Gran Jurado del Condado de Mendocino
1999-2000
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 (22)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Recomendaciones adicionales
16
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The District Attorney’s Office continues to maintain a high level X of awareness regarding conflict of interest.
R2:
The quality and utility of the District Attorney’s Policy and X On-going Procedures manual are exemplary; all County Departments should have current, active manuals. MENDOCINO COUNTY ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT:
R3:
BOS should seriously re-evaluate Department to make the cost and benefit of making recommendation to the Board in Safety Retirement available to all April 2001. qualified employees of the April 2001 Probation Department. An actuarial study should be conducted.
R4:
The CDC should coordinate with the County on significant purchases (as authorized in the CDC Procurement Policy) and X draw upon County expertise in appropriate areas.
R5:
The BOC should immediately insure that the Employee Manual Within the next is updated and that both year (12 months) management and staff are made aware of its existence. This manual should be used as a training tool for all staff.
R6:
Management needs to receive On-Going. This is an issue addressed training in personnel relations, between the Union representatives X anger management, inter-agency and the BOC. cooperation, internal communication, avoiding favoritism, and team building.
R7:
The Board of Commissioners Board of Supervisors will should immediately consider its communicate by Feb. 2001 to BOC February 2001 liability on the personal use of that they carefully consider Grand Agency vehicles. Jury concerns regarding the use of public funds for personal vehicle use when developing compensation package for staff.
R8:
If the CDC Board of Board of Supervisors will Commissioners wishes to enhance communicate by Feb. 2001 to BOC the ED’s compensation, the Grand that they carefully consider Grand Jury recommends that a more February 2001 that they carefully consider Grand direct and visible approach Jury concerns regarding the use of through salary increases be used. public funds for personal vehicle use when developing compensation package for staff
R9:
The CDC should take immediate On- going steps to initiate purchase and X construction projects to replace the destroyed units and expand the inventory of affordable rental units.
R10:
Training in HUD regulations and On- going community development should be mandated for all members of the BOC. The BOC should be more X aware of the business transactions conducted by the Commission and of personnel morale.
R11:
Necessary steps should be taken to insure that there is an X authorized alternate and the control of password codes is strictly enforced.
R12:
If the BOC does not now have a Board is amending Personnel Policy formal procedure to critically to include detailed procedure for ED X July 2001 evaluate the ED and staff morale; a performance evaluation. comprehensive procedure should be developed.
R13:
BOS should appoint commissioners without getting X recommendations from the ED, which is allowing the “employee” to recommend who their “supervisor” should be.
R14:
While the posting of BOC Agendas are now sent to local media meetings meet legal requirements, and all CDC development offices, as the Grand Jury recommends that well as to other agencies and CDC consider using county wide X individuals by special request. news media to post meeting notices. For example, BOS meetings are posted at numerous other public places besides the Court House.
R15:
Minutes of BOC meetings need to Minutes are now more detailed and be more specific as to what is are posted at the main office front X discussed. A person not attending counter for review after Board the meeting should be able to meetings. readily understand what the X subject of discussion was by reading the minutes. The BOC should also ensure that all decisions, and the specifics of those decisions, be included in the minutes. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
R16:
The District Attorney plays a pivotal role in the criminal justice system’s response to family violence. The District Attorney must, through his actions, make it known to the community that domestic violence will not be tolerated in Mendocino County. MENDOCINO COUNTY GRADING ORDINANCE:
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
The 1998-99 audit of the City’s financial statements supports our finding that the City is apparently financially sound and its fiscal affairs are well managed. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings
F2:
The City’s General Fund supports those departments and functions which are generally not supported by fees for service. Some of the City’s departments provide services which receive income (e.g., sports and recreation). Although these revenues offset some of the operational costs, they do not entirely support the departments. Special funds are created for special purposes, government grants and for services that are supported by fees. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings 2 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F3:
The City budget and accounting system, in addition to the General Fund, include 79 separate funds. Although many of these funds are mandated by state and federal funding sources, many were created by the City for special purposes. Several of the funds are no longer active. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings
F4:
As a result of the proliferation of funds, a complete analysis of the total budget for most City departments requires assembling the data from several funding categories. For example, there are fifteen separate funds that relate to the sewer system, sanitation district and the disposal site. A clear financial picture of the Public Utilities Department is not easily determined. The published City Budget does not include departmental summaries. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings
F5:
Likewise, the overall revenues and expenditures for the City are not presented except in pie-chart format (pages ES-40 and 41 of the 1999-2000 Budget). Response (City of Ukiah): Overall revenues and expenditures for the city are presented as totals on the “Fund Summary” schedules as well as in the pie-chart format.
F6:
The City has managed to operate successfully in recent years without the need to increase its permanent staff, although there has been a marked increase in temporary, seasonal and part-time employees. The number of permanent staff has declined from 160 in 1996 to 156 in 2000; during the same time frame the temporary and part-time staff has risen from 76 to 109. Much of this increase is accounted for by the expansion of community services offered, especially in the Day Camp and Sports programs, which are seasonal. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
F7:
The City maintains a complete set of job descriptions for all key employees. Some, however, have not been updated recently (e.g., the job description for the Director of Community Development was last revised in March 1978). Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
F8:
The City’s Employees’ Manual is both current and comprehensive. Although the Manual’s Harassment Policy includes sexual orientation, it is absent from the section on Equal Opportunity. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 3
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
To facilitate understanding by the general public and the City Council, the Finance Director should prepare an Executive Summary that addresses the overall financial health of the City. This summary could combine the General Fund with all other funds. In a similar fashion, each department’s budget should include a summation of all revenue sources and spending categories.
R2:
All inactive funds should be discontinued.
R3:
Sexual orientation should be included in the non-discriminatory wording in the Equal Opportunity section of the Employees’ Manual. Response (City of Ukiah): The City of Ukiah will add “sexual orientation” to the non-discriminatory elements currently listed in Section 2.02 Equal Employment Opportunity of its Employee’s Manual. Sexual orientation is currently included in the City’s Harassment Policy and in the Equal Opportunity Employment statement at the bottom of each vacancy recruitment the City posts.
R4:
All job descriptions should be reviewed periodically. Response (City of Ukiah): City of Ukiah job descriptions are reviewed periodically in a number of instances, which include: recruitment to fill a job vacancy; request for reclassification of a specific position; when duties of a job change; or when legal changes occur. The Personnel Department is staffed by one employee, therefore other duties and responsibilities take priority over the review of job descriptions until one of the above instances occurs, or as time allows. Comment Although the number of temporary, seasonal and part-time employees (109) seems unusually high at first glance, all of these positions may well be justified. Response Required Ukiah City Council Response Requested Ukiah City Manager 4 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
11 hallazgos
F1:
The UPD personnel consist of 41 employees. There are 26 sworn staff, 11 civilian staff, two Community Oriented Policing (COPS), one Community Coordinator and one Major Task Force personnel. Response (City of Ukiah): The department currently has 26 sworn officers. This includes the Community Oriented Policing personnel. One (1) officer assigned to the Major Crimes Task Force. 11 1/2 civilian employees, which include public safety dispatchers, front office staff, vehicle mechanic and parking enforcement officers. Public Safety dispatchers and vehicle mechanic are actually shared costs with other City departments. Total UPD Personnel: 37 1/2.
F2:
In the last two years the UPD received a grant and has invested approximately $500,000 to install a Windows NT network. This computer supports all divisions of Public Safety from emergency medical services to fire and police services. This system includes software for medical, fire, and police incident reporting and computer-aided dispatch software to track and assist in the deployment of emergency personnel. Peace officers, firefighters, and dispatchers now share a central database of information, which provides for enhancement and better use of their database. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 5 The UPD also received a grant from the State of California for a computer controlled 9-1-1 telephone and radio system. This computer is tied directly to the UPD computer-aided dispatch system and provides immediate information to dispatchers in emergency situations. Also installed was an emergency medical dispatching software package, which is now assisting dispatchers to provide immediate medical information on the phone as personnel respond to the scene. The UPD has also received a number of federal grants, which have provided the UPD with computer crime-mapping programs, digital cameras, laptop computers, and information access. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
F3:
The morale seems high in the UPD and the entire staff has great esteem for the new Chief. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
F4:
The turnover rate remains consistently low. The staff shows no indication of discontent with the management or the manner in which the UPD is functioning. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
F5:
In response to a police shooting in July 1998, a group of concerned citizens formed the AHCCC to address racial issues and law enforcement. In 1999, the UPD and AHCCC signed a statement of mutual understanding. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
F6:
The UPD adheres to a 1999 countywide medical marijuana policy issued by the District Attorney's Office and administered by the Sheriff's Department. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings. Training Findings
F7:
Effort is made to ensure that all peace officers comply with the mandatory training required by POST. This compliance has been certified by POST inspectors. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
F8:
Currently there is no system for monitoring compliance with minimal POST 6 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report standards and additional UPD internal standards. A new computer program has been ordered to improve the tracking of the training requirements for the UPD. Response (City of Ukiah): P.O.S.T. regulates and monitors adherence to P.O.S.T. standards with an internal record keeping system and on –site audit by P.O.S.T. personnel.
F9:
Peace officers are trained in domestic violence response, leadership, hostage negotiations, parolee contact, missing persons, field evidence, firearms instruction, civil liability, internal affairs, ethics, accident investigation, supervision, background investigation, sexual assault investigation, narcotics, canine, pepper spray restraint devices, crime-scene control and security, high- speed stops, and other training as offered. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
F10:
Although not required by POST, there were four formal training sessions with the MCMHD in the fall of 1999. . Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with findings.
F11:
Training is sometimes restricted as a result of the budget restraints for reimbursement of pay as many of the classes require overtime. The UPD ran out of overtime in February 2000 and has since curtailed the training program. POST is responsible for setting training standards for the hiring of police officers. POST requires 24 hours of training per year, which is discretionary with each department. POST will reimburse local districts for up to 80 hours of training per officer per year, but does not include reimbursement for overtime. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with finding. However, P.O.S.T. does reimburse associated overtime for some specific training courses.
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Grand Jury urges the UPD to continue to make training one of their top priorities. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with recommendation. The department will keep training a top priority for all department personnel.
R2:
The UPD should install the computer program and get the training-monitoring program up and operational as soon as possible. Response (City of Ukiah): The computer program that was purchased to manage our training records has been received and installed. Three department employees are scheduled to received training to properly use the program. Training scheduled for July 2000.
R11:
Training is sometimes restricted as a result of the budget restraints for reimbursement of pay as many of the classes require overtime. The UPD ran out of overtime in February 2000 and has since curtailed the training program. POST is responsible for setting training standards for the hiring of police officers. POST requires 24 hours of training per year, which is discretionary with each department. POST will reimburse local districts for up to 80 hours of training per officer per year, but does not include reimbursement for overtime. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with finding. However, P.O.S.T. does reimburse associated overtime for some specific training courses. Recommendation The Ukiah City Council should establish a separate training budget for the UPD that includes an adequate provision of necessary overtime. Response (City of Ukiah): The Ukiah City Council did increase the overtime budget for fiscal year 2000-20001. This should help with providing for some additional training. Response Required Ukiah City Council Response Requested Ukiah Police Department 8 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
The Grand Jury found, based on all the information presented, no evidence of conflict of interest, misuse of office, nor conspiracy to defraud by the former Deputy District Attorney who prosecuted the case. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding.
F2:
Based on the documents and official records reviewed, the account of the arrest, trial and conviction offered by the complainant was not supported. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding.
F3:
The new Policy and Procedures Manual developed by the District Attorney in 1999, contains specific conflict of interest guidelines that are understood by Deputy District Attorneys. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 30 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F4:
State standards and Code of Ethics were in place in 1997 and were well known and understood by those Deputy District Attorneys interviewed. Both in 1997 and currently when questions of ethics or conflict of interest arise, Deputy District Attorneys seek guidance from senior staff members. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The District Attorney's Office continues to maintain a high level of awareness regarding conflict of interest. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation. The District Attorney has developed a Policy and Procedures Manual that details the Conflict of Interest Code.
R2:
The quality and utility of the District Attorney's Policy and Procedures manual are exemplary; all County Departments should have current, active manuals. Response (District Attorney): The District Attorney’s Office agrees with this response. Under this administration all prosecutors are held to a high standard of professional ethics. For this reason, a Policy and Procedures Manual was developed. Furthermore, any case for which there is a question or an appearance of a conflict is referred to the Attorney General. If that agency feels a conflict exists, it will take over the prosecution. This office thanks the Grand Jury for the written compliments. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation and will encourage all departments to update and/or develop a comprehensive policy and procedures manual. Response Required Mendocino County District Attorney Mendocino County Board of Supervisors 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 31
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
23 hallazgos
F1:
Turnover in the department has been chronically high (8% per annum) and had increased to 16% during 1999. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F2:
The causes of this high turnover, reported by those interviewed, included: a. low salary b. lack of safety retirement benefit c. low morale d. dissatisfaction with management e. lack of opportunity for advancement Response (Probation): Agree with the finding in that those interviewed may have indicated the listed reasons. The Chief Probation Officer believes staff was justified in their perceptions of the turnover. However, the Department has performed exit interviews with most of the staff that departed. Low salary, safety retirement, and lack of promotional opportunities were the primary reasons given. Low morale was not mentioned, nor was dissatisfaction with management. These two were probably the result of the restructuring of the Department that occurred during that year, but was abandoned later because of various reasons which will be discussed in subsequent sections of this response. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 33 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Each area is either being dealt with by the Department or the County in general.
F3:
The high turnover rate has resulted in chronic under-staffing, thereby increasing case load and job stress. Response (Probation): Highly agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and has taken steps such as the Compensation and Classification Study to eliminate low salaries.
F4:
In January 1999, the Mendocino County Courts restructured the Ukiah court system to assign cases to courtrooms alphabetically according to the last name of the defendant . The introduction of this “vertical” system has exacerbated Probation Department under-staffing. Recognizing this hardship, the Courts are now accepting written reports from Probation Court Officers in certain circumstances. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding. The Courts were cooperative in assisting the Department in staffing for the different judicial department assignments. However, Probation Court Officers are still required to spend an inordinate amount of time in court, due to delays or intervening cases, making it difficult for the officers to find time to prepare the required written court reports. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response of the Chief Probation Officer. The Board appreciates the Courts willingness to cooperate with Probation and to look for alternative solutions.
F5:
A 1998 survey of Probation Department salaries in 50 of California’s 59 counties , conducted by Kern County, indicated that salaries are a direct function of the population of the county. For example, Mendocino County ranked 34th in population among the 50 counties. Deputy Probation Officer I salaries ranked 33rd and Deputy Probation Officer II ranked 32nd. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding. The survey is prepared biennially for and on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC) association, with information derived from each of the participating county probation departments. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. 34 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F6:
Most Deputy Probation Officers (DPO’s) interviewed felt they were underpaid. However, the County-financed January 2000 Slavin Report reveals those salaries for DPO’s are on a par with other sample counties. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding. The disparity comes in the higher level positions. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Salary issues were found at the higher level positions.
F7:
However, both the Slavin Report and the Kern County study reveal that the salary of Mendocino County’s Chief Probation Officer (CPO) is substantially less than CPO’s in other comparable counties. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding. The CPO has researched this issue independently and came to the same conclusion. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F8:
The Probation Department has, for a number of years, experienced great difficulty in its ability to recruit qualified staff. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding. This is a statewide problem that has been discussed at many CPOC meetings. Educational requirements are the biggest stumbling blocks, although many applicants do not pass the background investigations, because of criminal records or fabricated information in the applications. A combination of education and experience has been our measuring tape for the last several years. The Chiefs are mounting a media campaign to make the public more aware of probation services and our roles in the community. A sharing of employment applications throughout the State has also been discussed. The Department is working with the Mendocino College to start internship and work-experience programs, which should increase interest in this field. Also impacting our recruitment are the issues mentioned in item 2 of this section. We are hopeful that increased salaries and safety retirement will entice more applicants. Internal incentives, such as adjusted professional hours (a current practice), may also have an impact. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 35 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. This issue occurs in almost all California counties. The Chief Probation Officer is fully aware of this concern and has taken steps, in cooperation with Mendocino College, to develop an internship program. The Board is also in the final stages of implementation of the Slavin Study, which will increase salaries.
F9:
Despite recommendations from the CPO and proposals from the SEIU, Local 707, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) has rejected offering Probation Officers Safety retirement. Twenty-eight of the 46 counties surveyed offer this benefit. The Union volunteered to pay for half the cost of an actuarial study. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding in part. The issue of safety retirement has been discussed at meet and confer sessions during MOU negotiations. The request for an actuarial study was presented by the Union and reportedly rejected by the BOS. I have met with the Union representative and our staff, and are in the process of preparing a presentation for safety retirement for the BOS. As of this time, no formal discussion between the BOS and the CPO has taken place. The Department highly encourages the County to implement it, both for officer safety consideration and as a recruitment incentive. Response (Board of Supervisors): The issue of safety retirement for Probation Officers is still in discussions and will be reviewed this fiscal year. The Board’s goal this year is the implementation of the Slavin Study with other issues moved to future review.
