Gran Jurado del Condado de Mendocino
1998-1999
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
The client was under the care and supervision of MH Department for 12 years as a CONREP client and received multiple services including group and individual therapy sessions. CONREP requires participants to endorse and adhere to individualized plans and sets of conditions. These include attending individual and group therapy sessions, submitting to substance abuse screening, allowing home visits and collateral contacts, having periodic psychological assessments, and taking psychotropic medications as prescribed. Failure to adhere to the terms and conditions set by CONREP can result in revocation of the community out-patient status. The County received $134,169 in 1997-98 to provide services to CONREP clients released to the County. The 1997 budgeted cost of CONREP per patient, one of whom was this client, was $21,879.
F2:
MH Department is required to provide the Court with quarterly reports on CONREP clients. These reports demonstrate that this client: a. Remained on the same psychotropic medication in increasing dosages, finally receiving Haldol 150 mg., monthly; b. Exhibited the same symptoms of his mental illness; and c. Had the same therapeutic goals set each year.
F3:
There was no documented evidence of progress during the 12 years. Despite not attaining any of the goals set for him, mental health services were reduced on a predetermined time table.
F4:
In the 12 years between July 18, 1986 and his death July 16, 1998, the client was threatened three times with revocation of his out-patient status due to non-compliance with his medications. Each time, the revocation was rescinded with his renewed promises of compliance with the terms and conditions of his contract.
F5:
In 1990, a psychological assessment of the client recommended the continued structure of day treatment programs and ongoing supervision from the CONREP program or there was a "risk of engaging in violent behavior." Also noted in that report was that the client "suffers from serious problems in thinking. There is a concrete, immature quality to his thought processes that leads to faulty conceptualizations and poor judgment."
F6:
At the time of his death, the client was under additional emotional stress. He was to have a court hearing July 17, 1998, regarding his continued participation in CONREP and he had an upcoming hearing on his Social Security benefits. The MH Department documented increased symptoms of his mental illness and anxiety attacks. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150 "When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7 or other professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation. Such facility shall require an application in writing stating the circumstances under which the person's condition was called to the attention of the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person has probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled. If the probable cause is based on the statement of a person other than the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person, such person shall be liable in a civil action for intentionally giving a statement which he or she knows to be false." (5150) Findings
F7:
not to ask for mental health department assistance.
F8:
to continue the confrontation after the client returned to his apartment building.
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Ukiah City Council should ensure that UPD officers receive immediate and comprehensive training in: a. Scope of their authority and civil liberties; b. Dealing with the mentally ill; c. Escalation in the use of force, with emphasis on process prior to drawing their weapons; d. Techniques in negotiating with hostile suspects; and e. Techniques in take-down procedures.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should ensure immediate and comprehensive training for all appropriate MH Department workers in the proper use of 5150 and the civil liberties of the mentally ill.
R3:
There must be coordination and training between Mendocino County MH Department, Ukiah Police Department, and the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office. Comment The Grand Jury recognizes the difficult job that peace officers have in the performance of their duties and that their lives are frequently in danger. However, these officers elected to follow their profession and we in the community they serve expect them to keep themselves polished by constantly upgrading their skills and to respect the sanctity of human life. We expect their chiefs and captains to create an environment which encourages officers to excel in all aspects of their jobs and to take advantage of all training available to them. It is disheartening to the Grand Jury to learn that the Chief of Police indicated additional training probably would not have changed this incident's outcome. The Grand Jury urges the UPD to use this incident in training, focusing on how to prevent any such incident in the future. Response Required Response Requested Ukiah City Council Ukiah Police Department Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mendocino County Department of Mendocino County Sheriff Mental Health
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
F1:
The Brooktrails Hazard Abatement Program started in 1991 as a response to the threat of rapidly spreading wildfires in the wake of the Oakland Hills fire, under the authority granted the BTCSD by California Government Code Sections 61623.4 and 61623.5.
F2:
All testimony supported the overall goals of the program: to reduce the risk of a large and fast moving fire through the Brooktrails area. Hazards on 1,000 to1,500 properties are cited and abated each year. Program Implementation Findings
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R2:
Since 1993, almost every property has been on the abatement list once and many have been listed twice or more. Contrary to allegations in the complaint, the Grand Jury found no evidence of fraud or kick-backs or of selective enforcement in the abatement process. Non-resident owners were most often cleared through the BTCSD and the costs (plus fees) added to their tax bills.
R3:
The cost to property owners has ranged from $280 to $1,000 per lot (lots average 6,000 square feet in size). The BTCSD encourages land owners to contract privately for the work but in about 25% of the cases, work has been put up for public bid because nothing has been done. Greenbelt Areas
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
High schools in Mendocino, Point Arena, Ukiah, and Willits provided rosters and complete certification forms.
F2:
Potter Valley High School provided a roster and certification forms, but one certification form was incomplete.
F3:
Anderson Valley High School did not submit a roster, but did provide certification forms.
F4:
Fort Bragg High School submitted no roster, but provided certification forms, not all of which were complete.
F5:
Laytonville High School submitted no roster and no certification forms, but sent a declaration stating that "Non-credentialed coaches receive regular supervision at practices and home games to assure proper practice and good game management." There was no mention of tuberculosis testing.
F6:
Round Valley High School submitted incomplete certification forms. There was no roster, only spotty documentation and no mention of tuberculosis testing.
F7:
There is no standard certification form being used by all districts.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Given the potential for injury or liability, district school boards must ensure that proper certification of part-time coaches takes place, including adequate documentation which is readily available. Response Required Anderson Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees Fort Bragg Unified School District Board of Trustees Laytonville Unified School District Board of Trustees Potter Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees Round Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees Mendocino County District Attorney
R2:
The Mendocino County Superintendent of Schools should recommend to the district superintendents a standard, County-wide form for part-time coach certification and all high schools in the County should use it in the hiring process. Response Required Mendocino County Superintendent of Schools Anderson Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees Fort Bragg Unified School District Board of Trustees Laytonville Unified School District Board of Trustees Mendocino Unified School District Board of Trustees Point Arena High School District Board of Trustees Potter Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees Round Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees Ukiah Unified School District Board of Trustees Willits Unified School District Board of Trustees
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
The EHD lacks written policies and procedures or guidelines for resolving citizen complaints. Without guidelines, each EHS interprets state and local statutes and department policy. This results in infrequent, inadequate, and unlawful conduct regarding complaint resolution in citizen complaints.
F2:
The EHD lacks written policies and procedures or guidelines for ongoing review of the citizen complaint process, thus perpetuating and exacerbating the current poor practices.
F3:
EHD states that its policy requires that the complainant conduct a follow up inspection within ten days and report back. If the complainant does not report in ten days the complaint is considered closed. Many of the specialists interviewed were unaware of or not clear regarding this "policy".
