Unit, Special Investigations Unit, and Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement and Animal Control are part of the police department. The police department also has two K9 (canine) officer. One K9 is trained as a drug sniffing/identifying dog and the other one is a multi-purpose bite/attack dog. The K9 officers are issued bullet proof vests. Summertime temperatures make prolonged wearing of vests problematic for K9 officers. The cost for each K9 officers to be service ready is $10,000 with an additional $10,000 for training. This one-time cost does not include the costs for veterinary care and food for these canine officers which can vary with each K9 officer. The K9 officers work vehicles are unique and specifically designed for K9 officers and their human partner.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The MCGJ finds that the Board of Supervisors committed nonfeasance by not taking appropriate action on a timely basis on the ongoing workplace harassment complaints and issues.
F2:
The MCGJ finds that the CAO’s $306,000 salary is excessive commensurate to the size of the County population and budget.
F3:
The MCGJ finds that the CAO’s severance of $113,168.34 was paid by county taxpayers.
F4:
The MCGJ finds that the Board of Supervisors negligent in failing to address the ten years of harassment thus allowing the unhealthy work environment to persist.
F5:
The MCGJ finds that private interests in leasing the airport facilities wererepeatedly ignored.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The MCGJ recommends that the Board of Supervisors immediately address, review,and curtailall abuses of power in the county workplace by working with the County Human Resources Director to ensure that adopted Policies and Procedure protocols are enforced.
R2:
The MCGJ recommends that the County Director of Human Resources immediately conduct compensation research and salary review forthe CAO position as it relates to counties and budgets similar in size to Madera County.
R3:
The MCGJ recommends that the Board of Supervisors immediately document and provide a rationale for the severance package and payout made to the CAO.
R4:
The MCGJ recommends that immediately changes are made to Resolution No. 2019-128 “Policy and Guidelines on Discrimination and Harassment,” adopted by Madera County Board of Supervisors August 20, 2019, to enable employees to report issues to the Human Resources Department without fear of retribution or retaliation. PART II Coarsegold Rezoning: The complaints were failure by the BOS to listen to impacted constituents. SUMMARY: The Madera County Grand Jury (MCGJ) responded to complaints regarding the ongoing request to rezone a Coarsegold neighborhood from residential rural to light industrial. Residents of the area in question presented to the Board of Supervisors’ objections to this rezone, provided a signed petition by all neighbors and continue to oppose this rezoning. This issue has come before the Board of Supervisors and County Planning Department numerous times beginning in 2002 and continuing through 2018. BACKGROUND: Over the past 17 years, a property owner in the Meadow Springs Ranch neighborhood has repeatedly requested the rezoning of a30-acre parcel from Residential Mountain Single Family (RMS) to Industrial, Urban or Rural, Light LI. The request also includedan amendment to the General Plan and Coarsegold Area Plan designations from Rural Residential (RR) to Light Industrial (LI). The property is located on the West Side of Highway 41, between Veater Ranch Road and Stone Creek Drive. The parcel was split into two lots in 2014 (APN #054-090-095 and APN #095-090-096)and is surrounded entirely by residential homes. A petition signed on June 12, 2018 by 121 residents, has continually opposed the rezoning citing noise, traffic flow issues, and environmental impacts. Additionally, reviews completed and recommendations by the County Planning Department, Cal Trans, and the Regional Water Control Board also recommended denial of this rezoning and filed a negative environmental impact report. This report addresses the ongoing requests and opposition presented to the Board of Supervisors by the various agencies and concerned property owners.
R5:
TheMCGJ recommends that immediately the City of Madera and the County of Madera entertain the financial investment interests of private entities. 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
MCGJ finds thatthe Madera County Juvenile Detention Facility provides structure to reduce the recidivismrate of youth participating in the Cadet Academy Program.
F2:
MCGJ finds thatthe faculty and staff provide a supportive encouraging environment for youth.
F3:
MCGJ finds thatwith the passage of SB 823, Madera County faces new challenges with the realignment population.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R13-14:
officers on each of three shifts.This providesa ratio of 1officerto 31-33 inmates on eachshift. The number of inmates in each housing unit variesandofficers are assignedbased on availability.During the MCGJ visitandwitnessed, inone unit,only one officer was charged with handling an entire unit whereas, in other units more than one officer was availableto maintain safety for the officers and inmates. Environmental Conditions:Theexterior and the interior ofthe Administrative and Training portionof the facility is well-maintainedand manicured. Although the Grand Jury did not see the outdoor areas intended for inmates, it was described as havinga 12-foot perimeter fence topped with razor wire. The yard is enclosed with 2-story high block walls,so inmates are not visible to the public at any time. Information provided by the jail indicates thatinmate housing areas arefully equipped with lightsand a surveillancesystem. Lighting and temperature of the housing unit are withintheCaliforniaTitle 24 standardsand are maintained by on-sitemaintenancepersonnel. Title 24 standards includes ADA accessibility.The facility is not new, however,routinemaintenance has been deferredfor an extended period of time. The look of the inmate housing area of the building is aged and has significant wear.This is evidenced byworn flooring, and detached rubber floor coving. Orientation of Inmates:The intake area is typicallystaffed by threeofficersalthoughthe time may be divided as they attend to arriving inmates. A watch commander also assists asarriving inmates are searched for contraband with a pat search,bodyscan,and metal detectors. Incoming inmates are divided intothree types of holding cells: intake cells, safety cells, or sobering cells. The various cells require differinglevels ofmonitoring. Processing of inmates includeschecks for wants and warrants, pictured, fingerprinted,and booked. Inmates are then evaluated foreither release or housing.Those moving onto housingarefurther evaluated based ontheir classification,in order to minimize disruptive housing issues. The MCGJ was not provided with a daily schedule for inmates. Time appears to be at-will of inmates. Incominginmatesare oriented to the facility both verbally and in written form. Topics addressedduring the orientation include correspondence, visiting,telephone use,inmategrievanceprocedures, available programs, how to participate in activities,medical services, housing assignments, court appearance, voting registration,inmatediscipline,andrules for the moduleand facility. 7
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.