F10:
A number of those interviewed voiced complaints concerning the lack of opportunity for advancement. However, it is clear that promotion from within the department is commonplace. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding. This is a small department with few chances for promotion. The Department has recently acquired several mid-management positions through court funding, grants, and inter-agency agreements, allowing for internal advancement. However, there are many qualified officers competing for these few positions. Safety retirement might encourage upper management officers to retire earlier, but until then there do not appear to be many promotional opportunities. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer.
F11:
Line staff was not adequately prepared for the reorganization of the Probation Department in December 1998. Their views were not solicited and as a result they were antagonistic to the new organization from its inception. Response (Probation): Highly disagree with this finding. It may be the perception of some line staff that the reorganization was imposed upon them with little of their input, but input from all staff was solicited at every step of the reorganization. Management level staff was instructed to consult line staff for suggestions and criticism, which is verified in administrative staff meeting minutes. The unit supervisors reported that there was very little input from their line staff, and that which was received was considered and used or rejected after extensive discussion. Management “retreats” were held to compile staff input and to design the new organization. Many line and management issues for the improvement of operations were thoroughly discussed. No policy, procedure, or change of operation was implemented without agreement from the entire group. Once the reorganization plan was 38 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report published, there was plenty of time for input for modifications and corrections. It was emphasized all along that the reorganization was not set in concrete, and that the plan was open to constructive criticism and modification. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this finding and agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. The Chief Probation Officer took several steps to include all staff in the preliminary discussions and reviews before any modification took place. Change is difficult for everyone. Some employees may have felt left out but did have an opportunity to share their opinions at various stages of the process.
F12:
Prior to December 1998, the juvenile and adult units were separated. The new organization created court and supervision units that encompassed both the adult and juvenile functions, which seriously restricted communication. The new organization also had inherent supervision problems (e.g., one supervisor had 22 DPO’s reporting to him). Response (Probation): Disagree with this finding, which appears to place the failure of the reorganization on restricted communications and staffing patterns. As probation departments in general are finding that many members of families are on probation at the same time (parents and siblings alike), supervision of the family unit as a whole is becoming more and more essential to community corrections. The new model recognized this as a new and innovative way of dealing with this trend. The model also retained juvenile/adult practices, but required staff to learn practices with which they were not familiar. This created a feeling of being overburdened with the learning process, while trying to deal with burgeoning caseloads. To add to the dilemma, the turnover of staff may have been indicative of the staff’s dislike for the reorganization, but it also exacerbated the problems of implementing the new design. To their credit, the officers made valiant efforts to learn both adult and juvenile laws, courtroom procedures, and supervision requirements, assisting each other in this process. Restricted communications resulted from two unexpected areas, the shift from the juvenile/adult paradigm that had been practiced for years, and having staff in more than one location. The difficulty in adapting to the new model was evident in the territorial protectiveness that staff was not willing to give up. This impacted sharing of information. Complaints that court officers were not leaving adequate and appropriate information in the files for the supervision officers, and vice versa, exemplified the discontent with the reorganization. However, 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 39 these complaints pre-date the restructuring and are again expressed by staff today. There seemed to have been a reluctance to simply communicate by telephone and e-mail (Jalan), which would have simplified the process. Not being under one roof is, and will be, a problem for communications among the staff, but a willingness to communicate is imperative. As just noted, there still seems to be an inability or reluctance to share information in a timely manner. Management staff is cognizant of this and has worked to eliminate communication problems. The issue of supervisor/staff ratio was in the process of being rectified by creating more DPO III (mid-management) positions. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this finding and agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. The Department was finding that several family members are on probation at the same time, thus supervision of the family unit became essential to community corrections. This new model retained juvenile/adult practices, but did require staff to learn practices unfamiliar to them. This did create a feeling of being overburdened with the process since Probation was experiencing staff concerns at the time. Communication was a concern before this restructuring and is being addressed by staff. Staff is addressing the supervision issue by creating more mid-management positions.
F13:
To the credit of the CPO, recognizing the widespread dissatisfaction and inherent problems, he rescinded the new organization in October 1999. It was replaced by an organizational structure that reinstated many, but not all, of the features of the 1998 form. Response (Probation): As much as the Department appreciates the comment, the CPO disagrees with the finding. The CPO did not rescind the reorganization due to dissatisfaction or inherent problems. The believed and still believes that the restructuring would have been effective in delivering better service. Many felt it was for the good of the department and participated fully. However, the CPO received many comments from outside sources that several staff were openly critical of the reorganization and expressed their negative views and reluctance to participate loudly in the public forum. These staff members did not come directly to the CPO with their concerns or comments or suggestions as to how to improve service delivery. Further, there were outside influences that impacted the reorganization in a negative way. The vertical calendar model for the courts changed the staffing pattern for the adult courts. Domestic violence caseloads increased dramatically, causing a shift in supervision priorities. The 40 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report reassignment of judges and the creation of new therapeutic courts shifted demands for court services. In a memorandum presented to staff and the courts, the CPO compared the situation to Sebastion Junger’s book, The Perfect Storm, where several smaller storms from various areas combined to create a super storm that sunk an unsuspecting boat. Significant issues combined suddenly to make the new model difficult to implement at the time. Considering the loss of staff during this period and the new DPOs having to be trained, along with the above-noted problems, the CPO decided that the reorganization would not work at that time, and therefore, returned to a modified form of the previous organization. This pleased most, if not all, staff mainly because it relieved the tension that surrounded the project. Many staff members have commented that they learned many things from the experiment: the roles and responsibilities of those whose positions were different and/or misunderstood, a greater appreciation of the amount of work performed by others, new and exciting information and techniques not previously shared between the units, a willingness to look at whole families and not individuals, and a better understanding of the problems inherent in remaining in a position so long that the tasks become routine and personal pride gets eroded. The reorganization was based on a model used in other county probation departments throughout the nation. Given a different time and more favorable circumstances, the CPO would again reorganize along the same lines. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Because of staff shortages such as loss of line staff, supervisors must perform non- supervisory roles on a limited basis. The department is attempting to reduce this concern through additional mid-management staff.
F14:
The current organization continues to have managerial problems in that supervisorial units are extremely large and one of the most experienced supervisors is assigned a non-supervisory role. Response (Probation): Agree in part with this finding. Supervision caseloads are large, but cannot be compared to court responsibilities in terms of workload. Each task requires specialized abilities that can be measured qualitatively and quantitatively. Unit supervisors are often required to perform line duties because of loss of staff through termination, loss of line staff to training, increased work assignments generated by the courts, and inexperienced staff not being able to perform complex duties. These supervisors are burdened with supervising large staffs. We have attempted to alleviate some of this problem through additional mid-management positions. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 41 The unit supervisor who is not in a supervising role is assigned to coordinating training for the entire department, seeking and procuring grants and other funding prospects, and preparing guardianship reports for the civil court. The training function is easily a half-time position, requiring scheduling, monitoring, fiscal control, and evaluation of internal and state-required training. Deputized officers attended 4086 hours of state-mandated instruction during the last fiscal year. The department was required to perform guardianship investigation reports about two years ago, with no additional staff. What started as a trickle of requests has expanded into an almost full-time task. And this supervisor has been instrumental in obtaining grants and monitoring the TANF/IVE allocations. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Because of staff shortages such as loss of line staff, supervisors must perform non- supervisory roles on a limited basis. The department is attempting to reduce this concern through additional mid-management staff.
F15:
The split of the organization between the Standley Street and Low Gap Road facilities burdens operations and causes communication problems. Having the Department under one roof was recommended in the 1999 Ross-Drulis Criminal Justice Facility Master Plan, funded by the BOS. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Limited resources dictate logistic problems, which the Board is aware of.
F16:
Competency, job knowledge, and dedication were high at all levels in the department. Line staff demonstrated a deep commitment to their work. Response (Probation): Highly agree with this finding. We have a well-trained and competent staff, eager to learn new techniques and procedures. This staff is dedicated and very committed to serving and protecting the community. The community as a whole should be proud of their efforts. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and thanks the Grand Jury for their comments. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 43
F17:
Outside obligations and commitments have caused the current CPO and his predecessor to be out of the office over 40% of the time, seriously limiting his availability to staff and knowledge of the day-to-day running of the department. Having his already overburdened supervisors stand in for him does not ease the situation. Response (Probation): Since the Chief Probation Officer is the administrator of the department, it is necessary for him to spend a great deal of time in meetings with other agencies throughout the county and state, seeking collaborations for services, funding sources, and up-to-date legislative programs. Time is spent in consultation with the county administration, other chief probation officers, and training providers. The CPO attends commission and committee meetings by appointment from the BOS; represents the department and county at speaking engagements, national conferences (National Community Sentencing Association), and community based activities (such as the Community Forum on Hate Crime, the Ukiah Valley Culture and Recreational Center) and sits on boards of directors (Ford Street Project, Mendo-Lake Alternative Services Program). With annual personal leave, which after 30 years of service is substantial and difficult to use, but encouraged by county BOS policy, the CPO indeed spend time away from the office. The CPO believes this time away from the office is essential to operating the Department efficiently. The CPO does not believe that it is necessary to be involved in every aspect of the operations. As an analogy, the ship’s captain is responsible for getting to port, but is not involved in ordering the uniforms for the crew or managing the galley on the trip. Unit supervisors have been appointed because of their management abilities and leadership skills, and are expected to monitor the day-to-day operations of their units. They are expected to keep me informed of issues within their units, especially those that affect the other units. All management level staff (CPO, SDPOs, DPO IIIs, Superintendent, Asst. Superintendent, and Administrative Manager) meet twice per month (recently changed from once a week) to discuss operational and personnel issues. The CPO meets almost daily with each of the unit supervisors. When he is away for an extended period, the CPO appoints one of the supervisors to be in charge, rotating the responsibility among the SDPOs and the Juvenile Hall Superintendent. The CPO views this practice as a chance to enhance leadership skills. The CPO does not leave the office without leaving a contact number, and am available at all times by pager, even during his personal leave. As noted below, the CPO has the desire to have an assistant chief probation officer, but that position was eliminated by a resolution from the Board of Supervisors in the early 1980’s, when the department 44 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report was smaller. In place of the Assistant position, the Supervising Deputy Probation Officer position was created to supervisor each unit. The CPO has concentrated on adding new positions in the lower levels of the probation officer series, not upper management. As the need for an assistant has become apparent for many reasons, the CPO intends to request this position next year. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Local and State obligations do sometimes take a manager away from the office but with current technology, physically remaining in the office is sometimes not necessary. The Chief Probation Officer must prioritize his time between his outside obligations and his need to properly supervise his staff.
F18:
Team building efforts have been restricted to senior staff members and have not been provided to line staff, leaving them with a feeling of being left out. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding, but not the underlying message. The original team building effort was a product of the past administration and was effective in modifying many internal problems in communications. The group was limited to the management team, because of the nature of the communication problems existed at that level of the organization. When it was decided to implement an overall departmental quality and continuous improvement program, several general staff meetings were held to work out the program. Very little participation from line staff undermined the effort. The chosen model, “Simply Better,” had been used in other local agencies and was well accepted. When there are players that do not want to play as a team, it is futile to press it upon the whole. Team building was offered as a departmental program, but not supported by all. The Clerical/Accounting Unit has begun to implement this program on a smaller scale. It has improved workflow and communications within that unit. Since there was sufficient improvement in communication in the management team, that team building program was discontinued about a year ago. Response (Board of Supervisors): The team building program was discontinued a year ago and did include only management since the focus was managerial communication.
F19:
The Court appoints the CPO and performs an annual review of the Probation Department. However, the Court does not specifically evaluate the CPO’s performance; nor is his performance reviewed by the Chief Administrative Officer or the BOS. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 45 Response (Probation): Disagree with this finding. The CPO receives an annual evaluation of his performance from the presiding judge, prepared in consultation with the other judges. The CPO provides a statement of accomplishments and operations for the year. The CPO also meets regularly with the judges, both in the courtroom and at meetings. Although they are not directly involved in the county budget process, they are kept apprised of the operations. The CAO and BOS do not evaluate the CPO’s performance, but are kept informed about program and operations issues. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer.
F20:
Many DPO Supervisors have experienced dangerous encounters in the performance of their duties. All line staff interviewed felt they should be armed. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding. Many, not all, of the deputy probation officers feel a need to be armed. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 47 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer.
F21:
The Probation Department is seeing more violent behavior and armed offenders. Probation supervisors are required to travel to remote areas of the County in the performance of their duties. Often these areas are where methamphetamine labs and marijuana cultivation are prevalent. Armed defenders are usually present at these establishments. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F22:
The decision to arm DPO’s is solely at the discretion of the CPO. He is hesitant to arm his officers for fear that arming may, in fact, increase the overall risk to their safety. Another concern mentioned by the CPO is the potential for increased liability exposure to the County. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F23:
The Probation Department Administrative Manual has not been updated in over ten years. Its contents are not well known by the staff and it is rarely referred to. There are more than a dozen sections that address subjects covered by the County Administrative and Policy and Procedures Manuals (e.g., Affirmative Action, Use of County Vehicles, Sexual Harassment, Seat Belts, Political Activity, among others). The Probation Administrative Manual does not include job descriptions for the court DPO’s nor supervision DPO’s. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 49 Response (Probation): Agree with this recommendation. An effort to update the manual was started by the previous chief, but stalled along the way. About a year ago, the CPO restarted the process and am currently working on the update. Duplication of sections with other manuals may occur when there are special needs or variations within the departments (e.g. use of vehicles for overnight transportation or on-call activities). Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
Recomendaciones adicionales
5
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The BOS should determine the cost of high Probation Department turnover, including recruitment, training, and loss of experience. Response (Probation): Agree with this recommendation and would fully cooperate in this determination. As the problems with recruitment were discussed earlier, the issues of retention are also important to explore. The State (through the Board of Corrections) and the County contribute to the cost of training deputized staff. To lose staff for any reason is fiscally painful due to the high investment for this early training. The loss of experienced staff creates liability issues, while increasing demands on seasoned staff to train and support newer officers during the initial probationary periods. As stated earlier, this is not unique to Mendocino County Probation, and efforts are being made on a statewide basis to reduce turnover. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board understands the high cost of turnover and we have taken steps to reduce the problem with the Classification and Compensation Study (Slavin), reviewing safety retirement and encouraging the Chief Probation Officer to examine and modify internal issues that may affect an employees willingness to continue employment with the Department. Time Frame for Implementation: Anticipated completion of cost estimate of the high turnover is April, 2001. This will include recruitment, training costs, clerical time, etc.
R2:
The BOS should review Probation Department salaries to determine if an increase would likely reduce turnover, increase job satisfaction and facilitate recruitment. Response (Probation): Agree with this recommendation. The CPO believes the Slavin Study is the first step in this direction. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board believes that the Slavin Study will address this recommendation. Time Frame for Implementation: Slavin Study will be implemented effective November 26, 2000. The determination of any appreciable difference should be completed by December, 2001.
R3:
The BOS should seriously re-evaluate the cost and benefit of making Safety Retirement available to all qualified employees of the Probation Department. An actuarial study should be conducted. Response (Probation): Agree with this recommendation. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 37 Response (Board of Supervisors): This issue will come forward in the next several months. The Board will take a critical look and this recommendation based on our financial abilities and with a need to retain our valuable employees. Time Frame for Implementation: The Department anticipates presenting a recommendation to the Board in April, 2001.
R4:
New staff positions should be established to satisfy the burden of the vertical court system. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding. With a limited overall county budget, it is difficult to implement new positions. I have been seeking grants and other funding streams to enhance staffing. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board authorized one new probation officer during the Final Budget process. The Chief Probation Officer is seeking grants to reduce the impact on the County’s General Fund and thus still address the expanding needs of our communities. Time Frame for Implementation: On-going through grant applications and seeking other funding streams to enhance staffing. Organization and Facilities
R23:
The Probation Department Administrative Manual has not been updated in over ten years. Its contents are not well known by the staff and it is rarely referred to. There are more than a dozen sections that address subjects covered by the County Administrative and Policy and Procedures Manuals (e.g., Affirmative Action, Use of County Vehicles, Sexual Harassment, Seat Belts, Political Activity, among others). The Probation Administrative Manual does not include job descriptions for the court DPO’s nor supervision DPO’s. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 49 Response (Probation): Agree with this recommendation. An effort to update the manual was started by the previous chief, but stalled along the way. About a year ago, the CPO restarted the process and am currently working on the update. Duplication of sections with other manuals may occur when there are special needs or variations within the departments (e.g. use of vehicles for overnight transportation or on-call activities). Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
11 hallazgos
F1:
Some Social Workers (SWs) responding to a referral lack CWS training and skills in ER. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. The Department has a training program for new staff and review training for existing staff. The overall shortage of staff with prior Children’s Services experience and the need to move new staff into active duty rapidly can lead to social workers with less than optimal training and skills being on-call to receive referrals. 52 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department agree with this finding in part and recognize that it is a critical issue throughout rural counties. The overall shortage of staff with prior Children’s Services experience, coupled with the urgent need for more staff, can lead to social workers with less than optimal training. The Department has a training program for new staff and continually reviews the need for on-going training for existing staff.