F4:
The Grand Jury's extensive review of complaint records revealed that of EHD does not adequately communicate with complainants.
F5:
Management review of complaints is cursory and inadequate. Complaints are left unresolved without adequate management attention being given to solve the problems satisfactorily. For example: A complaint was filed in 1988 regarding open sewage standing in and/or flowing through neighborhood front and back yards. It took the EHD approximately four years to respond and then only after repeated complaints by the citizens living in the neighborhood. As of April 1, 1999 the EHD has failed to mitigate this health hazard. The PHD made the following determinations on April 19, 1993 regarding this complaint: a. "At that time I put dye in your toilet and determined that there was evidence that the ponding in your back yard contained sewage." b. "The discharge of sewage to the surface of the ground is a threat to the health of visitors and neighbors." c. "You are directed to take such action as necessary to discontinue the practice." d. "The situation is worsened by the moderately heavy fly population. The flies can pick up the sewage on their bodies and transport to the foods of persons in the area" e. "I have scheduled this for review on 31 May, 1993. At that time you should have made progress in correcting this situation." The review on May 31, 1993 was not conducted and no further action was taken by the EHD until 1996. In April 1996, the complainants further complained and then again in December 1996. After the December complaint the Supervising EHS requested a report , from the EHS, on the status of the complaint. That request was not complied with, the Supervising EHS did not follow up. In January 1997, the following determination was made regarding the complaint. a. "After inspection of the septic system at referenced property it was determined by this department that the system is not working properly, allowing sewage to back up into the residence." b. "This constitutes a risk to health of the residents when this occurs." In October 1998 the EHD responded to the complainants, but only after an investigation was begun by the Grand Jury. In its response the division stated "However, the Division of Environmental Health will not take legal action to improve drainage because we have no legal recourse." In addition it was recommended to the neighborhood that "Children and adults should be advised to not enter or play in the ponded water...". On May 12, 1999, the Grand Jury requested a written response from the EHD to explain its failure to act, on this complaint, using enforcement authority under Penal Code Sections 370, 372, and 373a. On May 20, 1999, the EHD issued a Notice of Violation to the offending property owner citing Penal Code Sections 370, 372, and 373a as its legal authority. Testimony supports the fact that EHD failed to act because doing so may cause a hardship on the offending property owner. As a further example of inadequate complaint review, a complaint was filed in 1979 regarding sewage being discharged on the ground at a multi-family complex. A review of this complaint by the Grand Jury revealed that the complaint is still unresolved and that the engineering consulting firm engaged by the owner to design a septic system made misleading statements to both the EHD and the Community Housing Development Commission in an apparent attempt to gain favorable determinations by these two regulating agencies. A report stating the true condition of the septic system was, however, provided by the consultants to the property owner and the EHD. On May 14, 1999, the EHD conducted an inspection of the septic system and noted that repairs were being undertaken. The report failed to note that the required County permits had not been obtained for these repairs. The lack of policies and guidelines directly contributes to the inability of the EHD to correct this situation.
F6:
California Penal Code Section 370 provides the authority for the EHD to abate a public nuisance. Staff testified that they were unaware of their authority to abate public nuisances. Penal Code Section 372 states that "...anyone who willfully omits to perform any legal duty relating to the removal of a public nuisance, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
F7:
The EHD fails to complete and/or resolve 25% of citizen complaints. The EHD claims 16% are uncompleted but is unable to substantiate this claim. Whichever figure is accepted, 25% or 16%, that is unacceptable performance by any reasonable community standard. 8, The Public Resources Council has submitted recommendations regarding compliant response to department managers and the Board of Supervisors. These have not been implemented.
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Timely acknowledgment of complaints.
R2:
Progress reports to the complainant and PHD management.
R3:
Complaint management escalation with complaint age.
R4:
Resolve all complaints in 90 days or less. Additionally, the uneven and inconsistent application of local and state statutes leaves any attempt at enforcement easily challenged and leaves the County vulnerable to litigation. Environmental Health Specialist The EHD relies upon two Environmental Health Specialists (EHS), six Registered Environmental Health Specialists (REHS) one of whom is a supervisor. The job description for each of these positions states that they receive "...supervision within a broad framework of standard policies and procedures." The EHS and REHS are assigned to a specific geographical area of the county. According to the EHD their activities include oversight of permitted uses such as building, construction and food handling concerning public health matters. They are also responsible for the inspection, follow-up, and resolution of the citizen complaints, including legal action if warranted, in their assigned geographical area.
R5:
The Grand Jury directs the District Attorney to investigate the Environmental Health Division complaint process.
R6:
The BOS should direct the Public Health Department to revise the position descriptions of Environmental Health Specialist I, II, and IV to more accurately reflect the responsibilities, duties and training as actually practiced by the division.
R7:
The BOS should direct the County Administrator to provide a written report, quarterly, on the status of citizen complaints filed by all County departments. This must be institutionalized by the BOS through policy and procedures, using the Public Resources Council recommended guidelines. Response required Response requested Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mendocino County Public Health Department Mendocino County District Attorney Mendocino County Public Health Advisory Board
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F2:
Prior to this incident, Party and Possessor were friendly with police officers who investigated this case and have gone fishing together on Possessor's party boat.
F3:
DDA’s handling of the matter was inadequate as he did not have Police contact Party. No investigation was done regarding Party and no charges were brought against Possessor. The DDA's rationale for dropping the criminal charges was that there was no proof of any criminal activity. The Grand Jury finds that this decision was based on an inadequate investigation.
F4:
Complainant has not recovered his property. He has a court order for return of the property, but Possessor, who knowingly has possession of stolen property, insists that Complainant pay substantial damages for its retrieval.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Fort Bragg Police Department should ensure that officers are trained in investigative techniques and investigate complaints fully.
R2:
The Fort Bragg Police Department should ensure that officers avoid the appearance of impropriety in allowing personal relationships to affect their investigations.
R3:
The District Attorney should ensure complete investigations before deciding to drop charges.
R4:
The Fort Bragg Police Department should take possession of the painting and return it to the Complainant. Response Required Fort Bragg City Council Mendocino County District Attorney Response Requested Fort Bragg Police Department
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
Dog owners are responsible for licensing their dogs within 10 days of the dog coming into their possession or 10 days after the dog reaches four months of age. Dog licenses can be purchased at the Animal Control Office in the Courthouse or at the Animal Shelter.
F2:
The Board of Supervisors in Resolution 96-106 established the license fees for a female or male dog is $20.00; an altered dog fee is $10.00/
F3:
The delinquent penalty fee is $15.00 for each individual dog license. Animal Control interprets this to mean that if a dog is not licensed for a period of two years, the penalty would be $30.00 plus two years license fees.
F4:
The Animal Control Director stated that a goal of the department is to license dogs and ensure rabies vaccinations, not collect penalty fees. He stated that he has no record of what penalty fees might be due the County.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Department of Animal Control should develop and implement a policy and procedure manual that is consistent with County ordinances and State regulations.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should order a report on licensing procedures from the Animal Control Director and amend the County Code. Comment The 1991 Grand Jury reported on the lack of a policy and procedures manual and recommended that one be written. The 1992 Grand Jury noted that Animal Control was in the process of developing a manual. It now appears that nothing has been done in regard to this manual since 1992. "Advisory Committee"
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
The Mendocino County General Plan adopted in 1991 and amended in 1993 states: "A grading ordinance, compatible with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code and exempting regulated lands, shall be adopted and implemented."
F2:
Even though ordinances related to grading have been drafted by the Department of Planning and Building and have been considered by previous Boards of Supervisors, the County still does not have an ordinance which would give guidelines and regulations for the movement of soils. The County relies on the provision of UBC 70 to regulate grading activity in the County. However, the General Plan states: "Construction-related erosion is not regulated-- Grading activities related to building come under the jurisdiction of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code as part of the building permit process. The standards described are mainly engineering standards and do not address erosion prevention or water quality protection." There seems to be little enforcement of UBC 70 which states that a permit is necessary for the movement of more than two cubic yards of soil.
F3:
On June 22, 1998, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors passed order 1/182, which states: "IT IS ORDERED that the Board of Supervisors directs county staff not to pursue a grading ordinance in light of the 5-county salmon conservation planning effort."
F4:
Two Mendocino County Supervisors and several County staff representatives have been participating in the 5-county meetings. Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Norte, Trinity, and Siskiyou Counties have been meeting during the past year to develop plans for protecting salmonid habitats. One of many issues the group is addressing is that of grading which affects fisheries. The timeline for the group indicated that a draft plan would be completed by May 1,
F5:
The failure of the Board of Supervisors to enact a grading ordinance may leave the County vulnerable to citizen lawsuits.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
21 hallazgos
F1:
The Planning Director is expected to know the Codes and Regulations.
F2:
The past planning commission was inexperienced and too dependent on the City Planner.
F3:
The City Manager is responsible for the Planning Director.
F4:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that decision makers review the project to see that it is in conformation with local law and publish a "Notice of Determination." a. The 1992 Fort Bragg Planning Commission never conducted the CEQA review. There was no notice, no hearing, and no opportunity for public review. b. The information on the CEQA "Notice of Determination" dated August 19, 1992, and filed with the County Clerk on September 1, 1992, is inaccurate and cannot be verified, yet it was relied upon during the permitting process.
F5:
No coastal development permit for changes in the project was requested by the applicant nor approved by the City.
F6:
The Coastal Commission never received notice of formal action on the coastal development permit from the City.
F7:
Chapter 18.26.004 of the City LCP states the maximum height for buildings within its jurisdiction is 35 feet.
F8:
The project does not conform with Section 18.72.050 of Fort Bragg Municipal Code: "The height of buildings and structures shall be measured vertically from the average ground level of the ground covered by the building to the highest point of the roof."
F9:
No variance was ever applied for to increase the height limitations.
F10:
Evidence is lacking that the past City Planning Commission knew the details of what it was approving: ie. height.
F11:
The 1996 hotel plans did not in any way resemble the original 1992 approved plans. There were also a new owner, a new architect, and different plans.
F13:
There was no easy way to read indication of height on the plans.
F14:
The architect for the project acknowledged in an open meeting that the project was at least 44 feet high; the architect has a responsibility to know the codes that would limit the height to 35 feet.
F15:
At least one member of the Planning Commission knew the same to be true. At least some past and present members of the City Council consider this "minutia" and have various rationalizations regarding the project.
F16:
Information supplied by the City Planning Director to various involved agencies was in many cases insufficient and inaccurate, thereby significantly contributing to the current maelstrom.
F17:
The Coastal Commission never reviewed the 1996 plans because the Planning Director decided the design change was "minor."
F18:
At least one planning commissioner believes they were intentionally "misled."
F19:
In May 1998 when problems with the project surfaced, the City Manager hesitated and did not issue a stop work order. Pressure from the developer is alleged.
F20:
The City Attorney July 8, 1998 memo to the developer noted problems and advised the developer that if he chose to continue construction, he would be liable for expenses.
F21:
It appears the original Coastal Permit 10-92 was in conformity with the City LCP.
F22:
The hotel as ultimately constructed is not in conformity with the City LCP.
Recomendaciones adicionales
5
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Fort Bragg City Council should order creation of a checklist of the review process for the Planning Commission to refer to in its reviews.
R2:
The Fort Bragg City Council should conduct an immediate performance evaluation of the Planning Director.
R3:
The City of Fort Bragg Planning Commission should conduct a self-evaluation.
R4:
The City of Fort Bragg planning and building regulations, codes, and laws should be equally applied and complied with or repealed.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the building be modified to be brought into compliance with the LCP. Response Required Fort Bragg City Council Response Requested Fort Bragg Planning Commission
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
According to a September 1, 1996, psychiatric evaluation, supplemented by information from the mother of the decedent, he was, in general, in good physical health, but had a history of mental instability beginning at an early age, involving various diagnoses: major depression, dysthymia, oppositional defiant disorder, narcissistic personality traits, and post traumatic stress disorder. He had been hospitalized several times based on incidents of assaultive behavior, suicidal gestures, fighting with peers or adults and “creating mayhem and breaking into cottages and vandalizing campus property” (September 1, 1996 evaluation).
F2:
The evaluation also indicated that the decedent had a long history of drug use; at the age of nine he was using marijuana. He also admitted to use of LSD and psychedelic mushrooms, but, at one time, denied using cocaine, methamphetamine, inhalants or narcotics, although in a December 30, 1996, comment, he admitted to “long use” of “speed,” or methamphetamine. His major drug problem was with alcohol, involving frequent use, sometimes resulting in blackouts. Though his symptoms indicated alcoholism, he had taken part in no treatment programs for that condition.
F3:
Prior to turning 18, the decedent spent time in Juvenile Hall on a number of occasions for such activities as petty theft, shoplifting, vandalism, fighting and marijuana possession. He spent his eighteenth birthday, October 17, 1996, in that facility and transferred the following day to the Jail. His jail medical record includes entries from his stay in Juvenile Hall.
F4:
At the time he entered the Jail, he was taking psychiatric medication (Depakote) and on October 22, 1996, he saw the contract psychiatrist who said he should continue with it. Released on October 28, 1996, he was back the following month and saw the psychiatrist on November 13, 1996; the doctor repeated the Depakote recommendation. Released on November 16, 1996, he was back again in December. On booking for that period of incarceration, December 22, 1996, he had answered “yes” to the question “mental/emotional upset,” and “yes” to the question, “Do you want to talk to a mental health [sic] or a psychiatrist?” with a notation, “Bi-Polar.” On December 30, 1996, eight days after submitting a request, he saw the psychiatric technician, who recommended restarting the Depakote, which he had apparently discontinued. He saw the psychiatrist the next day and declined to begin again with the Depakote. However, he did agree to “anti- depressants,” as witnessed by the psychiatrist. The record indicates that on January 19, 1997, he had refused his last six doses of Prozac. He was released on February 26, 1997.