F2:
CPS administrators and staff indicate it is difficult to hire and retain experienced SWs due to stressful job demands and the resulting burnout. Response (Social Services): Agree. In the past six months, out of 16 social workers who left Children’s Services, 12 left to enter private practice or other less demanding positions. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees based on information supplied by the Department which indicates that 12 of 16 Social Workers who left Child Protection Services in a six month period, did so to go into private practice or to take less demanding assignments elsewhere within County service.
F3:
Top administrators stated that it is difficult to find SWs with experience in CWS. Response (Social Services): Agree. Finding Social Workers with direct Child Welfare Services experience is a statewide problem, that is of special concern in rural counties. The problem is so acute that the County Welfare Director’s Association, in cooperation with State Merit System, has established a standing committee to address the issues of recruitment and retention of staff. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding and note that it is a frequent topic of discussion among rural counties statewide.
F4:
CPS has recently hired a new training supervisor to provide information about State and Federal guidelines on Child Welfare Services. The training will also include the Department Policies and Procedures, Court procedure and case management process. The department plans that new SWs involved in ER will participate in Emergency Response investigations during the training period. The University of California Davis has been contracted to provide Mendocino County specific training in Ukiah. Response (Social Services): Agree. The Department has made a major commitment to expanding the breadth and depth of training for all staff. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 53 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. The Board commends the Department for its commitment to expanding the “breadth and depth” of training for its staff.
F5:
At the time of our oversight, the screener, classified as an Aide, took the initial telephone call, recorded pertinent information and assessed the urgency of the situation. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding based on the response of the Department.
F6:
The Child Welfare SW supervisor determines whether an immediate or 10-day in-person investigation by the ER unit, referral to a community agency or no action at all is appropriate. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding based on the response of the Department.
F7:
The clerks research possible prior complaints and input information into the CWS/CMS computer system. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding based on the response of the Department. 54 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F8:
State standards regulating caseload assignments for Emergency Response SWs were developed in the early 1980s before the state mandated CWS/CMS Data System was implemented. While the information this system makes available is considered most useful, all staff stated that the current program for data input is extremely cumbersome and requires extra time for SWs to collect and enter information. Response (Social Services): Agree. It is estimated conservatively that the CWS/CMS computer systems increased the workload of social workers by approximately 10%. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding.
F9:
Family and Children's Services Division SWs are on-call on a rotating basis to provide 24-hour coverage to assess children's situations for immediate danger. Response (Social Services): Agree. It should be noted that the stand-by rate is $1.25 per hour and has not been increased many years. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. 10. All changes in placement are made in consultation with the ER Supervisor. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. 11. ER in Ukiah has been divided into two separate units: ER which follows the case through the initial court disposition and the Court Unit which stays with the case for continuing services, that can end with family services or continue until the child is 18. If this division proves successful, it will serve as a model for the remaining CPS offices in the county. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. Comments The Grand Jury commends Child Protective Services and the Emergency Response Unit for initiating a reorganization of their department. The aim of this reorganization is to terminate Emergency Response involvement after initial court action and assign the case to a single Social Worker throughout the time the case is active with the Child Welfare System and thereby promote consistency in case management. 56 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Social Services): Agree. The Department worked with the Child Welfare League of America in 1999 to develop a strategic plan to guide the reorganization and continuing improvement of the Children’s Services Division. Changes will take place over time, but progress is being made in building a strong and effective continuum of services to children and their families in Mendocino County. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Department of Social Services 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 57
F10:
All changes in placement are made in consultation with the ER Supervisor. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding.
F11:
ER in Ukiah has been divided into two separate units: ER which follows the case through the initial court disposition and the Court Unit which stays with the case for continuing services, that can end with family services or continue until the child is 18. If this division proves successful, it will serve as a model for the remaining CPS offices in the county. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. Comments The Grand Jury commends Child Protective Services and the Emergency Response Unit for initiating a reorganization of their department. The aim of this reorganization is to terminate Emergency Response involvement after initial court action and assign the case to a single Social Worker throughout the time the case is active with the Child Welfare System and thereby promote consistency in case management. 56 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Social Services): Agree. The Department worked with the Child Welfare League of America in 1999 to develop a strategic plan to guide the reorganization and continuing improvement of the Children’s Services Division. Changes will take place over time, but progress is being made in building a strong and effective continuum of services to children and their families in Mendocino County. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Department of Social Services 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 57
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R8:
State standards regulating caseload assignments for Emergency Response SWs were developed in the early 1980s before the state mandated CWS/CMS Data System was implemented. While the information this system makes available is considered most useful, all staff stated that the current program for data input is extremely cumbersome and requires extra time for SWs to collect and enter information. Response (Social Services): Agree. It is estimated conservatively that the CWS/CMS computer systems increased the workload of social workers by approximately 10%. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. Recommendation On-going training in the use of the CWS/CMS computer system is necessary. It would be desirable if the statewide system were more user-friendly. Response (Social Services): Agree. Training in the use of CWS/CMS is provided. A Help Desk position is also available to provide assistance to staff. Unfortunately the Department has no control over the statewide system. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 55 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding, noting that training in the use of CWS/CMS is provided and a Help Desk position is also available for staff. While the Board and Department staff have no control over the statewide system, county officials will continue to provide feedback and be a part of efforts to improve this system. Time Frame for Implementation: On-going Training for CWS/CMS to be implemented January-June 2001.
R9:
Family and Children's Services Division SWs are on-call on a rotating basis to provide 24-hour coverage to assess children's situations for immediate danger. Response (Social Services): Agree. It should be noted that the stand-by rate is $1.25 per hour and has not been increased many years. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding.
R10:
All changes in placement are made in consultation with the ER Supervisor. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding.
R11:
ER in Ukiah has been divided into two separate units: ER which follows the case through the initial court disposition and the Court Unit which stays with the case for continuing services, that can end with family services or continue until the child is 18. If this division proves successful, it will serve as a model for the remaining CPS offices in the county. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. Comments The Grand Jury commends Child Protective Services and the Emergency Response Unit for initiating a reorganization of their department. The aim of this reorganization is to terminate Emergency Response involvement after initial court action and assign the case to a single Social Worker throughout the time the case is active with the Child Welfare System and thereby promote consistency in case management. 56 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Social Services): Agree. The Department worked with the Child Welfare League of America in 1999 to develop a strategic plan to guide the reorganization and continuing improvement of the Children’s Services Division. Changes will take place over time, but progress is being made in building a strong and effective continuum of services to children and their families in Mendocino County. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Department of Social Services 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 57
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
12 hallazgos
F1:
The Audit consisted of the results of a survey of all available employees and found serious problems in all of the FARs units. The employee survey results are as follows: a. Turnover rate for FARs was 59% in 1997/1998 fiscal year, which was almost twice that of the ten other comparable counties surveyed. This figure also included any FARs transferred to another division in the MCDSS. In addition, 43.4% of FARs were planning to leave. Top five 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 65 reasons cited for leaving were: low pay, inadequate management, favoritism, burnout, and lack of recognition for achievement. b. The MCDSS was out of compliance with state regulations regarding time required to process applications for CalWORKS and Food Stamps. c. 30% thought management had done a good job implementing changes in the past year. d. 30% thought their opinions were valued and respected by management, but only 11.7% thought their opinions were valued and would contribute to fulfilling the MCDSS goals and purposes. e. 33% thought management communicated the goals of MCDSS clearly and consistently, while only 15% thought communication between management and staff was good. f. 20% thought MCDSS was managed efficiently. g. 13.6% thought good work was consistently recognized and rewarded. h. 42.4% thought supervisors were fair in dealing with employees (testimony showed this has improved with personnel changes). i. 13.3% agreed that coordination between units and divisions in MCDSS was good. j. 90% were not satisfied with their salary. MCDSS salaries range between 90-93 % of the other counties surveyed (testimony revealed the Board of Supervisors {BOS} are considering the Slavin Report proposals to improve salaries). k. 18.3% thought MCDSS Human Resources Division was helpful in resolving personnel matters. l. 47.5% thought their training was sufficient. A review of documentation and testimony from several former and current employees from the Fort Bragg FARs units, including management personnel resulted in the findings listed below: Response (Social Services): Agree, with clarification. This first finding is a selective listing of information from a management audit conducted in late 1998. 66 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with clarification. This finding represents a selective listing of information from a management audit conducted in late 1998. Since that time, many of the recommendations contained in that report have been implemented. Findings 2. Testimony supports most of the Audit findings. The MCDSS has developed a Multi-Faceted Action Plan, which has been approved by the BOS, to address the issues raised by the Audit. Response (Social Services): The Board agrees that a Multi-Faceted Action Plan has been approved and implemented, but is unable to confirm or deny the testimony referred to by the Grand Jury. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees that a Multi-Faceted Action Plan has been approved and implemented, but is unable to confirm or deny the testimony referred to by the Grand Jury. 3. The MCDSS management did not accept the finding by the Audit that favoritism played a part in promotions of employees. Staff reported occasions of favoritism practiced in promotions toward certain staff members, plus subtle favoritism or discrimination against men. MCDSS denies that favoritism is practiced in the MCDSS, stating this is only a “... perception of favoritism held by some people.” Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Audit did not make a finding that favoritism played a part in promotions of employees. The Audit stated: “Although recruitment for supervisory positions in the Department follows general Merit Service Systems guidelines, the perception exists among some staff that employees are promoted to supervisory positions based upon favoritism and loyalty to management rather than merit.” The Department’s response to the Audit was: “It is accepted that the perception of favoritism is held by some people; the reality is that promotions follow personnel guidelines and are based on a determination of who appears to be able to best perform the job.” The Department follows standard government personnel practices in its adherence to Civil Service and Merit System regulations in the recruitment, testing, and selection of employees. There is no discrimination against men. The individual filing the complaint with the Grand Jury also filed an EEOC complaint regarding not getting a promotion. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing conducted an investigation and found no evidence of discrimination by the Department. This outcome was communicated to the Grand Jury prior to the completion of their report. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 67
F2:
The County Counsel serves four-year terms. He may be removed for several reasons having to do with job performance and is subject to annual review by the BOS. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 58 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F3:
The County Counsel was created in Mendocino County by the BOS in 1977, when it was split off from the District Attorney. County Counsel shall discharge all the duties vested by law in the District Attorney, other than those of a Public Prosecutor. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F4:
The County Counsel is one of the advisors to the Grand Jury. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F5:
The County Counsel represents and advises the County Special Districts when: a. A Special District Board requests it. b. A Special District Board is composed in whole or in part of members of the BOS, and c. No specific provision is made to obtain legal services. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F6:
According to California Government Code Section 26526, the County Counsel is the legal advisor to the BOS, shall attend its meetings, when required, and shall oppose all claims against the County that the County Counsel deems unjust and illegal. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F7:
The Grand Jury heard testimony that there exists a state of animosity between the County Counsel, the District Attorney, some County Supervisors, and past Grand Juries. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board believes that due to the nature of County Counsel’s responsibilities that, at times, determinations and/or investigations might be perceived as animosity between the various offices and individuals. However, without further detailed information regarding specific incidents, the Board is unable to respond further to this finding.
F8:
Outside counsel is hired by the County Counsel when a conflict of interest arises, which, contrary to allegations, testimony showed occurred less than once a year. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 59 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F9:
The County Counsel reviews contracts for legal aspects, not content, to determine if the contract is legally defensible. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F10:
Staff attorneys work with minimal supervision and are overseen by the Chief Deputy County Counsel. Staff meetings are seldom held. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F11:
On occasion, County Counsel has been unable to advise the Grand Jury and other County departments due to its representation of County departments, which created, in the view of County Counsel, a conflict of interest. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F12:
A review of the past seven years of County Counsel opinions did not support the allegation that 50% of County Counsel opinions have been reversed. The Grand Jury investigations revealed such reversals as minimal. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Penal Code Section 934 allows the grand jury to seek, at all times the advice of the court or the judge thereof, the district attorney, the county counsel or the attorney general. The attorney general may grant or deny a request for advice from the grand jury. If the attorney general grants a request for advice from the grand jury, the attorney general must fulfill that request within existing financial and staffing resources.
R2:
Penal Code Section 936 authorizes a grand jury to request the attorney general to employ special counsel and special investigators. These services are a charge against the county.
R3:
Penal Code Section 936.5 authorizes the presiding judge of the Superior Court, when requested by the grand jury, to employ special counsel and special investigators, subject to the following procedure: a) Prior to the appointment, the presiding judge shall conduct an evidentiary hearing and find that a conflict exists that would prevent the local district attorney, the county counsel and the attorney general from performing such investigation. b) Notice of the hearing shall be given to each of them unless he or she is a subject of the investigation. c) The finding of the presiding judge may be appealed by the district attorney, the county counsel or the attorney general. d) The authority to appoint is contingent upon the certification by the auditor—comptroller of the county that the grand jury has funds appropriated to it sufficient to compensate the special counsel. In the absence of a certification, the court has no authority to appoint. In the event the county board of supervisors or a member thereof is under investigation, the County has the obligation to appropriate the necessary funds. The Grand Jury commented upon the creation of an ethical wall or screen within the County Counsel’s office to avoid potential conflicts in the future and to allow County Counsel to continue to provide representation to County clients who are in conflict with one another. The creation of an ethical wall or screen between attorneys in a county counsel’s office depends upon the nature of the representation undertaken, as well as sufficient professional and support staff and office space to be able to institute a complete screening between 62 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report attorneys and staff. Another problem with a screening device, particularly in significant litigation, is what role would the County Counsel play as the appointing authority and supervisor of County Counsel staff and as advisor to the Board of Supervisors? Can and should the County Counsel abdicate his duties as defined by state law to permit his deputies to operate with complete autonomy? A screening device is not a “one size fits all” proposition. County Counsel is currently reviewing the benefits of creating a screen with respect to certain recurring county counsel functions. However, for cases which pose a significant risk of liability we believe the prudent course of action is to retain outside independent counsel to represent one of the adversarial parties. As can be seen from the above examples, when the County did retain outside counsel, it was either mandated by law or it was a conscious decision of the Board of Supervisors, based upon a recommendation from this office. The instances requiring outside legal representation are so few that we are surprised this is even the subject of Grand Jury comment. We particularly find this puzzling because many county counsel offices do not undertake to defend 1983 actions, wrongful termination actions and tort actions in-house, opting instead for outside legal counsel. Keeping these cases in-house has been extremely cost-effective for the County. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response of the County Counsel and concurs that state legislature has provided sufficient alternative mechanisms with respect to legal representation for the Grand Jury as cited in Penal Code Sections 934, 936 and 936.5. The Board also agrees that County Counsel should continue its review of the benefits of creating an ethical wall or screen with respect to certain recurring County Counsel functions. Time Frame for Implementation: Review of the benefits of creating an ethical wall or screen with respect to certain recurring County Counsel functions is an on-going process. Comments Representatives of the County Departments that were interviewed, which are clients of the County Counsel, testified that they were pleased with the service provided to them by the County Counsel. The Grand Jury agrees that it is proper for the County Counsel to confine its review of contracts to legal content. The Grand Jury agrees that it is the responsibility of each department to acquire and provide the necessary expertise to enable the County to obtain the best goods and services. To accomplish this, all County Departments should pool their resources. For example, all County Departments 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 63 now rely on Information Services for all computer matters including service and procurement. The County Administrative Officer should create a roster of County experts and knowledgeable people in all areas of specialization to facilitate this process. The citizens of Mendocino County deserve, and have every reason to expect, that all Government officials conduct themselves in a mature, professional manner, without political, territorial battles that seem to be the norm. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Counsel Mendocino County Administrative Officer 64 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report MENDOCINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES The Mendocino County Department of Social Services (MCDSS) is organized into four program divisions: Employment and Family Assistance Services, Family and Children’s Services, Adult Services, and Veterans Services. The Employment and Family Assistance Division is responsible for administration of CalWORKS (CalWORKS is mandated and primarily funded by the Federal and State governments to provide financial support to children and their families who are unable to support themselves), Medi-Cal, the County Medical Services Program (CMSP), Food Stamps, and Employment Services. The Family Assistance Representatives (FARs) in Fort Bragg are assigned to two different units: CalWORKS with nine staff positions including one supervisor; Medi- Cal/ Food Stamps/CMSP with eight staff positions including one supervisor. The Fort Bragg office, which is the focus of this investigation, consists of a Program Manager who supervises those two units plus one other nine staff Benefit Issuance unit. Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the complainant, current employees, former employees, one Supervisor, one Program Manager, MCDSS Director and one union representative. Documents reviewed: the December, 1998 Management Audit (Audit), MCDSS response to the Audit, Job Classification List, 2000 Slavin Report, miscellaneous documents, MCDSS employee turnover results for the years 1995/1996 to 1999/2000, correspondence, and copies of interoffice memoranda and the County Training Institute Class Schedule.
R90-93:
% of the other counties surveyed (testimony revealed the Board of Supervisors {BOS} are considering the Slavin Report proposals to improve salaries). k. 18.3% thought MCDSS Human Resources Division was helpful in resolving personnel matters. l. 47.5% thought their training was sufficient. A review of documentation and testimony from several former and current employees from the Fort Bragg FARs units, including management personnel resulted in the findings listed below: Response (Social Services): Agree, with clarification. This first finding is a selective listing of information from a management audit conducted in late 1998. 66 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
16 hallazgos
F4:
The Audit found “the Department did not systematically collect or track the key human resource measures such as vacancy and turnover rates or measures of changes in employee morale.” The MCDSS response was that they had collected vacancy and turnover data, through employee surveys in 1992, 1995, and 1998. Response (Social Services): Agree, with clarification. The Department’s actual response to the Audit finding was: “The Department has collected vacancy and turnover data on a periodic basis. The Department has conducted employee surveys in 1992, 1995, and 1998.” The Department has been collecting vacancy and turnover data on an ongoing basis for the past two years. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with clarification. Employee surveys were conducted as a method to measure employee morale in the three years listed. The Department has been collecting vacancy and turnover data on an ongoing basis for the last two years.
F5:
Case load assignments were not fairly distributed in the past, but have improved in the last year after new procedures were instituted. Counter to MCDSS Case Load Assignment Guidelines, testimony revealed that complexity is still not always considered. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Department has not been informed by staff about any concerns with the policy or the implementation of the Case Load Assignment Guidelines. Follow-up has not identified any concerns among the staff presently working here. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board can not agree or disagree since it did not receive information about the specific testimony. The Department reports that it has not received any concerns from employees regarding the Case Load Assignment guidelines.
F6:
The existing Merit System used for hiring and promotion is based on test scores which allows management the choice of selecting one of the top five qualified applicants, which creates the opportunity for favoritism. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Merit System testing and selection process is identical to that used in every department in Mendocino County, as well as in most counties in California. The testing is focused on experience, skills, and knowledge. The purpose of testing and ranking applicants is to ensure that selection is made from among the most qualified, as determined by an independent panel. It is standard government hiring practice to conduct a testing process, either oral or written or both, which yields a ranked list of qualified candidates, from which the hiring authority may select from the top five. The selection process always involves making a choice of one person instead of others. That choice cannot be made based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, age, or disability, but it is made based on job skills, work experience, temperament and demeanor, past work performance, people and relationship skills, program knowledge, and fit with the program and people needs of the particular job. Favoritism is the selection of an individual based on a personal relationship with the decision-maker, rather than on job- related factors. While favoritism is not illegal in the way that discrimination is, the Department’s policy is that it is never advisable to select a person for any reason other than the expectation that s/he could do the best job. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department do not agree with this finding. Reference is made to Department response. 70 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F7:
Response to many problems by management is frequently ineffective and many employees feel management pays “lip service” only. Employees think many problems are not dealt with by management, or too much time passes before being addressed. Management views this differently, asserting that changes must be made slowly and carefully to avoid making mistakes. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. Opinions and perceptions are being stated here as fact. It is not clear what responses to which problems are considered ineffective. Some problems are beyond the authority of Department management. Many solutions are effective, and forgotten. Some problems are lower priority due to resource limitations and are not dealt with. Some solutions take longer than anyone would like because of the complexity of the programs we administer and competing demands. Not all changes must be made slowly, but most must be done carefully as they have an impact on a lot of clients and people in crisis. Maintaining operations serving thousands of people countywide each month is challenging for all. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board can neither agree nor disagree with this finding, as there is not enough information. It appears that this finding may be based on the opinion and perception of some employee(s).
F8:
On at least one occasion, an employee’s evaluation forwarded to MCDSS Human Resources was not the same evaluation shown to the employee. It 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 71 was later changed to a third version after the employee complained to various levels of management. A study of the evaluation indicated the performance criteria marked as sub-standard by the supervisor, and approved by the next level of management, seemed to contradict the other areas which were marked “Standard” (average). Indications were there was some form of “reprisal” involved. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. In the situation referred to, the employee’s supervisor forwarded an earlier unsigned draft of the evaluation to the Department’s Staff Resources Division, instead of the final copy which had been discussed with and signed by the staff person. When the mistake was discovered, the wrong version was discarded and the correct copy was filed. The situation was explained to the employee, with an apology for the mix-up. The Department does not agree that any form of reprisal was involved. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this finding. Reference is made to Department response.
F9:
MCDSS policies and procedures are not consistently followed by management and supervisors. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. The Department is striving for consistency and is working on mechanisms for monitoring compliance with external and internal policies and procedures at all levels. There are occasions when staff, supervisors, and managers make mistakes. These do not occur on a regular basis, and every attempt is made to remedy errors and discrepancies as they are found and to prevent their reoccurrence. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department agree in part as referenced in the Department’s response.
F10:
Managers and supervisors are not trained to deal with many employee problems. As a result of the Audit, the MCDSS developed a Multi-Faceted Action Plan, to have managers and supervisors receive training in staff support, communication, involvement with staff and leadership to try and solve these serious problems. Results are not available as to the effectiveness of this initiative, which began in the fall of 1999. Response (Social Services): Do not agree in part/agree in part. This finding implies that all managers and supervisors are not trained and are ineffective at dealing with employee problems. The County and the Department provide training to managers and supervisors every year. Even in Fort Bragg, there have been times when employee problems were handled well. The Multi-Faceted Action Plan, or MAP, addresses a total of eight elements, of which manager and supervisor training is a key, but not sole, objective. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department both agree and disagree with this finding. The Department provides training to managers and supervisors and the Board is following this as part of the Department’s Multi-Faceted Action Plan. The Grand Jury does not appear to have analyzed the many employee problems which were handled well.
F11:
Testimony shows that confidentiality concerning both clients and staff has been treated carelessly by some staff, supervisors, and trainers. Considering that Fort Bragg is a relatively small town, the seriousness of this problem is accentuated. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. The Department does not know the particular testimony received, but is aware of a few incidents involving breaches of confidentiality. These incidents were investigated and appropriate actions were taken. Staff at all levels are aware of and trained on the grave importance of confidentiality. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board is unable to either agree or disagree with this finding since it has not received the testimony. However, the Department acknowledges that the few incidents involving breech of confidentiality have been investigated and appropriate action taken. Training on confidentiality laws is mandatory for all employees.
F12:
Testimony showed that “inadequate management, favoritism, burnout, and lack of recognition for achievement” were more important than low pay in creating frustration and job dissatisfaction. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 73 Response (Social Services): Agree in part. Perceptions of those factors, as well as the possible existence of those factors, can be elements in frustration and job dissatisfaction. However, low pay has a significant negative impact across the board on the levels of skill and experience that the Department is able to hire and to retain, in addition to contributing to individual job dissatisfaction. The Department has actively advocated for increased pay for staff. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board is unable to either agree or disagree with this finding since it has not received the testimony. The Action Plan approved by the Board and the pay raises going into effect in November 2000 should help address the perceptions listed above.
F13:
Testimony has shown that there have been problems concerning office politics, favoritism, confidentiality, and unprofessionalism in the Fort Bragg office for many years. Response (Social Services): Do not agree in part. The issues that led to this report occurred over two years ago. Though they remain issues for some individuals who were directly involved, they are not of concern to other staff who were not directly involved, or who have been hired more recently. As a group, the Fort Bragg EFAS staff are very committed to client service, have been successful in meeting and maintaining mandated time frames, and came together to present a well-received open house to the community in October 1999. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board is unable to either agree or disagree with this finding since it has not received the testimony. However, the incidents referred to in this finding are over two years old. The Department reports that the Fort Bragg EFAS staff are very committed to client service and have been successful in meeting and maintaining mandated time frames.
F14:
Many employees stated that they do not feel free to speak up about issues without suffering reprisals. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Department does not know the number that constitutes “many employees” and does not 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 75 know if the employees cited evidence on which they based their feelings. It is the Department’s policy to maintain open, honest, direct and respectful communication at all levels of discourse. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board was not provided with enough information by the Grand Jury to either agree or disagree with this. It is unknown how many employees were individually interviewed, how much was based on hearsay or perception, and what constitutes “many”.
F15:
Training is not always sufficient, due to the ineffectiveness of some trainers and lack of proper supervision. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The County and the Department provide a great deal of training on a wide variety of topics. 76 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report It is unclear what specific training sessions this statement refers to. Training is evaluated after it is given and ineffective presenters or topics are not repeated. Response (Board of Supervisors): Do not agree. The Department and the County use recognized training professionals and all classes are evaluated by the participants for effectiveness.
F16:
The FARs are entry level positions for MCDSS. It is apparent that not all new hires come to the job adequately prepared for the workplace. Job expectations often are neither explained to nor understood by new employees. Response (Social Services): Agree in part/do not agree in part. FAR positions do require experience in providing basic public service, clerical or accounting work. They are filled many times by external applicants. Not all new hires are adequately prepared for this workplace by their previous jobs. A job specification is provided to all applicants. A complete job description is given to new employees. FARs are oriented and trained to the job of eligibility determination in groups in a classroom setting for 2-3 months, and then for 6-9 months is a training transition unit. Job expectations are thoroughly explained. It is possible that expectations may not be truly understood by new employees until they are able to experience the workload directly. It is very detail-oriented, regimented, regulated, computer-based, people- interactive work that is challenging to master. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department both agree and disagree in part with this finding as referenced in the Department’s response. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 77
F17:
Managers and supervisors spend too much time at meetings out of the office. Response (Social Services): Do not agree in part. The basis for this statement is unclear. The Department strives to limit the number of meetings for managers and supervisors, while supporting teamwork, group decision-making, and information-sharing. Back-up coverage is arranged when off-site meetings or training sessions are necessary. Response (Board of Supervisors): Do not agree with this finding as the basis is unclear.
F18:
A review of the Turnover Data from July 1,1995 through March 31,1999 (pre- Audit) provides the number of “Voluntary Resignations” but states no reasons for leaving. Consequently, even if there was a desire to correct this serious problem, management had no idea what specifically was creating the high turnover. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. March 31, 1999 is post- audit. The turnover data provided does include a count of promotions, which are a large part of the turnover, and separately identifies retirements, as well as involuntary terminations. The reasons for voluntary resignations are identified through letters of resignation and exit interviews and, although they were not on the particular chart that was reviewed, they are known to management. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department do not agree with this finding. Reference is made to the Department’s response.
F19:
In January 1999, MCDSS began conducting exit interviews. However, the summary report of these interviews would be improved if the number of respondents were shown after each stated reason for leaving. Furthermore, the MCDSS response to the BOS stated that exit interviews would be handled by a “Human Resources Manager or Training Specialist,” which raises the question as to who would be the most objective interviewer. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. The Department conducts exit interviews. The format is currently being reviewed. It is important to maintain confidentiality. Interviewing is done by staff in the Staff Resources Division, who are not part of any of the other divisions. The questions have been determined in advance. The interviewer simply documents the responses in the person’s own words, so the interviewer’s objectivity is not at issue. Response (Board of Supervisors): Agree in part. Exit interviews consist of pre-determined questions that are asked by human resources staff within the Department. The responses are documented in the employee’s own words so the interviewer’s objectivity is not an issue.
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
MCDSS should ensure that managers and supervisors of all levels receive training and counseling in the areas of favoritism, confidentiality of personnel and clients, leadership techniques, avoiding burnout, and recognizing achievements. The existing training courses in the County Training Institute are mostly eight-hour sessions and there is doubt that one session will have a lasting effect. This training should be mandatory and should include mandatory periodic refresher courses. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. Training is important. Just as important, however, is monitoring follow-through on an ongoing 74 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report basis, dealing with problems as they arise, and holding managers and supervisors accountable in their areas of responsibility. Response (Board of Supervisors): Agree in part. The Board has been both philosophically and fiscally supportive of continuous employee training. The Board further agrees with the Department that “holding managers and supervisors accountable in their areas of responsibility” is also a critical factor. Time Frame for Implementation: Training and follow-up for supervisors and managers to be implemented January-December
R3:
Employee surveys should be conducted with no names, or identification of employees, to ensure that there is no animosity or reprisal, directed toward individuals. Response (Social Services): Agree. All employee surveys in the Department have been and will be conducted with complete anonymity. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this recommendation and note that all employee surveys have been and will continue to be conducted with complete anonymity. Time Frame for Implementation: Anonymity in employee surveys was implemented in 1992 and will be continued.
R6:
The existing Merit System used for hiring and promotion is based on test scores which allows management the choice of selecting one of the top five qualified applicants, which creates the opportunity for favoritism. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Merit System testing and selection process is identical to that used in every department in Mendocino County, as well as in most counties in California. The testing is focused on experience, skills, and knowledge. The purpose of testing and ranking applicants is to ensure that selection is made from among the most qualified, as determined by an independent panel. It is standard government hiring practice to conduct a testing process, either oral or written or both, which yields a ranked list of qualified candidates, from which the hiring authority may select from the top five. The selection process always involves making a choice of one person instead of others. That choice cannot be made based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, age, or disability, but it is made based on job skills, work experience, temperament and demeanor, past work performance, people and relationship skills, program knowledge, and fit with the program and people needs of the particular job. Favoritism is the selection of an individual based on a personal relationship with the decision-maker, rather than on job- related factors. While favoritism is not illegal in the way that discrimination is, the Department’s policy is that it is never advisable to select a person for any reason other than the expectation that s/he could do the best job. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department do not agree with this finding. Reference is made to Department response. 70 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Recommendation If the Merit System procedure is continued, final selection should be made by independent evaluators in the County. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. As stated above, the Merit System procedure is identical to the Civil Service procedure used in all other County departments. Independent evaluation occurs as part of the testing process, and explicitly does not include people who will be in the line of supervision for the position being filled. Final selection is made by department heads who are designated by the County as the appointing authority for their respective departments. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department do not agree. As stated above, the Merit System selection procedure mirrors the County’s Civil Service procedure and is the standard practice in governmental agencies. Time Frame for Implementation: Not applicable.
R14:
Many employees stated that they do not feel free to speak up about issues without suffering reprisals. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Department does not know the number that constitutes “many employees” and does not 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 75 know if the employees cited evidence on which they based their feelings. It is the Department’s policy to maintain open, honest, direct and respectful communication at all levels of discourse. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board was not provided with enough information by the Grand Jury to either agree or disagree with this. It is unknown how many employees were individually interviewed, how much was based on hearsay or perception, and what constitutes “many”. Recommendation MCDSS should implement an effective, realistic, nonself-serving evaluation of supervisors and managers, to include employee morale issues and concerns. In order to prevent reprisals, this should include a means of determining employee morale without identifying individual employees by their questionnaire. Response (Social Services): Agree. MCDSS has committed in the Multi-faceted Action Plan to the development of some sort of multi- level evaluation of supervisors and managers. The concern about reprisals actually goes both ways. Supervisees and their supervisors are leery of the opportunity for retaliation in either direction. A staff advisory group is working on the issue of evaluations of line staff, as well as of supervisors and managers. Ultimately, open, honest, direct, respectful and appropriate communication in all directions on an ongoing basis is the best means of providing supervision and support, addressing concerns, and preventing problems. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation and reminds the Grand Jury that the Management Audit was conducted by an outside consultant and that all employee surveys have been conducted anonymously. Further, the Multi-faceted Action Plan commits to developing a multi-level evaluation of supervisors and managers, and a staff advisory group is working on the issue of evaluation for all levels of staff. Time Frame for Implementation: Revision of supervisor and manager evaluation process to be implemented by December 2001.
R15:
Training is not always sufficient, due to the ineffectiveness of some trainers and lack of proper supervision. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The County and the Department provide a great deal of training on a wide variety of topics. 76 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report It is unclear what specific training sessions this statement refers to. Training is evaluated after it is given and ineffective presenters or topics are not repeated. Response (Board of Supervisors): Do not agree. The Department and the County use recognized training professionals and all classes are evaluated by the participants for effectiveness. Recommendation Management should ensure that trainers are competent, qualified, and properly supervised. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees. Time Frame for Implementation: Review of trainers to be implemented on an ongoing basis.