F5:
In May, 1997, he was in the Sonoma County Jail, transferring to the Mendocino County Jail on June 9, 1997. Upon booking at that time, he denied any mental health involvement or any desire to see a mental health worker. On June 13, 1997, he submitted a sick call slip, noting, “I would like to speak with mental health. ASAP.” That slip was picked up the following day. The psychiatric technician saw him five days later, on June 18, 1997. At that time, he said he wanted to get back on the medication, which he had stopped taking because “I didn’t think I needed them.” On June 20, 1997, he again asked, “I would like to see mental health.” His request was picked up on June 22, 1997 and the psychiatric technician saw him four days later, on June 26, 1997. He was released on July 28, 1997.
F6:
As illustrated above, there were many points at which the decedent's history and behavior indicated his unstable mental condition. Jail personnel should have been aware of the decedent's need for help.
F7:
The Medical Contractor psychiatric technician went to work early on the morning of January 23, 1998, to see the decedent and was informed that he had committed suicide
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Sheriff's Department must establish a booking system which includes a means for identifying inmates whose past incarceration record shows them as having mental health issues, so that upon rebooking into the Jail, the receiving officer can notify the Medical Contractor mental health staff, who can then make it a point to evaluate the state of mind of the inmate.
R2:
In view of the risks to individual inmates and to the County in terms of liability, the Board of Supervisors should require that the contract with the Medical Contractor include written policies requiring that inmates indicating mental health issues, either upon booking or by means of sick call slips, should see a psychiatric worker for evaluation within 24 hours, without fail. Jail administration should establish and adhere to procedures to facilitate such policies. Events Leading up to the Suicide
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
Jail staffing as of June 1999: Corrections Deputies Meets minimum BOC requirements Required by BOC 56.9 County budget allocation 1999-2000 44 No County budget funded 1999-2000 40 No Actual 32 No
F2:
As shown above, staffing levels are too low and do not meet minimum State standards. Corrections Deputies are required to put in overtime and will soon be going on five-day, twelve-hour shifts. Field deputies are now being used for transport duty and the prospect is for loss of more Corrections Deputies with no replacements in sight. According to a January, 1999 BOC inspection, staffing is adequate for hourly checks of Jail areas, but is not at a level sufficient for close attention to inmate activities, periodic searches and maintenance of overall facility appearance.
F3:
Staff turnover remains high and is a significant problem. The 1997-98 Grand Jury noted that the County loses Corrections Deputies to jurisdictions which are able to pay higher salaries. As well, Corrections Deputies, in the interest of professional advancement, take advantage of opportunities to move into what they see as more challenging, regular law enforcement.
F4:
The 1997-1998 Grand Jury found that the County had to return $150,000 state grant because of Jail understaffing.
F5:
County administrative staff told the Grand Jury that the County doesn’t allocate positions if there is little likelihood that they will be filled because to do so ties up funds for those positions.
F6:
A peace office with corrections experience told the Grand Jury that service as a Corrections Deputy is excellent training for officers who then go on to street duty, as it provides officers with experience in interacting face to face with often hostile persons and in dealing at times with ticklish situations where resorting to force might be inappropriate.
F7:
The 1998-1999 budget states "..the Sheriff and his staff remained committed to accomplishing the goal of filling all 39 funded Corrections Deputy positions, which was achieved on April 27,1998. The Sheriff and his staff continue to recruit and hire additional Corrections Deputies to meet staffing levels of 44 Corrections Deputies committed to by the Board of Supervisors during Fiscal Year 1997-98 and Fiscal Year 98-99." The commitments made by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and the Sheriff appear to be nothing more than public posturing to placate critics. Instead of increasing staffing, the County has actually lost personnel, leaving staff at 32 Corrections Deputies.
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff have been unable or unwilling to address the staffing problems in a solutions orientated way. The lack of leadership has resulted in the Jail having fewer Correction Deputies this year than last year. The time has come to take bold and imaginative steps to deal with the chronic staffing problem at the Jail. The problem is at crisis level and can no longer be ignored. The BOS must establish a citizens blue-ribbon panel comprised of both citizens and Jail personnel and and utilizing professional resources develop and deliver no later than January 1, 2000, a meaningful, result-oriented plan to deal with this chronic staffing problem.
R2:
The Sheriff’s Department should consider requiring newly hired officers to spend a minimum period working as corrections officers before “graduating” to street duty.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the County allocate the required positions and take steps to enhance recruiting efforts, in the interest of assuring that grants applied for are not lost to the County on grounds of short staffing.
R4:
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff must publicly explain to the citizens of this County why they have not fulfilled their commitment and legal obligation to adequately staff the Jail. The continued excuse of higher salaries elsewhere is no longer an acceptable explanation. Physical Plant
R5:
A County Health Department inspection found that water temperature of the dishwasher in the facility kitchen does not attain required temperatures. This has been an intermittent and continuing problem for some time. There are no plans at the present time to provide a permanent solution. Other kitchen problems reported include a questionable fire extinguishing system over the stove. Given the past problems, staff cannot be confident that the system will work in the event of a major fire. This is an extremely hazardous situation.
R6:
Staff is unable to adequately clean and sanitize kitchen shelving as it is presently arranged. While new shelves have been purchased which will resolve this problem and improve sanitation, there are no plans to install them. That is a misuse of scarce County resources as a result of inadequate management planning.
R7:
A site visit to the Fort Bragg detention facility found it to be in good condition: clean and well- maintained. The facility was found to be out of compliance with the California Welfare and Institutions Code and Title 15 in regard to the holding of minors at the facility. This is confirmed by a BOC inspection conducted in January 1999: There are no formal logs or procedures to ensure compliance with Welfare and Institutions Code Section 207.1(d), or minimum standards for minors held in a police building that contains a lockup (California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 1542). Recommendation The Sheriff must take immediate steps to correct the Welfare and Institutions Code and Title 15 violations and issue a public report no later than October 1,
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
Contractor provides a program manager who is a Registered Nurse (RN) 40 hours per week, 24-hour coverage by a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN), a psychiatric technician for 20 hours per week, a physician for12 hours per week (on call 24 hours per day) and a psychiatrist (on call 24 hours per day). 2. Contractor staffing is adequate to meet requirements of the contract and, according to professional standards, the staff is qualified. The work load varies from relatively light to heavy but does not, according to respondents, become overwhelming. 3. The 1997-98 Grand Jury report called for an increase in physician coverage from three to five days a week, to meet CMA standards. Since then, CMA standards for physician coverage have been reduced. Contractor meets the new standard. However, Sheriff’s Department and Public Health Department officials have recommended that coverage be increased. 4. Interviews of Contractor staff indicate that morale appears to be good and the individual workers are pleased with the jobs they do. Medications Finding Questions arise about medication. Procedures are in place which would seem to ensure that prisoners needing medication do, in fact, get what they need, but prisoners continue to complain about the lack of or delays in receiving medication. Contractor gives assurances that they make all possible efforts to determine what medications prisoners require, either by noting what they have on their person when booked, by contacting personal physicians or by calling pharmacies. Contractor does comply with legal restrictions on delivery of certain drugs to known drug abusers, assuming the possibility of potential abuse or use of the drugs as currency; that is possibly a factor in some of the complaints received.