R16:
The FARs are entry level positions for MCDSS. It is apparent that not all new hires come to the job adequately prepared for the workplace. Job expectations often are neither explained to nor understood by new employees. Response (Social Services): Agree in part/do not agree in part. FAR positions do require experience in providing basic public service, clerical or accounting work. They are filled many times by external applicants. Not all new hires are adequately prepared for this workplace by their previous jobs. A job specification is provided to all applicants. A complete job description is given to new employees. FARs are oriented and trained to the job of eligibility determination in groups in a classroom setting for 2-3 months, and then for 6-9 months is a training transition unit. Job expectations are thoroughly explained. It is possible that expectations may not be truly understood by new employees until they are able to experience the workload directly. It is very detail-oriented, regimented, regulated, computer-based, people- interactive work that is challenging to master. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department both agree and disagree in part with this finding as referenced in the Department’s response. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 77 Recommendation Shortly after being hired, new employees should receive instruction in job expectations including work ethics, teamwork, mutual respect, and recognition of the problems and concerns of MCDSS. In addition, existing employees should receive regular refresher training. Response (Social Services): Agree. The FAR Training Program curriculum currently includes all of the above. Refresher training on a variety of topics is provided on an ongoing basis. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this recommendation and note that the FAR Training Program curriculum includes all of the above. Refresher training on a variety of topics is also provided on an on-going basis. Time Frame for Implementation: Revised and expanded new employee orientation to be implemented by July 2001. Refresher training for existing employees to be implemented by December 2001.
R17:
Managers and supervisors spend too much time at meetings out of the office. Response (Social Services): Do not agree in part. The basis for this statement is unclear. The Department strives to limit the number of meetings for managers and supervisors, while supporting teamwork, group decision-making, and information-sharing. Back-up coverage is arranged when off-site meetings or training sessions are necessary. Response (Board of Supervisors): Do not agree with this finding as the basis is unclear. Recommendation Fewer meetings for supervisors would enable them to spend more time on-site. Use of teleconferencing to save time should be explored. Response (Social Services): Agree. This fiscal year, the Department was allowed to budget for complete video-conferencing stations to link our three main offices to allow for long distance participation. We expect that this will be of great assistance to staff in Fort Bragg. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this recommendation. It should be noted that the Board approved the Department’s request for complete video-conferencing stations to link their three main offices in Ukiah, Willits, and Ft. Bragg. 78 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Time Frame for Implementation: Video-conferencing stations to be implemented by July 2001.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
The FSD must seek to collect reimbursement from absent parents for payments expended by the State for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which replaced Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), in the support of dependent children. Response (District Attorney): Agree with the finding in part, but want to add that the Family Support Division collects child support for children regardless of the aid or non-aid status of the child, upon request of any party to the case. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F2:
Dependent children or their custodial parent may request the FSD to collect payment of court-ordered support from an absent parent. 82 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (District Attorney): Agree with the finding in part, but feel compelled to add that child support collection by this department may be preceded by a court order, as in the case of a dissolution order which includes support, or it may be the consequence of one of the parties contacting this department for service. Services may include the location of the non-custodial party, the establishment of paternity, and the establishment of an order for support by way of summons, complaint, stipulation, contested hearing or other means, and then the enforcement of the resulting order. A great many of our cases are direct referrals from the Department of Social Services, where the custodial party collecting welfare has little discretion not to co-operate with our office in the establishment and enforcement of a case. When the case comes in from that office, it is treated just the same as any other. We do not discriminate in the servicing of cases depending on where or how the case originated. We treat everyone equally under the law. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and the response provided by the District Attorney – Family Support Division.
F3:
The FSD is mandated to collect monetary reimbursements and other assets from absent parents. Response (District Attorney): Agree with finding 3 in general, but the collection of money and interception of assets is just one of the thousands of mandated functions that we have. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F4:
With a lawful judgment against the absent parent, the FSD may: a. attach wages, b. take federal and state income tax refunds, c. take drivers license, and d. initiate bad credit statements against the absent parent's name. Response (District Attorney): Agree with the finding in part, but the finding lists just a fraction of the economic remedies we can use against a recalcitrant non-custodial party. The available remedies encompass any collection vehicle available in the Civil Code and within judgment debtor law. In addition, for those non-custodial parties who are resistant to the best practices we can employ in the civil arena, there is the possibility of criminal prosecution for non-support or child abandonment. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 83 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding but notes that the District Attorney – Family Support Division has numerous other means to seek payments.
F5:
The FSD may collect funds from the absent parent of one child in a home and all biological children of the same mother living in that home. Response (District Attorney): Disagree with this finding because the FSD must collect funds from the absent parent if legally possible. The amount collected mostly depends on the income of the absent parent, the income of the custodial parent and the percentage of custody of that child they share. The amount paid may be more in proportion to the pro-rata share of welfare for that particular non-custodial party’s child who may be living in a welfare home with the custodial parent. To that extent, the non-custodial party may be contributing to welfare reimbursement for other biological children of the same mother who is the custodial parent. However, unless there is a biological connection between the non-custodial parent and the other children or unless there is a judicially recognized parental relationship between the non- custodial parent and the other children, there is no direct legal obligation for support. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the District Attorney – Family Support Division. They must collect funds from the absent parent if legally possible.
F6:
It has been reported to the Grand Jury that absent parents often appear in court without adequate knowledge of their rights, privileges and duties. Response (District Attorney): Agree with this finding, for the reasons stated below under Recommendation. Response (Board of Supervisors): Local government can always do more to educate our citizens in the processes we employ. The Board believes every effort is done within reason by District Attorney – Family Support to notify and educate the parties of their rights and procedures. The parties must make the effort to educate themselves given the resources available to them.
F7:
The FSD is in the process of becoming a separate department of Mendocino County government. The Family Support Unit will be under the direct authority of the Board of Supervisors. It will no longer be a division of the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mendocino County District Attorney Response Requested 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 87 Mendocino County Family Support Unit 88 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R7:
The FSD is in the process of becoming a separate department of Mendocino County government. The Family Support Unit will be under the direct authority of the Board of Supervisors. It will no longer be a division of the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
41 hallazgos
F1:
California law includes in crimes of domestic violence, in addition to spousal relationships, former spouses, cohabitants and former cohabitants including (as of 1994) gay or lesbian relationships, any person who is the parent of his or her child, any person with whom there is a dating or engagement relationship, a child, or any other person related by consanguinity. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding, although the Sheriff would defer to the statutory definitions. California Penal Code §13700 defines “abuse” and “domestic violence” as follows: (1) “Abuse” means intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, or placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to himself, herself or another. (2) “Domestic violence” means abuse committed against an adult or a fully emancipated minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the suspect has had a child or is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship. For purposes of this subdivision, “cohabitant” means two unrelated adult persons living together for a substantial period of time, resulting in some permanency of relationship. Factors that may determine whether persons 90 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report are cohabiting include, but are not limited to, (1) sexual relations between the parties while sharing the same living quarters, (2) sharing of income or expenses, (3) joint use or ownership of property, (4) whether the parties hold themselves out as husband and wife, (5) the continuity of the relationship, and (6) the length of the relationship. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff.
F2:
According to the California Attorney General, in over 75% of domestic violence cases either the batterer or the victim, or both, have been using alcohol or drugs. Mendocino County arrest reports indicate that weapons are involved more than 50% of the time. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board assumes this finding is accurate.
F3:
The California legislature passed in 1995 a “zero tolerance” statute on domestic violence that requires that all law enforcement agencies implement, by July 1, 1996, written policies that encourage the arrest of domestic violence offenders, if there is probable cause or if a protective order is violated. In the past both parties involved in a domestic violence dispute have, at times, been arrested. This statute discourages but does not prohibit dual arrests. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees partially with this finding, but only so far as the date. Pursuant to California Penal Code §13701, subsection (a), every law enforcement agency in the state was required to implement written policies and standards for officers’ responses to domestic violence calls by January 1, 1986. Subsequent amendments to this statute have addressed the issues of mandatory arrest, dual- arrests, and identification of the primary aggressor. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has not independently verified this finding. The Board does agree with the response provided by the Sheriff. Domestic Violence in Mendocino County Findings
F4:
The number of arrests in California for domestic violence, reported to the Attorney General, has risen steadily from 113.6 per 100,000 total population in 1988 to 169.9 in 1998, an increase of 49.6 %. However, in Mendocino County, during the same time frame, the domestic violence arrest rate rose 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 91 from 155.0 to 310.8, an increase of 100 %. This increase in reporting is in large part due to increased awareness and sensitivity to domestic disputes by both law enforcement and the public of Mendocino County. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees in part with this finding. The arrest rate per 100,000 population and the rate of increase appear to be incorrect. The following chart is based on domestic violence arrest data from the California Attorney General’s Office and population data from the demographic unit of the State of California Department of Finance. Mendocino County Domestic Violence Arrests Rate Per 100,000 Population 350 315 310 297 300 232 267 250 219 232 200 218 150 171 143 100 119 50 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Based on this data, the increase from 1988 to 1998 was 62.2%, not 100% as cited by the Grand Jury. However as the chart above shows, neither of these figures reflects the year-to-year fluctuations in arrest rates. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has not independently verified this finding. The Board does agree with the response provided by the Sheriff.
F5:
Less than 50% of 9-1-1 domestic violence calls resulted in an arrest in Mendocino County during 1998 and 1999. The arrest rate varied among the four law enforcement agencies in the county. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees in part with this finding, because the statistic is misleading. The classification assigned to a call by dispatch is not an accurate indication of whether conduct at the scene should lead to an arrest. Dispatchers do not investigate the circumstances of the call; they gather basic information and relay it to responding patrol units. The verbal information provided to the dispatcher does not in itself establish probable cause to make an arrest. 92 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. Dispatchers do not investigate the circumstances of the calls they receive. The verbal information given to the dispatcher does not, in itself, establish probable cause to make an arrest.
F6:
The Law Enforcement Administrators Association (LEAA) of Mendocino County brings together the heads of all county agencies involved in law enforcement, including the District Attorney, the Sheriff, the Chiefs of the three city police departments, the Captain of the local branch of the California Highway Patrol, The Chief Probation Officer, the Major Crimes Task Force Commander and the Superintendent of the California State Parks. In 1996, the LEAA issued a domestic violence policy detailing arrest and evidence gathering procedures. In February 2000, the District Attorney distributed to all LEAA members a family violence checklist which stresses the importance of taped interviews. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F7:
A Mendocino County Domestic Violence Council was formed in January 1995 and includes representatives from all law enforcement agencies, the District Attorney, Victim/Witness Assistance, the Court, all relevant county departments, concerned citizens, Project Sanctuary, E.S.C.A.P.E.S. (Emergency Sanctuary for Coastal Acts Providing Escape Services), and other community service agencies. The Council’s stated mission is to ensure that all those affected by domestic violence are treated fairly and with respect and to promote community awareness for the purpose of reducing the incidence of domestic violence in Mendocino County. Not all Council members are active participants. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. The Sheriff’s Office is an active member of this Council. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding but has not independently verified the statement on the number of calls.
F8:
Project Sanctuary provides an important and diverse set of services for victims of domestic violence in Mendocino County. Important among these services is the providing of shelter and assistance in obtaining temporary restraining orders (TRO’s). Project Sanctuary receives approximately 1800 domestic violence calls each year. Some of these may be repeat calls involving the same victim. 94 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding but has not independently verified the statement on the number of calls.
F9:
The District Attorney and Project Sanctuary have begun a dialogue and domestic violence cross-training. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney and Project Sanctuary. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board assumes this statement is correct and urges the District Attorney and Project Sanctuary to continue the cross training.
F10:
In October 1999, using Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) funding, the District Attorney hired a victim-witness domestic violence advocate and brought the part-time domestic violence victim advocate to almost full-time. These advocates now provide courtroom support and services to victims and their families. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F11:
The Sheriff’s Department and other law enforcement agencies in the county possess excellent domestic violence training programs and materials. However, it is sometimes difficult, due to staffing shortages and overtime restrictions, to have officers taken off duty to attend training sessions. Penal Code Section 13519 requires all officers who respond to calls of domestic 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 95 violence to complete an updated course of instruction on domestic violence every two years. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and urges all law enforcement agencies in the County to continue their domestic violence training efforts.
F12:
Stay away orders issued by the Court are entered by the Sheriff’s Department into the statewide CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) making this critical information available to all dispatchers. However, the paperwork must be carried to the Sheriff’s Office delaying entry into CLETS. Once entered, the dispatcher can then radio data to police vehicles responding to domestic violence calls. The victim of domestic violence is still obliged to file temporary restraining orders (TRO’s) with law enforcement; but once filed, they also are entered into the CLETS. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees in part with this finding. Since the Grand Jury completed its investigation, the handling of criminal stay- away orders has changed. Bailiffs receive the signed orders from the court then fax them to the Sheriff’s Dispatch Center for entry. This has 96 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report eliminated the delay of hand-delivering the paperwork or routing it through interoffice mail. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. The handling of these orders has changed since the Grand Jury conducted their investigation. Bailiffs now receive the signed orders from the court and then fax them to Sheriff’s Dispatch for entry into the system.
F13:
Increased cooperation between law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office is needed to obtain the best possible services to the victims of domestic violence and to ensure public safety. Testimony indicates that relations between the District Attorney and the Ukiah Police Department began improving in November 1999. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board defers to the District Attorney and the City of Ukiah on this finding.
F14:
Although this investigation was prompted by citizen complaints against the current District Attorney, the Grand Jury found complaints dating back more than five years, criticizing the previous District Attorney for an “apparent lack of interest (in) pursuing domestic dispute complaints.” Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding. Prosecution and Sentencing Findings
F15:
Domestic violence prosecution is a complex issue that involves not only the District Attorney, but the Courts, the Probation Department, Law Enforcement and the victims themselves, who play vital roles in the determination of outcomes. The arresting agency, after completing their investigation, forwards the case file to the District Attorney for prosecution. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F16:
The review of domestic violence case files revealed some apparent inconsistencies, although there was no obvious pattern of dismissals nor in sentencing practices among the several courts in the County. Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the District Attorney. The ultimate decision on sentencing rests solely with the Courts.
F17:
The differences in domestic violence prosecution and conviction rates between 1998 and 1999 was statistically insignificant. There was however a notable drop in domestic violence arrests, from an average of 25 per month in 1998 to 20 per month in 1999. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees with this finding, only because the arrest statistics cited by the Grand Jury do not agree with the official statistics maintained by the California Attorney General, which show that for 1998 there were an average of 16.7 domestic violence arrests per month in Mendocino County. According to the Attorney General’s statistics, arrests for domestic violence in Mendocino County have fluctuated for several years. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 99 Mendocino County Domestic Violence Arrests 300 264 267 250 250 188 223 200 200 181 185 150 134 100 110 98 50 0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provide by the Sheriff. The official statistics maintained by the California Attorney General indicate that in 1998, the average monthly arrests for domestic violence was 16.7.
F18:
Often, the victim will recant testimony made at the time of arrest, making prosecution difficult. However, the District Attorney’s Victim-Witness Protection program is a positive force in aiding the victims of domestic violence and supporting the prosecution of batterers. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F19:
In 1984, the California Legislature enacted a new domestic violence law (Chapter 1609). This statute in part states: “It is the intent of the legislature that the official response to cases of domestic violence shall stress the enforcement of the laws to protect the victim and shall communicate the attitude that violent behavior in the home is criminal behavior and will not be tolerated. Arrests of domestic violence offenders are encouraged if there is probable cause that an offense has been committed.” A review of Mendocino County domestic violence arrest records, dating back to 1988, demonstrate that the county’s law enforcement agencies have clearly been responsive to this legislative directive. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and commends all of Mendocino County’s law enforcement agencies work in this area. 100 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F20:
Section 243 (e) (4) of the Penal Code (domestic violence battery) states: “The Legislature finds and declares that these specified crimes merit special consideration when imposing sentence so as to display society’s condemnation for these crimes of violence upon victims with whom a close relationship has been formed.” In the Grand Jury’s review of domestic violence case files, no indication of such special consideration was found. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding as it relates to the text of the statute. I neither agree nor disagree with the Grand Jury’s finding regarding their review of domestic violence case files. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has no specific knowledge of the cases reviewed by the Grand Jury, therefore, we cannot comment on this finding.
F21:
According to the District Attorney, these Penal Code Sections, that reflect the desire by the California legislature to place special emphasis on crimes of domestic violence, apply to the Court and to law enforcement and not to the district attorneys of the state. The District Attorney maintains that he treats all crimes equally and to do otherwise would expose him to censure and possible charges of misconduct. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors defers to the District Attorney on this finding.