F2:
Contractor staffing is adequate to meet requirements of the contract and, according to professional standards, the staff is qualified. The work load varies from relatively light to heavy but does not, according to respondents, become overwhelming.
F3:
The 1997-98 Grand Jury report called for an increase in physician coverage from three to five days a week, to meet CMA standards. Since then, CMA standards for physician coverage have been reduced. Contractor meets the new standard. However, Sheriff’s Department and Public Health Department officials have recommended that coverage be increased.
F4:
Interviews of Contractor staff indicate that morale appears to be good and the individual workers are pleased with the jobs they do. Medications Finding Questions arise about medication. Procedures are in place which would seem to ensure that prisoners needing medication do, in fact, get what they need, but prisoners continue to complain about the lack of or delays in receiving medication. Contractor gives assurances that they make all possible efforts to determine what medications prisoners require, either by noting what they have on their person when booked, by contacting personal physicians or by calling pharmacies. Contractor does comply with legal restrictions on delivery of certain drugs to known drug abusers, assuming the possibility of potential abuse or use of the drugs as currency; that is possibly a factor in some of the complaints received.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
As public money is involved, there should be oversight by the Sheriff and BOS of the financial arrangements of the contract. Financial reports should be made available to the BOS without regard to any alleged proprietary interest. The public should know the details of how much is being spent for medical services.
R2:
The monthly statistical reports should get wider circulation. Mental Health Care Contractor is responsible for mental health care as well as medical care. An inmate who expresses a need for mental health services will see a psychiatric technician, who will, in turn, refer the inmate to the contract psychiatrist. The psychiatrist makes decisions about treatment or medication. Inmates may speak with their own physicians if those physicians are willing to come to the Jail or to treat by telephone. Inmates who are acting out in ways that appear to threaten themselves or others may be sent to the County Psychiatric Health Facility.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
The strike happened because a. Board members misjudged the level of employee morale. b. Board members thought employees would not actually walk out. c. Board members were not well-advised on the employee union's probable response to a proposed health care benefit give-back.
F2:
From the employees' point of view, the strike was about respect.
F3:
Hospital administrators felt betrayed by the Board's "flip-flop" on resuming negotiations
F4:
The strike had a positive, cathartic effect. a. Nearly all the administrative management left after the strike ended. b. Employee morale improved immediately. c. A new CEO started work February 1999.
F5:
The Grand Jury finds that the Board needs to take an active role in encouraging the Medical staff to support the Hospital and its mission.
F6:
The District's largest single financial drain comes from running the ambulance service. The deficit for the year ending June 30, 1996 was $217,750; for the year ending June 30, 1997 it was $304,610; and for the year ending June 30, 1998 it was $394,081.
F7:
District expenses are over $20 million per year. The District has a balance in its unrestricted fund ($11,055,241 as of June 30, 1998). This is its total reserves for building upgrades, equipment replacement, and unexpected expenses.
F8:
The Grand Jury finds that the District is not in immediate financial peril because its current reserves, investment income, and tax support are adequate in the short term.
Recomendaciones adicionales
8
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R2:
The Board did not set clear and specific goals and objectives for the CEO.
R3:
The Board evaluation of the CEO was not conducted in a timely manner. Recommendation The Board should establish clear parameters and expectations for the Hospital CEO, and evaluate the CEO annually against these standards.
R4:
The Grand Jury heard testimony that the Board tolerated abuse of leave and training programs by Hospital administrators.
R5:
Board members described a reluctance to confront other Board members over conflict-of- interest, day-to-day meddling, or other troublesome issues. Recommendation Board members should listen aggressively and ask questions. The question and answer process is an important way of developing feedback and encourages everyone to do a better job. It also serves the public by bringing out more information. The Board should encourage a diversity of views, presented respectfully, in pursuit of the Board's common goals.
R6:
The Grand Jury finds the Board members inadequately trained in their responsibilities and obligations. Recommendation The Grand Jury endorses the following definition of a board's role and responsibility, adapted from the Community College League of California Trustee Handbook: a board as a unit, sets the policy direction, monitors institutional performance, employs a chief executive officer as institutional leader, acts as community bridge and buffer, establishes the climate in which community health goals are accomplished, assures the fiscal health and stability of the District, defines standards for good personnel relations, and serves as a positive agent for change. The Board should improve its training regarding the Board's role and make this training an annual requirement.
R7:
Public Board meetings do not convey the thought processes behind Board decisions. Votes are taken without sufficient discussion for members of the public to understand the course of action. Recommendation The Board, as individuals, should take the time to explain their reasoning before adopting resolutions. More meeting time should be devoted to discussion, deliberation, and debate rather than simply listening to reports.
R8:
Board members are active and very dedicated to the Hospital's success and survival as an independent entity.
R9:
The Board gave itself very low marks in its 1997 self-evaluation, especially in the areas of Board knowledge, Board review and evaluation of itself and the CEO, Board meeting effectiveness, and Board teamwork. No self-evaluation was conducted in 1998. Board and Administration
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
There are three places for injured workers to obtain assistance regarding the Workers Compensation System: their employer, a claims adjuster or a State counselor.
F2:
There are 52 State counselors to handle over 1 million new claims per year. There are two counselors for the North Coast who handle Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino, Lake and Marin county.
F3:
In Mendocino County, department heads are provided a notebook on the Workers Compensation System and can call Risk Management for advice, but are not provided any in-depth training.
F4:
The County employs a private company for managing workers compensation claims. This company believes the two most important elements for a county to provide improved performance of an employer's program are: a. educate their front-line supervisors to more effectively communicate with employees about what they may reasonably expect from the Workers Compensation system, and b. provide modified duty for injured workers. Risk Management Findings
F5:
There are no County policies or procedures for department heads to follow regarding dealing with injured workers.
F6:
There are no County policies or procedures regarding accommodation, modified or light-duty, for injured workers.