F22:
The goals of domestic violence prosecution, as stated in the District Attorney’s Policy and Procedures Manual, are: (1) protection and safety for the victim and family members (2) punishment of the offender (3) referral of the victim and vulnerable family members to ... support agencies (4) rehabilitation of the offender Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F23:
In addition to these goals, the City of Duluth, Minnesota, the model for the batterers counseling program used in Mendocino County, has the prosecution goal “to create a general deterrence to domestic violence in the community.” The Mendocino County District Attorney maintains that cases must be prosecuted on the basis of evidence and not on possible community reaction. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 101 Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. I have not read the Duluth, MN, program model. The remainder of this finding addresses statements made by the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board defers to the District Attorney on this finding.
F24:
The current District Attorney has instituted the use of “Cite Hearings” in selected domestic violence cases (a total of 15 through October 1999). The accused and the victim are both brought together before the District Attorney. The hearing includes a strong warning to the offender that a repeat offense within a year of the hearing will result in the reopening of the current case. The presumption by the District Attorney is that the hearing is a forceful deterrent. It is used primarily when the chance of a conviction resulting from prosecution, in the view of the District Attorney, is not certain. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with the response provided by the District Attorney. 102 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F25:
In 1998 and 1999, the most common reason cited by the District Attorney when not prosecuting a domestic violence case was “Insufficient Evidence.” Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Although I have not reviewed the data used by the Grand Jury, their finding is consistent with my personal knowledge. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding.
F26:
When the District Attorney makes a determination that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute a case, the file is returned to the arresting law enforcement agency. The procedure followed by law enforcement when a file is returned to them for insufficient evidence, varies considerably among the four County agencies. For the most part, local law enforcement agencies do not routinely re-open investigations on cases returned for insufficient evidence, unless specific instructions from the District Attorney accompany the returned file. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. However a rejection for insufficient evidence does not necessarily mean more evidence is available. The reason returned domestic violence cases are not routinely reopened is that all available evidence is generally gathered at the time the call is handled. The identities of the victim, suspect and witnesses are known; statements are taken; physical evidence is gathered. Follow-up is usually limited to securing medical records documenting the victim’s treatment and photographing bruises that may take several hours to develop. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has not conducted an independent investigation into the Grand Jury’s finding, therefore we neither agree nor disagree. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 103
F27:
The District Attorney does not follow-up cases that have been returned to law enforcement. The District Attorney depends on the arresting agency for gathering additional evidence to permit prosecution. Investigators in the District Attorney’s staff are not used for this purpose. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding as to follow-up on returned cases and dependence on the arresting agency for gathering additional information. I cannot comment on how the District Attorney’s investigators are assigned. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board defers to the District Attorney on this finding.
F28:
The District Attorney’s open door policy has allowed batterers and victims of domestic violence opportunity to make direct presentations of their situation. The Grand Jury has found that, in at least two instances, such conversations have resulted in decisions, which were then forwarded to the prosecuting Deputy District Attorney as directives. The knowledge of the case and the views of the Deputy District Attorney were neither solicited nor heard by the District Attorney. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding, therefore we defer to the District Attorney for verification.
F29:
The Court has the final say for all sentencing, though it may often rely on the
F30:
Most interviewees involved in domestic violence issues, representing a number of different agencies, expressed strong concerns regarding the inconsistent prosecution and sentencing of accused domestic batterers. Response (Probation): Department assumes this is correct. Response (Sheriff): Neither agree nor disagree with this finding; I was not present during the interviews. I am nevertheless aware that individuals involved in domestic violence issues have expressed strong concerns regarding what they perceive as inconsistent prosecution and sentencing of accused domestic violence batterers. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding.
F31:
The Grand Jury heard testimony that, at times, plea agreements are entered into. Additionally, a review of case files and court records demonstrate that when a domestic violence crime is committed by a probationer, the case is often prosecuted as a violation of probation (VOP). In the prosecution of a VOP, the burden of proof is much less demanding and the probability of conviction is generally high. Response (Probation): Agrees with this finding. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 106 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F32:
The Mendocino County Court began a vertical calendar process in February
F33:
According to Penal Code Section 1203.097 (a) (6), if a person is granted probation for a crime of domestic violence, mandatory attendance in a weekly, two hour, batterers counseling program for a minimum of one year is required. Imposition of this requirement is the responsibility of the Court. The District Attorney has neither power nor discretion in this matter. Response (Probation): Agrees with this finding. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F34:
There are 19 approved batterers counseling programs in Mendocino County. Each program is led by a professional facilitator licensed by the State of California. The programs and their facilitators are approved by the Probation Department based upon established criteria. Response (Probation): Agrees with this finding. The number of programs is not limited or static. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and notes that the Chief Probation Officer stated that the number of programs are not limited.
F35:
Since 1997, the number of referrals to batterer counseling has been averaging 5.6 per month. However, for four months, from April through July of 1999, there was only one referral to the batterer counseling programs. The referral rate returned to normal in August. There were fourteen convictions for domestic violence in the second quarter. Of these, seven were denied probation and received jail time. One case was transferred to Marin County and two probationers failed to report to the Probation Department for their initial visit, leaving three probationers unaccounted for. The District Attorney was unable to provide domestic violence records for the first quarter of 1999. This data might have been helpful in trying to resolve the small discrepancy in the number of referrals. Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Sheriff’s Office does not maintain countywide statistics on batterer referrals. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board did not independently determine the accuracy of this finding. We assume it is correct
F36:
The effectiveness of the counseling programs is much debated in the literature reviewed. Polar opposite views were expressed by those interviewed by the Grand Jury. There are no reliable statistics that attest to the effectiveness of these classes. Violations of probation are more than 80% for domestic violence probationers and violations average two times per probationer, often as many as five times or more. Response (Probation): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. I do not know from where or how the statistic was derived, or whether it pertains to the population as a whole or just Mendocino County. As with any learned behaviors, it takes time to modify that behavior, and many probationers will have difficulties throughout the term of treatment and for the rest of their lives. As with alcoholics in recovery, recovery from the patterns of domestic violence is a continuous process. Often the violations of probation are technical, such as missing meetings or counseling, rather than repeated abuse. Continued use of drugs, detected through urinalysis, is also a recurring cause for violations. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 109 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board did not independently verify the accuracy of this finding. We assume it is correct. The Chief Probation Office also could not verify the statement due to the uncertainty of the source.
F37:
The most common cause cited for probation violations by domestic violence probationers was drug use. Other frequently cited causes were missing appointments with the probation officer and the counseling program. New offenses, including repeat domestic violence, were the least of probation violations. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. 110 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F38:
Since attendance in a batterers program is a mandatory provision of probation, the probationers are rarely asked to enroll in substance abuse programs, even though drug use is by far the most common cause for violation of probation. A majority of domestic violence incidents involve the use of drugs or alcohol or both. Response (Probation): Agree with this finding in that substance abuse is a major contributing factor to domestic violence. A component of the educational and treatment program should and does include substance abuse counseling. We direct them to attend AA and NA meetings when we feel it is appropriate. Counseling through the Public Health’s Alcohol and Other Drugs Program requires substance abuse counseling, before entering the Men’s Alternatives to Violence Program. Participating in a year-long counseling program makes demands on the client’s time that make it difficult to attend anything other than that program. If substance abuse is interfering with compliance with the program, further counseling may be ordered. Most domestic violence cases are misdemeanors that do not require the presence of a court officer. The terms are decided by the court. We are in the process of revising these terms to include rehabilitation programs, such as substance abuse counseling, Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with the statement about probationers enrolling in a substance abuse program. The Department agrees with the remainder of the finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. Substance abuse is a major issue in domestic violence and Probation does direct that probationers attend AA and NA meetings when appropriate.
F39:
Review of case files revealed instances when domestic violence charges were reduced to “aggravated assault” and “disturbing the peace” misdemeanors as part of plea bargaining. These lesser charges do not require batterer counseling classes when on probation. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has no independent knowledge of this finding. We assume it is correct.
F40:
The District Attorney disagreed that there is a deep public concern about the handling of domestic violence cases. In his view, the public uproar is the work of a few disgruntled counselors, who are unhappy that their batterers counseling programs have suffered declining enrollment. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board defers to the District Attorney concerning this finding.
F98:
1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 14. Although this investigation was prompted by citizen complaints against the current District Attorney, the Grand Jury found complaints dating back more than five years, criticizing the previous District Attorney for an “apparent lack of interest (in) pursuing domestic dispute complaints.” Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding. Prosecution and Sentencing Findings 15. Domestic violence prosecution is a complex issue that involves not only the District Attorney, but the Courts, the Probation Department, Law Enforcement and the victims themselves, who play vital roles in the determination of outcomes. The arresting agency, after completing their investigation, forwards the case file to the District Attorney for prosecution. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 16. The review of domestic violence case files revealed some apparent inconsistencies, although there was no obvious pattern of dismissals nor in sentencing practices among the several courts in the County. Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the District Attorney. The ultimate decision on sentencing rests solely with the Courts. 17. The differences in domestic violence prosecution and conviction rates between 1998 and 1999 was statistically insignificant. There was however a notable drop in domestic violence arrests, from an average of 25 per month in 1998 to 20 per month in 1999. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees with this finding, only because the arrest statistics cited by the Grand Jury do not agree with the official statistics maintained by the California Attorney General, which show that for 1998 there were an average of 16.7 domestic violence arrests per month in Mendocino County. According to the Attorney General’s statistics, arrests for domestic violence in Mendocino County have fluctuated for several years. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 99 Mendocino County Domestic Violence Arrests 300 264 267 250 250 188 223 200 200 181 185 150 134 100 110 98 50 0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provide by the Sheriff. The official statistics maintained by the California Attorney General indicate that in 1998, the average monthly arrests for domestic violence was 16.7. 18. Often, the victim will recant testimony made at the time of arrest, making prosecution difficult. However, the District Attorney’s Victim-Witness Protection program is a positive force in aiding the victims of domestic violence and supporting the prosecution of batterers. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 19. In 1984, the California Legislature enacted a new domestic violence law (Chapter 1609). This statute in part states: “It is the intent of the legislature that the official response to cases of domestic violence shall stress the enforcement of the laws to protect the victim and shall communicate the attitude that violent behavior in the home is criminal behavior and will not be tolerated. Arrests of domestic violence offenders are encouraged if there is probable cause that an offense has been committed.” A review of Mendocino County domestic violence arrest records, dating back to 1988, demonstrate that the county’s law enforcement agencies have clearly been responsive to this legislative directive. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and commends all of Mendocino County’s law enforcement agencies work in this area. 100 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 20. Section 243 (e) (4) of the Penal Code (domestic violence battery) states: “The Legislature finds and declares that these specified crimes merit special consideration when imposing sentence so as to display society’s condemnation for these crimes of violence upon victims with whom a close relationship has been formed.” In the Grand Jury’s review of domestic violence case files, no indication of such special consideration was found. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding as it relates to the text of the statute. I neither agree nor disagree with the Grand Jury’s finding regarding their review of domestic violence case files. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has no specific knowledge of the cases reviewed by the Grand Jury, therefore, we cannot comment on this finding. 21. According to the District Attorney, these Penal Code Sections, that reflect the desire by the California legislature to place special emphasis on crimes of domestic violence, apply to the Court and to law enforcement and not to the district attorneys of the state. The District Attorney maintains that he treats all crimes equally and to do otherwise would expose him to censure and possible charges of misconduct. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors defers to the District Attorney on this finding. 22. The goals of domestic violence prosecution, as stated in the District Attorney’s Policy and Procedures Manual, are: (1) protection and safety for the victim and family members (2) punishment of the offender (3) referral of the victim and vulnerable family members to ... support agencies (4) rehabilitation of the offender Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 23. In addition to these goals, the City of Duluth, Minnesota, the model for the batterers counseling program used in Mendocino County, has the prosecution goal “to create a general deterrence to domestic violence in the community.” The Mendocino County District Attorney maintains that cases must be prosecuted on the basis of evidence and not on possible community reaction. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 101 Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. I have not read the Duluth, MN, program model. The remainder of this finding addresses statements made by the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board defers to the District Attorney on this finding.
Recomendaciones adicionales
8
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
In conjunction with law enforcement, the District Attorney should implement a follow-up system that tracks cases rejected for insufficient evidence. When law enforcement is unable to obtain the evidence needed for prosecution the Sheriff or the police department should notify the District Attorney and indicate the reasons involved. Response (Sheriff): The Sheriff’s Office has implemented the first portion of this recommendation. The Sheriff’s Office report management system, online since 1991, tracks the disposition of all crime reports, including reports returned by the District Attorney. The second portion of this recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. If the case investigation presents all available evidence, then a rejection for insufficient evidence essentially means the District Attorney believes the case is not prosecutable as presented. The investigating officer is notified of the rejection. The officer can resubmit the case if there is additional information or evidence that was not included in the original case. But if there is nothing to add, notifying the District Attorney of the reasons why there is no additional evidence becomes a needless waste of staff resources. If the District Attorney believes that additional investigation may reveal facts that make the case prosecutable (i.e., the attorney reviewing the case notes a resolvable deficiency in the investigation), then the case should be returned with a request for specific follow-up. Once the follow-up is completed, the case would then be resubmitted. This procedure is currently in place. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. The Board defers to the District Attorney on recommendations directed toward his office. 104 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
R2:
When cases are rejected for interest of justice, mutual combat, cite hearing and similar causes, the District Attorney should be open to feedback from law enforcement concerning valid arguments for reconsideration. Law enforcement agencies should be encouraged to offer background information not evident in the case file to the District Attorney. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation as it pertains to the Sheriff’s Office has already been implemented. Sheriff’s deputies, detectives, sergeants and lieutenants routinely contact the District Attorney’s Office to express concerns about cases. Background information relevant to the case should be contained in the case narrative and not left for later discussion. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response by the Sheriff and defers to the District Attorney on his issues. Sheriff personnel routinely contact the District Attorney’s Office to express concern about various cases.
R7:
A Mendocino County Domestic Violence Council was formed in January 1995 and includes representatives from all law enforcement agencies, the District Attorney, Victim/Witness Assistance, the Court, all relevant county departments, concerned citizens, Project Sanctuary, E.S.C.A.P.E.S. (Emergency Sanctuary for Coastal Acts Providing Escape Services), and other community service agencies. The Council’s stated mission is to ensure that all those affected by domestic violence are treated fairly and with respect and to promote community awareness for the purpose of reducing the incidence of domestic violence in Mendocino County. Not all Council members are active participants. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. The Sheriff’s Office is an active member of this Council. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
R12:
Stay away orders issued by the Court are entered by the Sheriff’s Department into the statewide CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) making this critical information available to all dispatchers. However, the paperwork must be carried to the Sheriff’s Office delaying entry into CLETS. Once entered, the dispatcher can then radio data to police vehicles responding to domestic violence calls. The victim of domestic violence is still obliged to file temporary restraining orders (TRO’s) with law enforcement; but once filed, they also are entered into the CLETS. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees in part with this finding. Since the Grand Jury completed its investigation, the handling of criminal stay- away orders has changed. Bailiffs receive the signed orders from the court then fax them to the Sheriff’s Dispatch Center for entry. This has 96 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report eliminated the delay of hand-delivering the paperwork or routing it through interoffice mail. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. The handling of these orders has changed since the Grand Jury conducted their investigation. Bailiffs now receive the signed orders from the court and then fax them to Sheriff’s Dispatch for entry into the system. Recommendation To minimize the delay in entering both restraining and stay-away orders into CLETS, procedural changes should be implemented to permit direct electronic entry by the courts or the bailiff. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation will not be implemented because, even though the intent is good, the proposed action it is not reasonable. Entry of restraining orders requires a level of skill, training and CLETS access privileges typically reserved for dispatchers. Bailiffs cannot perform their principal duties of maintaining security in the courtroom if they are entering restraining and stay-away orders into CLETS. Court personnel are effectively prohibited from performing CLETS entries. CLETS policies and procedures, which have the force of law, require that the agency entering a restraining order or stay- away order into CLETS must have a copy of the order immediately available 24-hours a day, 7-days a week. CLETS policies also prohibit one agency from providing verification for an order entered by another agency, including the issuing court. Delays in CLETS entry have been minimized, but by means other than those suggested by the Grand Jury. Bailiffs now fax all criminal stay- away orders directly to dispatch for entry into CLETS. Copies of temporary restraining orders must still be delivered to the law enforcement agency, but this is an important safeguard to ensure that the order contains all the information necessary for a CLETS entry. Once received, these orders are transmitted directly to dispatch. Court personnel could fax restraining orders to dispatch, but they would first have to verify that the order contains all the information required for a CLETS entry. An order sent by the courts to dispatch without the required information cannot be entered into CLETS until the person who obtained the order can be found and the required information collected. The Sheriff’s Office, the Courts and the other members of the Domestic Violence Council will continue to work on ways to improve the handling of restraining orders, including the timeliness and accuracy of CLETS entries. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 97 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff concerning this recommendation. Though the Grand Jury’s intent is good, the Sheriff points out that court personnel are prohibited from performing entries into CLETS and bailiffs principal duties are to provide and maintain security in our courtrooms. The Sheriff does state that the Criminal Justice System in Mendocino County will continue to examine ways to improve the handling of restraining and stay away orders.