F7:
There is nothing in writing from the County government that indicated that the County values its workers or that encourages department heads to value them. Department of Social Services Findings
F8:
DSS Director will not institute accommodation, modified work, or light-duty policies until guidance is provided by the County. This has resulted in further injuries. Case History of an Injured Worker The following is an actual case history of a DSS employee, injured in the course of work, illustrating problems in the workers compensation process. In 1993, the DSS placed workers on furlough due to budget cut-backs. Remaining workers were then required to work overtime to cover increasingly heavy caseloads due to reduced staff. In March, 1994, DSS began conversion to a state-wide computer system which dramatically increased the amount of time some workers spent at a computer terminal. The normal work-week was four ten-hour days with, in many cases, about nine hours per day spent at a computer terminal. 12/17/93 First injury, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, right wrist; chronic tendonitis right arm. Workers compensation claim filed; leave from work. 4/11/94 Returned to work. Physician limited time at computer and prescribes armrests for computer chair. No armrests provided. 3/95 Grievance filed; armrests provided. 3/95 On several occasions, the employee communicated the increasing problem of work- related injuries to the County Administrator's Office. 3/95-7/95 Right shoulder pain began. Refused an ergonomic assessment by DSS. 11/95 Physician ordered reduced caseload to alleviate right shoulder pain. No accommodation. 12/95 DSS employees complained to the DSS Director regarding the work environment: inadequate desks, chairs, ergonomic set-ups, and overtime. 1/96 Wrist supports provided at computer set-ups. 3/3/96 Physician ordered leave due to right shoulder injury 5/96 Surgery to right shoulder 9/96 Additional surgery to right shoulder 2/97 Returned to work; placed in re-training. No ergonomic set-up. 3/31/97 Injury to left shoulder. 7/97 Denied workers compensation benefits for left shoulder injury. 8/97 Given over 100% caseload despite injury. 9/97 County offered $25,000 to settle injury claim and retirement with no medical benefits. 10/97 Private physician requested ergonomic set-up for computer station, limiting computer time and lowering caseload. No accommodation. 11/7/97 Physician noted sign of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in left wrist. Requested decreased caseload, ergonomic set-up and limiting computer time. No accommodation.. 1/98 Employee filed grievance. 2/98 County paid for an ergonomic assessment of DSS from a private agency. 3/98 Hearing for the 1/98 grievance. DSS still would not provide modified or light-duty accommodation. 4/13/98 Left shoulder ruptured, neck pain. Took leave from work. 4/98 Employee prevailed in grievance hearing. 5/98 Employee prevailed in preceding workers compensation appeal. 9/98 Surgery on left shoulder and for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. 3/99 Employee filed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claim. 5/99 Employee granted County disability retirement by the Retirement Board. Summary of this claim The local employee union states: "A worker had an injury that interfered with her ability to perform her job at the level that management expected. The worker requested accommodation from the county, providing medical documentation of her need for accommodation. The worker made repeated requests and supplied medical evidence each time, but the County requested more and more documentation and claimed that it did not have information adequate to make a determination as to whether to not to accommodate the worker. The County never denied the employees claim; however the county never took appropriate action to alleviate the problem. In addition, the County placed the employee on corrective action for job performance problems related to her injury." Ergonomic Programs Findings
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should establish policies and procedures for dealing promptly with employee injuries. The County should begin in-depth training of front- line supervisors on the workers compensation system in order to provide effective communication to employees on what to reasonably expect from the system.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should establish policies and procedures for return-ing employees to work as soon as possible. The County should institute both modified work and return-to-work programs, no matter how limited by our small employee population.
R3:
The Risk Manager and County Safety Officer should be responsible for all County- wide ergonomic assessments, training, and follow-up. Staff should be increased to effect this. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Department of Social Services Director Mendocino County Administrative Officer
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
Each youth is isolated in a 60-square-foot cell which has a concrete bed platform, toilet, and sink.
F2:
Throughout California, Juvenile Hall housing is provided in single, double-bunk rooms, or dormitories. In Humboldt County, youths on a suicide alert status are assigned roommates. In Santa Clara County, a youth must earn the privilege of having a single room.
F3:
A vegetable garden program was discontinued.
F4:
Federal funding provides for foster grandparents.
F5:
In speaking with other counties, the Grand Jury found work programs that ranged from folding laundry and kitchen work to training dogs for the handicapped.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
A summary inspection should be made of Juvenile Hall to ascertain if all items from previous inspections have been corrected.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should ensure coordination of inspection reports so that the Department of Planning and Building does the inspections and the report is shared with the County Department of General Services so that repairs may be made. A re-inspection should be done within 90 days to verify corrections.
R3:
In the event an inspection is not completed or a written report is not made available, the facility administrator should document the attempts to schedule the inspection and to obtain a written copy of the inspection report. Response required Response requested Board of Supervisors Department of Probation Department of Planning and Building Department of General Services Comment The coordination between departments to correct deficiencies has begun. "(b) Fire authority having jurisdiction, including a fire clearance;"
R6:
Title 15 Article 6 Section 1370 notes that the County Board of Education or the chief probation officer may provide classes in: a. victim awareness b. conflict resolution c. anger management d. parenting skills e. juvenile justice f. self-esteem building g. effective decision making skills; and h. vocational education and pre-vocational skills. There are no specific classes offered by the school on these subjects though some are addressed peripherally. Recommendation These subjects should be addressed directly and in a proactive way. Response required Response requested Mendocino County Board of Education Department of Probation County Superintendent of Schools Board of Supervisors Hair Care
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
F1:
As part of meeting the Library's goal of providing and improving "accessibility to information through a variety of means for all library users" (Library Mission Statement), the Library has a Spanish language collection amounting to some 5% of the total number of books available and a fairly large collection of Native American materials, which is housed in Covelo.
F2:
Many residents throughout the County may not be aware of the availability of library services, especially of the Spanish language and Native American collections and how to access them.
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Information technology is changing rapidly, posing a challenge for traditional library operations. Electronic devices are replacing not only the old 3X5 card file systems, but printed books as well. The County Library Director is aware of the issue.
R2:
The Grand Jury commends the BOS for increasing the funding of the Library.
R3:
The Grand Jury is impressed with the direction the Library is going and the efforts of the Director, staff, and volunteers. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
The stated goals of the MH Board are: • To promote quality care and attention for people with emotional problems. • To obtain community input regarding mental health needs. • To shape, in collaboration with County MH Department staff, the long term values and goals for the mental health care in the County. • To monitor changes in County, State and Federal law, regulations and funding that can affect mental health care in the County. • To educate the community about emotional problems and mental health services. There is a specific educational goal regarding the reduction of the stigma associated with mental health problems and care. The Grand Jury failed to find any evidence that any of the MH Board goals were realized or that any effort was made to achieve its stated goals.
F2:
Between January 1997 and July 1998, MH Board members did not regularly attend meetings. • Only four meetings had a quorum (nine members). • Overall average MH Board attendance was 34%. • Only three of 15 MH Board members were present at the January 1998 meeting. January is the month for the election of officers.
F3:
Under new leadership between September 1998 and December 1998, members of the MH Board regularly attended board meetings. Meetings were conducted in a business-like manner and conformed to the published agenda. • All MH Board meetings had a quorum. • Overall average MH Board attendance was 77%. Board Autonomy The MH Board has a history of being manipulated and intimidated by the MH Department. There were attempts to manipulate and mislead the Grand Jury’s oversight investigation. The MH Department provided fabricated documents to the Grand Jury and failed to fully disclose essential information relating to this investigation.
Recomendaciones adicionales
8
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The BOS should provide a modest annual budget for the MH Board. A budget at a minimum level of independence will provide many of the resources needed in order for the MH Board to function: outside transcription services to insure the timeliness and accuracy of MH Board meeting minutes, post office box for the exclusive use of the MH Board, letterhead stationary, and postal expenses.
R2:
The MH Department has access to numerous Departmental as well as County resources and has an ethical responsibility to share these resources. The BOS should insist that the MH Department provide an office for the exclusive use of the MH Board. This office should be secure and furnished as is customary for the MH Department. It should be equipped, at a minimum, with a telephone and computer with e-mail and internet capability.
R3:
The MH Board should take a proactive stance towards the review and evaluation of the community’s mental health needs, services, facilities, and special problems. A focused approach in conducting public outreach events utilizing resources of the media, schools, and community-based organizations will allow leveraging of limited MH Board resources. Outreach events are mandatory if the MH Board’s stated goals and philosophies are to be realized. Committee Responsibilities and Functioning The MH Board cannot be effective if it endeavors to handle everything by the MH Board as a whole. Therefore, the accomplishments of the MH Board depend, for the most part, upon the work of its committees. MH Board bylaws provide for the establishment and functioning of committees, established to reflect program elements within the MH Department: Administrative Support, Acute Services, Adult Services, and Children’s Services. In addition there is a Legislative Committee which is not actively involved with the MH Department. Each committee plays a vital and necessary role in ensuring citizen participation and oversight in the delivery of mental health services to insure that community needs are being met. Each committee is charged with meeting on a regular basis and providing written progress reports annually to the MH Board Chair. In addition, each committee is charged with presenting interim progress reports at each MH Board meeting.
R4:
The MH Board in collaboration with the MH Department must establish formal policies and procedures to ensure the annual evaluation of MH Department programs as mandated by MH Board bylaws.
R5:
Outreach activities are essential if the mandate requiring community input is to be achieved. These must be part of a much broader program to facilitate mutually beneficial communications, information and education.
R6:
The MH Board must implement training programs to ensure that MH Board members are aware of their individual responsibilities as well as of MH Board responsibilities to the community.
R7:
The BOS must establish safeguards to assure that MH Board oversight of the MH Department is free from manipulation and interference in any form.
R8:
The BOS must provide a sufficient annual budget in addition to directing the MH Department to provide secure administrative facilities to the MH Board. Response Required Board of Supervisors
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
All of the Deputy Defenders employed at the time of the present PD's appointment have either been dismissed, quit, or have transferred to other County departments.
F2:
When the independent Alternate Public Defenders Office began in 1997, several Deputy Defenders chose to move to that office.
F3:
One Deputy Defender went out on disability and some took higher paying jobs in other counties.
F4:
Two of the former Deputy Defenders are now working in the District Attorney's office. Staff Morale Findings
F5:
Funds collected for attendance at the seminars go to an account which pays costs involved in preparation of the seminar materials.
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The PD must comply with all relevant Labor Code requirements. 2. The District Attorney should investigate the improper filing of workers compensation claims by the PD. Overtime Requirements
R2:
The PD should look into the need for better security at the entryway counter. Workers Compensation Claim
R3:
The BOS should establish a uniform flex-time policy. Potential Conflict of Interest
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
As mandated by California Education Code, Section 76120-76121, the Board adopted Board Policies 509 and 524, which established a comprehensive policy protecting First Amendment rights throughout the campus.
F2:
Students were involved in the publication of The Eagle on a voluntary basis, loosely guided by a faculty advisor(s). The College administration provided assistance to the project in the form of a $200.00 monthly stipend for the advisor(s), space for the work and use of College equipment. At some point The Eagle established a link to the College's web site with no objection from the administration.
F3:
In late 1997, The Eagle received anonymously and published a confidential memo-randum concerning personnel issues involving administrative evaluations of a Dean of Instruction. The memorandum also included charges of improper hiring procedures for a specific administrative position and improper use of certain categorical funds.
F4:
Following the publication of the memorandum, the Administration took three actions regarding The Eagle: First, the Administration cut the previously condoned link between The Eagle and the college web site on the stated grounds that such linkage, without official college approval, was unlawful. The "hot link" to The Eagle web site was removed within 36 hours of the posting of The Eagle Extra in October 1997. Second, the Administration then terminated the existing arrangement of the publi-cation of The Eagle. The exact date of termination is difficult to determine because there was no official notice. Third, the Administration moved the publication of The Eagle into a newly created journalism class within the English Department. The newly hired instructor of the journalism class is also the advisor to the presently operating student newspaper.
F5:
The journalism teacher/faculty advisor has stated a commitment to ensuring that the publication meets high standards for quality journalism and to the free expression of ideas and non-interference in what appears in the newspaper.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends vigilance on the part of students and faculty alike to ensure that the established policies of the College and the First Amendment rights receive strict adherence.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the College Administration make no further changes in the status of The Eagle which might again give the impression of retaliatory restriction on free speech rights. The Eagle must be free to publish any information, with due regard for libel and obscenity rules, without fear of administrative interference or retaliation. The College Administration should reactivate a link between The Eagle and the College web site.
R3:
The Eagle should publish the official policies of the College in order that everyone can be familiar with the College's official, established policy regarding free inquiry and expression.
R4:
The Board should institute a colloquium including Board, Administration, faculty, and student body concerning freedom of expression on the College campus, including cyberspace issues. Freedom of Communication
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
District audits done by a private auditor for the past three years have indicated many flaws in the District's accounting systems. Recommendations included: a. Establish administrative policies and procedures b. Establish an investment policy c. Maintain an adequate accounting that completely and at all times shows the financial condition of the District. 2. Some suggestions have been repeated for two to three years with no action taken.
F2:
The Board requested that the district engineer develop a facilities needs assessment plan for the District. Three alternatives were presented in May 1994.
F3:
On July 11, 1994, the Board passed resolution #231 adopting a ten-year plan and setting rates to most customers of $1.97 per 1000 gallons plus a monthly meter charge based on meter size. They also passed a resolution that the Board's intent was that the increased revenues be used primarily for projects outlined in the ten-year plan.
F4:
The water charge of $1.97 per 1000 gallons was described in Ordinance 97-1 as $1.45 for operating expenses and $0.52 for capital projects. (As presented on the monthly billing, this information is confusing to customers.) The $0.52 fee together with the connection fee and interest income are restricted funds and are to be used only for capital projects.