R13:
Increased cooperation between law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office is needed to obtain the best possible services to the victims of domestic violence and to ensure public safety. Testimony indicates that relations between the District Attorney and the Ukiah Police Department began improving in November 1999. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board defers to the District Attorney and the City of Ukiah on this finding. Recommendation Open dialogue between the District Attorney and law enforcement must be established and become commonplace. Decisions to reject or dismiss a case should be discussed with the arresting law enforcement agency before they become final. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation, as it relates to open dialogue, has been implemented in the Sheriff’s Office. Discussion between Sheriff’s staff and District Attorney’s staff are commonplace. The department agrees that decisions to reject or dismiss a case should be discussed before they become final. However the sheer volume of cases handled by the District Attorney’s Office makes
R14:
Although this investigation was prompted by citizen complaints against the current District Attorney, the Grand Jury found complaints dating back more than five years, criticizing the previous District Attorney for an “apparent lack of interest (in) pursuing domestic dispute complaints.” Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding. Prosecution and Sentencing
R24:
The current District Attorney has instituted the use of “Cite Hearings” in selected domestic violence cases (a total of 15 through October 1999). The accused and the victim are both brought together before the District Attorney. The hearing includes a strong warning to the offender that a repeat offense within a year of the hearing will result in the reopening of the current case. The presumption by the District Attorney is that the hearing is a forceful deterrent. It is used primarily when the chance of a conviction resulting from prosecution, in the view of the District Attorney, is not certain. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with the response provided by the District Attorney. 102 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Recommendation Cite Hearings, when used, should be structured to keep the victim and the batterer separate, as indicated by expert testimony. Victims should be accompanied by an advocate at these hearings. The District Attorney should continue to track individuals offered Cite Hearings for recidivism. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the District Attorney.
R28:
The District Attorney’s open door policy has allowed batterers and victims of domestic violence opportunity to make direct presentations of their situation. The Grand Jury has found that, in at least two instances, such conversations have resulted in decisions, which were then forwarded to the prosecuting Deputy District Attorney as directives. The knowledge of the case and the views of the Deputy District Attorney were neither solicited nor heard by the District Attorney. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding, therefore we defer to the District Attorney for verification. Recommendation The District Attorney should consult with probation officers, the prosecuting attorneys, investigating detectives, and Victim/Witness advocates when making or reversing prosecution decisions. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation, as it pertains to the Sheriff’s Office, has been implemented. Nothing in Sheriff’s Office policy prohibits the District Attorney or his deputies from contacting any member of the Sheriff’s Office to discuss a prosecution decision. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board defers to the District Attorney on this recommendation. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 105
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
The purpose of the five-County joint participation in the creation of a Grading Ordinance is to create a cohesive plan that incorporates the regulations of the California Division of Forestry, California Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, Regional Water Quality Control Board and county requirements, since conditions that endanger fish spawning streams are common to all five counties. Response (Planning & Building): Agree with this finding. Response (Department of Transportation): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Department of Planning & Building Services is responsible for administering the grading ordinance and therefore has the responsibility for drafting any new County grading ordinance. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 116 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F2:
Humboldt County has developed a draft ordinance which was to be available to Mendocino County for review by the end of June, 2000. According to the interviewees, the BOS plans to decide what to do with the draft ordinance of Humboldt County within 30 to 60 days after receiving it. This ordinance will not include a phase-in or training period. Response (Planning & Building): Agree with this finding with the following clarifications: The Humboldt County draft ordinance became available in July 2000. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on September 12, 2000 is scheduled to discuss and provide direction regarding grading regulations for Mendocino County. It is unclear if the last sentence in this finding is intended to apply to Humboldt or Mendocino County. It is premature, at this time, to conclude what may or may not be contained within a future Mendocino County grading ordinance relative to a training or phase-in period until public hearings are held and the ordinance is adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors has included funding in the 2000/01 County Budget for preparation, processing and implementation of grading regulations for Mendocino County. Response (Department of Transportation): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Department of Planning & Building Services is responsible for administering the grading ordinance and therefore has the responsibility for drafting any new County grading ordinance. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees that Humboldt County was to have developed and made available to Mendocino County a copy of its draft ordinance by the end of June, 2000. The Humboldt County draft ordinance became available in July, 2000. Further discussion on the direction and implementation of grading regulations for Mendocino County is scheduled to be discussed during a future Board meeting. The Board agrees with the Director of Planning and Building Services that it is too early in the process to determine what may or may not be contained within a future County grading ordinance relative to a training or phase-in period until public hearings are held and the ordinance adopted by this Board.
F3:
Trinity County is working on a certification plan ordinance which involves a training period to be sure that appropriate persons in the county understand the scope and conditions of the ordinance. The purpose is to prevent violations due to misunderstanding of the new ordinance. Response (Planning & Building): Agree with this finding. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 117 Response (Department of Transportation): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Department of Planning & Building Services is responsible for administering the grading ordinance and therefore has the responsibility for drafting any new County grading ordinance. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F4:
Coordination between the counties is accomplished by conference calls every two weeks and almost daily e-mail. Response (Planning & Building): Agree with this finding. Response (Department of Transportation): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. The Department of Planning & Building Services is responsible for administering the grading ordinance and therefore has the responsibility for drafting any new County grading ordinance. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Board on September 6 reviewed a memorandum from the Planning and Building Department that provided background to the issue as well as options for proceeding with grading regulations. Due to the late hour, the discussion was continued to the next available Board hearing.
R2:
On September 26, the Board again discussed grading regulations. The Board directed the Planning and Building Services Director to utilize the Public Resources Council to create a matrix identifying the highlights from the Mendocino County 118 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Administrative Draft, Humboldt, Lake, and Napa County ordinances and include related State and Federal Regulations. Further, the Board requested the Public Resources Council recommend a grading committee structure for Board review.
R3:
The Public Resources Council held a special meeting on October 23, 2000, to discuss the Board referral. The Public Resources Council recommended that (1) the Resource Conservation District take an active role in grading regulations, (2) the Board establish a “Grading Committee” and (3) that the County prepare and adopt grading regulations that are more comprehensive than those contained within the Uniform Building Code. Comments to the draft matrix were due to Planning and Building Services on November 3.
R4:
Discussion and direction for grading regulations for Mendocino County will be scheduled for a Board hearing in January. Comments The County has received Federal and State grants to repair various drainage problems on the county roads, but the appropriate granting agencies have not yet given guidelines for making these repairs. County road crews are currently being trained on standard procedures to repair drainage problems, in addition to procedures for new drainage construction. The Grand Jury recognizes and appreciates the complexity of creating a sensible, comprehensive County Grading Ordinance. With all of the urgent issues facing the BOS, it is sometimes tempting to consign items "to the back burner." This is especially true when there is the perception that there is already something in place which addresses the problem. The existing Uniform Building Code could appear to be sufficient to deal with grading problems in the County, allowing for a less urgent priority. However, since the existing codes do not adequately address fish spawning streams and riparian vegetation, it is particularly important and urgent, to protect these habitats. Response (Department of Transportation): It should be noted that the Department of Public Works (predecessor to the Department of Transportation) worked with the Department of Planning and Building Services on previous efforts toward grading ordinance development. We provided review and comment from an engineering perspective, particularly on the interrelationship of the grading ordinance with construction administered through subdivision and other land use entitlement processes, 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 119 encroachment permit process and County Road construction and maintenance. We will be available for such cooperative involvement in any future grading ordinance development process. Additionally, the Department is currently involved in the preparation of Road Standards. We are coordinating this effort with Planning and Building Services to ensure continuity with planning and grading ordinance issues.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
14 hallazgos
F1:
Providers usually work for more than one client. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 121 Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Department and Board of Supervisors agree.
F2:
Time sheets are signed by the client and given to the provider. Currently, there is no provision to cross-check with the client the number of hours submitted by the provider unless a gross irregularity is noted. Currently, there is no validation of the client's signature. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. Blank timesheets are given initially to the provider. They are to be completed and signed by the provider before being given to the client. Response (Board of Supervisors): Agree in part. According to the Department, blank timesheets are given to the provider who is responsible for filling them out and signing them prior to giving the time sheet to the client.
F3:
Eligibility for services is determined annually. Home Care Coordinators visit the client every six months unless they are notified of a change in his or her medical condition or needs. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. Home Care Coordinators deal with situations that come up regarding provider issues on as needed basis. However, if there is a change in a client’s medical condition or needs, it is the social worker who will be contacted and who will contact the client, complete a home visit, contact other agencies, etc. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the Department’s response. Home Care Coordinators deal with situations that come up on an as needed basis. However, it is social workers who contact the client and conduct a home visit if there is a change in a client’s needs or medical condition.
F4:
It often takes up to five weeks to obtain approval for a client to get any change in hours of service. Response (Social Services): Disagree. Reassessments are done on an ‘as needed basis.’ It does not take five weeks for changes to occur. If hours need to be readjusted, regulations allow the social worker to a phone reassessment if it is an immediate need, to be followed up by a home visit. The usual time to do a change, if it is not an emergency, would be a week to ten days. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees based on information submitted by the Department. Reassessments are done on an as needed basis. Emergencies can be handled by a social worker over the phone, followed up with a home visit. Non-emergency reassessments normally take a week to 10 days.
F5:
Fingerprinting is not currently required for providers to be placed on the IHSS Registry. If a client requests that the provider be fingerprinted, the client must pay for the service. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees that this accurately reflects State regulations, however the Board has directed the Department to implement more stringent standards. (See response to recommendation 124 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F6:
Currently, in Mendocino County only the HCC does a background check when the provider discloses a past criminal history. Response (Social Services): Disagree in part. Background checks are a standard part of the process of screening and orientation for providers going on the registry. This includes checking references, a face-to-face interview and completion of an application. Response (Board of Supervisors): Based on information from the Department, we disagree in part. Background checks, which include checking references, a face-to-face interview, and review of an application, are a standard. However, clients do have the option to hire persons, frequently family members or acquaintances, who are not on the Registry.
F7:
Clients can hire any provider they choose and this person is not required to fill out an application nor have a background check. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department agree with this finding.
F8:
Orientation, which covers services and time sheets, is usually done when providers are first employed or listed on the IHSS Registry. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department agree with this finding.
F9:
IHSS recruits providers to be placed on the registry from the general public by means of advertisement in newspapers and flyers. They also recruit through Job Alliance and Welfare to Work. Response (Social Services): Agree. 126 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department agree with this finding.
F10:
No training of providers is given or required by the IHSS Program. IHSS has no follow-up monitoring procedures for new providers. Response (Social Services): Disagree. Response (Board of Supervisors): Based on information supplied by the Department, the Board disagrees with this finding. (See answer to
F11:
The handbook, published by the Adult Services unit of Mendocino County DSS, is given to the clients and providers outlining their rights, responsibilities and duties. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department agree with this finding.
F12:
The current handbook does not contain a publication date. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department agree with this finding.
F13:
Providers are covered under State Workers Compensation. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department agree with this finding.
F14:
Providers are paid minimum wage. Response (Social Services): Agree. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 129 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department agree with this finding, although a 3% raise was approved by the Board effective January 1, 2001.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The processing time for obtaining approval for a change in hours of service should be within two weeks. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation and believes it is already the standard practice. Time Frame for Implementation: Already implemented.
R2:
The client should be seen as often as the situation warrants. Response (Social Services): Agree. It is agreed that clients should be seen as often as the situation warrants. However, with caseloads of 150 to 200 clients each, case managers are not always able to perform home visits as often as they would like to. We do meet the requirements of the regulations in terms of home visits annually and then Social Workers prioritize the needs of their clients and perform additional home visits as permitted, due to workload. When additional home visits would be beneficial to a client the case manager often times refers the Home Care Coordinator or Vocational Assistant as part of the IHSS Supported Individual Provider Program (SIPP) to check on the condition of the client in the home. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees that this should be the goal. While the regulations only require annual visits by a social worker, the Department often sends Home Care Coordinators or Vocational Assistants to check on the condition of clients. The Board approved an additional Home Care Coordinator position in the Fiscal Year 2000-01 budget. Time Frame for Implementation: Compliance with regulations already implemented.
R6:
Currently, in Mendocino County only the HCC does a background check when the provider discloses a past criminal history. Response (Social Services): Disagree in part. Background checks are a standard part of the process of screening and orientation for providers going on the registry. This includes checking references, a face-to-face interview and completion of an application. Response (Board of Supervisors): Based on information from the Department, we disagree in part. Background checks, which include checking references, a face-to-face interview, and review of an application, are a standard. However, clients do have the option to hire persons, frequently family members or acquaintances, who are not on the Registry. Recommendation The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors should make fingerprinting and
R7:
Clients can hire any provider they choose and this person is not required to fill out an application nor have a background check. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department agree with this finding. Recommendation If a client wants to hire a provider with a criminal background, the client should be requested to sign a waiver stating that he/she has received the background information and wishes to hire the person anyway. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department agree with this recommendation. Time Frame for Implementation: Revision of current procedures to be implemented by April 2001.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
23 hallazgos
F1:
Main control panel in Building II was inoperative and a temporary panel was installed to control 18 doors to the cell block. Individual cells were locked by a key. The installation of a new panel is in progress. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding; a new control panel has been installed. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding as an accurate statement of the conditions at the time of the Grand Jury’s inspection. The defective panel has since been completely replaced by a new control system. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. The control panel has been replaced.
F2:
The intercom system is operating intermittently. Repairs are ongoing, completion date unknown. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding; repairs have been completed. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding as an accurate statement of the conditions at the time of the Grand Jury’s inspection. The intercom system in Building II was replaced with the control board. The intercom system in Building I was replaced. Basic intercom functions are operational, but the vendor is still resolving minor technical problems. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. The intercom system was replaced.
F3:
There were no spare electronically controlled door locks for cell blocks during the Grand Jury's initial inspection. As of March 2000, this situation had been corrected. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 133
F4:
The air conditioning system is in need of new and improved filters and the duct work needs to be cleaned out. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding; work has been completed. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. The work has been done.
F5:
Cell blocks are in need of painting. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding; please see recommendations. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. A recent attempt to re- paint the jail was unsuccessful. The paint formulation did not bond with the wall surface. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and the response of the Sheriff. Buildings and Grounds attempted to paint the cell blocks but the paint did not bond to the wall.
F6:
The kitchen dishwasher low temperature problem, previously reported, has been corrected. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F7:
B&G work orders are not filled out completely, i.e., work performed, date and time on and off the job, material used if any, and who performed the job. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding; improvements have been made by completing work orders. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to Buildings & Grounds, however the department agrees that it is an accurate statement of the conditions at the time of the Grand Jury’s inspection. Buildings & Grounds has since improved their handling of these work orders. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Improvements have been made in fully completing work orders.
F8:
Jail Commander is not informed when work is completed. There is no follow- up by Jail staff on work orders and no documentation from B&G indicating that repairs were completed. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding. Improvements have been made by completing work orders. In addition, Buildings and Grounds and the Jail Commander hold regular meetings reviewing work orders and repairs. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding as an accurate statement of the conditions at the time of the Grand Jury’s inspection. The Buildings & Grounds Manager and the Jail Commander now hold regular meetings to discuss repair and maintenance issues. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. The Jail Commander and the Buildings and Grounds Manager now hold regular meetings to review work orders and repairs.
F9:
At the present time B&G has assigned one person to the maintenance of the County Corrections Department, however, this person is re-assigned from time to time for emergencies elsewhere in the County. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding. See
F10:
There is no preventative maintenance program. When something breaks down it is repaired or replaced. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding. Software for the system has been purchased with implementation in calendar year 2000. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Software for the preventative maintenance program has been purchased.
F11:
B&G response time to emergency problems in the Jail is generally within two hours. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F12:
There is no separate budget for the maintenance and upkeep of the facility. All maintenance expenses come from the General Services general account. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F13:
B&G has ordered a computer software program, which, when operational, will handle work orders, inventories and maintenance schedules. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 137
F14:
California Penal Code Section 4025 permits the use of the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund for Jail maintenance. The Grand Jury found no indication that the Welfare Trust Fund has been used for this purpose. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding, however the language cited must be read in context with other portions of the statute. Penal Code §4025, subsection (e), reads as follows: “The money and property deposited in the inmate welfare fund shall be expended by the sheriff primarily for the benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates confined within the jail. Any funds that are not needed for the welfare of the inmates (emphasis added) may be expended for the maintenance of county jail facilities. Maintenance of county jail facilities may include, but is not limited to, the salary and benefits of personnel used in the programs to benefit the inmates, including, but not limited to, education, drug and alcohol treatment, welfare, library, accounting, and other programs deemed appropriate by the sheriff. An itemized report of these expenditures shall be submitted annually to the board of supervisors.” Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and will explore this funding avenue with the Sheriff.