F5:
The District has a separate bank account in which to hold funds allocated for capital improvement projects. The restricted funds balance on February 28, 1999, was $574,893.
F6:
There is no evidence of Board policies for accounting procedures of these restricted funds.
F7:
The District has relied on its auditor to reconcile the restricted funds during his annual audit rather than the District reconciling funds on an ongoing basis.
F8:
California Water Code Section 31007 mandates that the rates and charges collected by a district shall be established to yield an amount sufficient for the following: a. Provide for repairs and depreciation of works owned or operated by the district. b. Pay the interest on any bonded debt. c. So far as possible, provide a fund for the payment of the principal of the bonded debt as it becomes due. d. Pay the operating expenses of the district.
F9:
Water Code Section 60245 mandates, "The Board shall fix such rate or rates for the sale or exchange of water for replenishment purposes only as will result in revenues which will pay, insofar as practicable, the operating expenses of the district."
F10:
For several years, costs have exceeded $1.45 per thousand gallons.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Board should explain clearly to its customers the rate structure. This should include a statement of the reasons behind the payment of various portions of the water charge and connection fee: normal operating expenses, plant expansion necessitated by increased demand, plant replacement because of wear, and system upgrading because of mandates.
R2:
The Board should establish policies concerning restricted funds, including a comprehensive policy for accounting and reporting on the restricted funds. The District should annually disclose the use of the Capital Improvement and Facilities Reserve Fund. Comment An issue was raised regarding California Government Code Section 66006(b) which requires that any fee imposed in connection with a development project must be deposited into a separate capital facilities account. This is to assure that fees are not commingled with other revenues and funds. The District asked its attorney for an opinion as to whether it was subject to this code in its handling of these funds. The opinion provided was that the code does not apply since neither the service connection fee or the water delivery fee are imposed "as a condition of approving a development project." Insurance Payments
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
The SELPA Policy Council is the governing board of the SELPA and provides direction and guidance to the Administrator of SELPA.
F2:
MCOE is the Responsible Local Agency (RLA). As such, MCOE hires SELPA employees and administers funds as recommended by the Policy Council.
F3:
SELPA allocates state and federal funds to augment the costs of special education programs to local districts based on the Local Plan for special education and allocation agreements as determined by the SELPA Policy Council.
F4:
This is the first year of the implementation of AB602, a new method for funding special education in California. With each successive year this new formula is used, it is anticipated that it will become easier to track and forecast income. A funding allocation plan is currently under development that should make clear how funds flow from the state to local districts.
F5:
California Education Code 56195.7(c)(6) and 56780, mandates an evaluation of the effectiveness of the program. The SELPA Policy Council is scheduled to adopt fiscal and programs audit plans. These plans will describe a comprehensive review and evaluation of all districts and the MCOE regarding their use of special education funds and the adequacy of programs provided to students qualifying for special education.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that every effort be made to bring the CAC to full membership. Local district school boards and the County Superintendent of Schools shall appoint representatives to the CAC as mandated by the Local Plan.
R2:
The SELPA and the CAC must learn to work closely together. Response Required Anderson Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees Arena Elementary School District Board of Trustees Fort Bragg Unified School District Board of Trustees Laytonville Unified School District Board of Trustees Leggett Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees Manchester Elementary School District Board of Trustees Mendocino Unified School District Board of Trustees Round Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees Point Arena High School District Board of Trustees Potter Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees Ukiah Unified School District Board of Trustees Willits Unified School District Board of Trustees Mendocino County Superintendent of Schools Response Requested Mendocino County SELPA Administrator
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
The TOT raises over $3 million annually, with over 75% coming from the Fifth Supervisorial District. This money goes into the unrestricted County General Fund; it is the main source of discretionary funds.
F2:
Collection of the TOT from established hotels and inns has not been a major problem. Audits and warning letters resulted in full payment of tax to the county.
F3:
The Tax Collector has a large and widespread problem identifying smaller and less visible facilities such as Bed and Breakfast facilities, vacation rentals, and retreat facilities. There is no regular, systematic program determining how many units exist and how many are paying the TOT. A perception exists that a large percentage of properties do not report and this leads to questions of fairness and uneven enforcement. The Grand Jury confirmed that many properties do not report. Lost revenues exceed several hundred thousand dollars.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R4:
In one notorious incident, a single property rental agent ended up owing the County over $170,000 in TOT and over $100,000 in penalties. (He is currently subject to both criminal and civil prosecutions.) County Counsel first became aware of a problem as early as 1988, but the office was taken off the case several times as partial compliance was achieved. The amount rose from $40,149 in January 1994 to $90,000 in June 1995, to $146,000 in May 1996, to $270,000 in July 1997. The BOS decided in March 1998 not to take legal recourse against the individual property owners in this case after earlier threatening to do so. Part of the reason was that the County had knowledge of only 20 of the 35 properties involved until mid-1997. At least one property owner who had paid the TOT after the first BOS letter was refunded his money. Recommendation The Grand Jury, under the authority of Penal Code Section 932, orders the District Attorney to pursue vigorous collection in this case including filing a claim against the state Real Estate Recovery Fund (assuming the County obtains a court judgment).
R5:
The Grand Jury finds that the County did not and does not have an aggressive enough program to collect the TOT. Recommendation The Tax Collector should establish procedures which include an active plan for collecting the TOT in a timely manner.
R6:
Another property agent refuses to give the County specifics on how much tax results from each given property. There has been no enforcement action.
R7:
The BOS adopted a revised ordinance in December 1998, with new reporting requirements, new sanctions in case of delinquency, and new authority for the Tax Collector in case of default. There are problems with some of the language and so a new ordinance is being prepared (April 1999). Recommendation The Grand Jury urges County Counsel and the Tax Collector to test the implementation of the revised TOT ordinance by bringing action against currently non-complying property owners and agents known within the Tax Collector's office. Response Required Board of Supervisors Auditor-Controller Tax Collector-Treasurer Comment The Grand Jury identifies several factors leading to its findings and recommendations. The fact that these departments are headed by elected officials prevents the BOS from providing meaningful oversight. As elected officials, they may desire a low, “friendly” profile that makes them vulnerable to glib or stubborn violators. Since County Counsel can only act on cases brought to it, and there is no County process for identifying potential need for action, Department Heads are the main players determining whether or not timely action is taken; there is a wide disparity in the manner and effectiveness of County Counsel utilization. All departments bemoan their limited staffing, saying this is why they cannot follow through better; if someone else collected the data they would use it, but they are too busy to gather it themselves. Also, most TOT units are on the Coast, far away from Ukiah offices, making it harder for staff based in Ukiah to address the problem. Finally, the BOS recognized in September, 1997, the need for “maximum coordination” between departments: this is a case in point.