F15:
Usually Inmates do not ordinarily perform Jail maintenance work. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this finding. Response (Sheriff): Disagree with this finding, but only as to the definition of maintenance. Inmate labor is used extensively throughout the facility. Inmates do not ordinarily perform work on mechanical systems due to the potential for compromising facility security. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. Inmates are used extensively throughout the facility for maintenance but do not work on mechanical systems.
F16:
Corrections Department Staffing remains inadequate and does not meet State Standards. This same finding was reported by the 1997-98 and the 1998-99 Grand Juries. 140 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Although the Sheriff’s Office is allocated 57 Corrections Deputy positions, only 44 of these positions are funded, and at present only 34 are filled. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. The Board has committed to the proper staffing of the Jail but funding remains a critical issue in this process. The Jail is funded for 44 Correctional Deputies with currently filled positions at 34. The Board believes the implementation of the Slavin Study will help in the recruitment and retention of Deputies.
F17:
A survey dating back to 1990, shows that 93 Corrections Officers have terminated. Of these 43 have accepted positions with other police agencies. Response (Sheriff): Generally agree with this finding, however the wording could be clearer. The survey in question is not ten years old. The survey analyzed terminations dating back to 1990. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. The survey in question is not ten years old.
F18:
The Sheriff's Department continues to have great difficulty recruiting new Corrections Officers. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Ongoing recruitment efforts are attracting applicants, but not a sufficient number of qualified applicants. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Staffing has and continues to be a major issue in the operation of the Jail. The Board believes that the implementation of the Slavin Study will help in the recruitment and retention of Correctional Deputies. The Sheriff has redoubled his efforts to recruit qualified applicants and has been successful in encouraging more interest in the field.
F19:
Although the 2000 Slavin Report is recommending salary increases for Corrections Officers, the wages may not be adequate to encourage recruitment and retention. Furthermore, for the detriment of the Jail staff, the difference between Corrections Officer's and Field Deputy's salaries will be even larger if the current proposal before the Board of Supervisors is accepted. There is nearly a $5,000.00 disparity ($4,950.00) between Field and Corrections Deputies in their final pay steps in Mendocino County. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 141 Response (Sheriff): Agree with the first sentence of this finding but disagree with the remaining statements, only because they do not take into account changes since the Grand Jury’s investigation. After considerable discussion, the County agreed that when the new pay plan is implemented on November 26, 2000, Corrections Deputies will be on pay parity with the classification of Deputy Sheriff-Coroner I. These two positions will be 5% behind the classification of Deputy Sheriff-Coroner II. As a result of this change, the salary difference between a top step Corrections Deputy and a top step Deputy II will be $2,067.00 per year. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this finding and agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. When the Slavin Study is implemented, Correctional Deputies will be on pay parity with the classification of Deputy Sheriff I.
F20:
The high turnover and understaffing at the Jail has a negative impact on Jail workload and morale. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F21:
The new vertical court system, implemented by the Mendocino County Courts in February 1999, requires the Jail to deliver inmates to three separate courtrooms. This requires additional Corrections Officers for the transport and supervision of inmates. Because of Jail understaffing, Field Deputies are being pulled away from their regular duties to assist in transporting inmates. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. The lack of adequate staff at the jail forces the reassignment of inmate transportation duties to patrol deputies. On some weekday mornings, all available Ukiah area day-shift deputies are assigned to transportation. This compromises public safety and creates unacceptable delays in responding to calls for service. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. The lack of adequate staff at the jail forces the reassignment of inmate transportation duties to patrol personnel. The Courts are aware of this issue and are looking at means to mitigate this concern.
F22:
The Grand Jury quotes from the 1998-99 Grand Jury report: "There has been no progress in creating interview space in the holding facility at the County 142 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Courthouse." The 1997-98 Grand Jury report also recommended that Courthouse space adjacent to the holding facility be used. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Recently a small office space next to the holding cells was vacated. Discussions are underway in an attempt to secure this space and configure it as an attorney/client interview room. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. An office next to the holding cell was vacated and discussions are taking place in an attempt to secure this space for an attorney/interview room.
F23:
Currently, there are over 17 different agencies, groups and individuals who provide services to inmates at the Jail. These services include Adult Education, substance abuse programs, job placement, medical counseling, domestic violence counseling and religious programs. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. As an example of the success of the program, during 1999 the Inmate Services Program, working in cooperation with its various program providers, presented a total of 780 classes, meetings & religious services to inmates and awarded 18 inmates with their certificates of general educational development (GED). In the first six months of 2000, the program has presented 485 classes, meetings & religious services and awarded another 19 GED certificates. The 1999-2000 Inmate Services Annual Report will be presented to the Board of Supervisors within the next few weeks. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The intercom replacement and new control panel installation should be completed as soon as possible. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this recommendation; the replacement control panel has been installed and is meeting expectations. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation has been implemented. The new control panel and intercom system in Building II are installed 134 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report and operational. The intercom system in Building I is installed and operational, but there are some remaining technical problems. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation. Time Frame for Implementation: The intercom replacement and new control panel have been installed.
R2:
In general, painting, equipment and repair problems in the Jail must receive high priorities and corrected promptly. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this recommendation; equipment and repair problems do receive high priority and are corrected promptly. Painting logistics are a problem due to a 24-hour facility, the Sheriff's staff is working with Buildings and Grounds to develop a method to repaint the facility and perform maintenance painting while occupied. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation has been implemented. All jail staff are responsible for reporting and documenting needed repairs. Jail supervisors have been reminded of their responsibility to maintain cleanliness in the facility. Buildings & Grounds has implemented changes to improve the tracking of maintenance and repair requests. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation and the response provided by the Buildings and Grounds Manager. Equipment and repair concerns do receive a high priority and are corrected promptly. Time Frame for Implementation: Already implemented.
R3:
Keep extra electronic door locks in reserve. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this recommendation; electronic door locks are now stocked in reserve. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation has already been implemented. Buildings & Grounds now maintains a reserve supply of these locks. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation. The Building and Grounds Manager notes that the electronic door locks are now in stock. Time Frame for Implementation: Already implemented. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 135 Maintenance
R5:
When appropriate and not compromising jail security, inmates should be used for Jail maintenance tasks. Response (Buildings and Grounds): Agree with this recommendation. Minor tasks such as maintenance painting could be performed by inmates. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation has already been implemented. Inmates perform a variety of tasks in and around the jail. However not all inmates are eligible for work details, and not all work lends itself to inmate workers. Facility security is an obvious concern, since every repair to every mechanical device in the jail has security implications. There are also inmate classification issues. Sending an inmate into a different housing area has the potential for creating unacceptable (and potentially unsafe) mixes of classifications. Finally, all inmate workers require direct supervision. The ability to provide this level of supervision depends on having adequate staffing. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. Time Frame for Implementation: This recommendation has already been implemented. Inmates currently perform a variety of tasks in and around the Jail for maintenance purposes. Staffing
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
17 hallazgos
F1:
Code III youth are now out of their rooms at least six hours per day (Court school three hours and recreation three hours). Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F2:
Productive Work Programs now include work at Plowshares and painting curbs and fire hydrants for the city. Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. New and continuing projects include a contract with the Ukiah Landfill, litter clean up on Vichy Springs Road, and painting at the Senior Center in Willits. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer.
F3:
Once a week a counselor provides a Reality Awareness (anger management) training program. 146 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. We are also in the process of obtaining a grant to provide Art Therapy, using interns from San Francisco State University. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer.
F4:
There is daily recreation for all, including a variety of reading materials, access to television, arts and crafts and indoor games, including ping-pong. Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F5:
Presently, Code III youth exercise in a small outdoor caged area. Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding, but the small, caged area is used only during school hours. Code III youth are exercised in the quad area during non-school hours. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Chief Probation Officer. The small, caged area is only used during school hours. These youth exercise in the quad area during other times of the day.
F6:
The JH now has additional undeveloped outdoor space. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 147 Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. Recreation area is being developed, using the labor and energy of incarcerated and work program youth. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F7:
As of April 2000, no haircuts are being offered. Title 15, Section 1488 states "Hair care services shall be available in all juvenile facilities. Minors shall receive hair care services monthly." Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. However, we now have a counselor on staff who is a licensed cosmetologist and is willing to give haircuts. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding but notes the Chief Probation Officer’s response that states that Juvenile Hall now has a counselor on staff that is a licensed cosmetologist and is willing to provide haircuts.
F8:
Each JH Counselor is now trained in using the JALAN computer program, which is used to track all juveniles booked into custody in the County. Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F9:
The Department of Probation has recently hired a half-time employee who is knowledgeable in computer technology and is able to train other employees. This person will work at JH to train personnel as needed. Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F10:
Title 15 Section 1313 requires that "...on an annual basis, each juvenile facility Administrator shall obtain a documented inspection and evaluation from the following:" (a) Mendoocino County Safety Officer; (b) State Fire Marshall; (c) Health Administrator, inspection in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 101045; 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 149 (d) County Superintendent of Schools on the adequacy of educational services and facilities; and, (e) The Juvenile Justice Commission. Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F11:
The Ukiah Fire Chief and Fire Marshall and the State Fire Marshall inspected the Hall. The Juvenile Justice Commission and State Fire Marshall completed their inspections in November 1999 and both reports showed no deficiencies. Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F12:
Fire drills are conducted and documented once a month. Fire alarms are checked every Thursday. Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F13:
Use of telephone is a privilege that is earned. Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F14:
Each youth may make collect calls three nights a week. The County contracts with a private communications corporation. The charges are costly even for local calls and are charged to the receiving party. Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F15:
A portion of telephone profits is returned to JH and is currently being used to purchase recreational equipment for use by the youth. Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. 150 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F16:
The charge for each incarcerated youth is $10.00 per day. Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. Since the investigation, the fee has been raised by BOS resolution to $15.00 per day. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board notes that the charge has been raised to $15.00 per day.
F17:
Since last year, the Probation Department has been more aggressive in collecting lost revenue. The Superintendent stated that the billing department has doubled the amount collected from the previous year. Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R7:
As of April 2000, no haircuts are being offered. Title 15, Section 1488 states "Hair care services shall be available in all juvenile facilities. Minors shall receive hair care services monthly." Response (Juvenile Hall): Agree with this finding. However, we now have a counselor on staff who is a licensed cosmetologist and is willing to give haircuts. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
13 hallazgos
F1:
The members MCOE Board serve as the trustees for the CCS. Response (Office of Education): The role of County Juvenile Court and Community Schools are established by Educational Code and Welfare and Institutions Code: “The county board of education establishes and the county superintendent administers and operates the juvenile court and community school.”
F2:
CCS instructors have a difficult mission as their student body is drawn from the group of students in the County having the most challenging social, emotional and educational needs. Response (Office of Education): True, CCS instructors have a difficult job and are dedicated to their work with at-risk students. Their student body is drawn from one of the groups of students in the County having the most challenging social, emotional and educational needs. Instructors at District Community Day Schools and District Continuation High Schools serve similar populations of high-risk youth, and should also be acknowledged. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 161
F3:
Some parents of CCS students are not sufficiently familiar with the intricacies of policy and are intimidated by procedures and are therefore not able to advocate successfully for their children. Response (Office of Education): Educators throughout the country find that parents are often intimidated by school administration and procedures. A mandatory meeting between parent, student and a CCS counselor is required prior to a student’s enrollment in CCS. This session usually lasts an hour. The CCS counselor develops an Individualized Learning Plan based on the student’s academic and social/emotional needs. Goals and objectives are clearly defined with parent and student input. This is an opportunity for parents and students to ask questions or express any concerns about the CCS program. CCS school counselors and administrator are available to speak with parents on the telephone or in person regarding any concerns about procedures or policy. A parent-student handbook is given to all new students at intake. The California Healthy Start Program was developed especially for the purpose of helping families work closely with schools and government agencies. A CCS Healthy Start program began operation in October 1999 in order to facilitate school and family interaction, as well as to discourage truancy, and to transport students and their families to health care appointments, court appearances, college classes, and special programs. The CCS Family Services Liaison works closely with parents and students in the program.
F4:
The CCS Average Daily Attendance (ADA) is increasing, as more students are excluded from mainstream schools. Response (Office of Education): Not true. CCS average daily attendance has been decreasing since the 1991-1992 school year and reached its lowest ADA during the 1999-2000 school year. (See attached ADA History 1990-2000.) 162 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F5:
The CCS formally budgeted funding for individual classroom materials has declined from $1500 in 1985 to $500 in 1999; in addition there was a one-time allocation of $500 in 1999. During the same period, the number of students in many CCS classrooms had increased from 15 to 20 or more. Response (Office of Education): Not true. Although ADA has decreased, the number of students enrolled in CCS classrooms has remained constant for over 10 years. Approximately 20 students are enrolled in each class with a full time teacher and instructional paraprofessional. At any given time, the average attendance per class is approximately 11-15 students. Instructional materials funding for classrooms has increased dramatically over the past several years due to new state legislation regarding instructional materials. CCS classrooms have access to Schiff-Bustamante Instructional Materials funding, State Textbook funding, Block Grant funding, Safe and Drug Free Schools funding, and School Library funding. The CCS Leadership Team and CCS Curriculum Committee allocate educational materials to classrooms. During the 1999-2000 school year, the CCS Leadership Team allocated $6,220 to the Willits CCS classroom, $5,268 to the Pomolita Community School classroom, and $3,198 to one of the classrooms at River School in Talmage. These funds were for discretionary spending for instructional materials and student incentives. Current funding for instructional materials and student incentives is well above the $1,500 allocated in 1985 for classroom discretionary funding.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Salaries of MCOE administrators have increased disproportionally more than those of teachers. One reason for this may be the reclassification of administrative positions with new titles and increased salaries. At the same time CCS classroom budgets have declined. Response (Office of Education): It would be helpful to know what “reclassification of administrative positions” the Grand Jury is referring to. Again, CCS classroom budgets have not declined but have increased as indicated in response to Finding #5 above. As pay raises are negotiated with the union for certificated and classified staff, administration receives the same percent increase. Recommendation The Grand Jury urges that expenditures for classroom materials and instructional staff, including both teachers and paraprofessionals, receive 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 165 higher budget priority. Lottery funds should be restricted to unusual and innovative enhancement programs. Response (Office of Education): MCOE gives the highest priority in the budgeting process to expenditures for instructional staff and classroom materials. The state average for teacher salaries is 39.3% of a district’s budget. At MCOE, 48.0% of the CCS budget is spent on teacher salaries. The Leadership Team allocates Lottery funds to classroom teachers for enhancement programs.
F6:
CCS has a leadership team of two administrators, three teachers, and one paraprofessional who are charged with making decisions about allocation of lottery funds in response to teacher requests. Response (Office of Education): True. The Leadership Team allocates lottery funds, as well as other discretionary funds.
F7:
Prior to the March 2000 General Election, the legislative intent for the use of lottery funds and MCOE Board Policy 32201.1 had been for expenditures beyond the usual classroom needs. Examples of acceptable uses include: incentives, field trips, materials and expenses for innovative programs. Response (Office of Education): True.
F8:
Due to inadequate budget allotments, CCS teachers have been forced to request lottery funding for classroom texts contrary to MCOE Board policy and legislative intent. Response (Office of Education): Not true. There are no inadequate budget allotments. Lottery funds have been used for field trips, ROPES course, speakers, yearbooks, instructional materials and incentives for attendance and behavior. Teachers have not been forced to use Lottery funds for textbooks. Teachers have been directed to submit requests for textbooks to the Curriculum Committee which determines alignment with state standards and alignment with possible funding sources. The curriculum committee decides on the state-funding source to use 164 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report for the purchase of textbooks. (See attached Instructional Materials Funding Requests.)
F9:
MCOE documents reveal a discrepancy between the projected ADA generated lottery funds and the amount actually allocated to the CCS. The difference was a 35% loss, which exceeds by 27%, the 8% usually charged by MCOE for the administration of funds. Response (Office of Education): It would be helpful to know which “MCOE documents” the Grand Jury is referring to. It has been the practice of MCOE Administration, approved by the MCOE Board in the yearly budget, to allocate 50% of the Lottery dollars directly to instructional programs in CCS, ROP, and Special Education; and to spend the other 50% on special student enrichment programs, professional development and standards, assessment and curriculum development
F10:
Salaries of MCOE administrators have increased disproportionally more than those of teachers. One reason for this may be the reclassification of administrative positions with new titles and increased salaries. At the same time CCS classroom budgets have declined. Response (Office of Education): It would be helpful to know what “reclassification of administrative positions” the Grand Jury is referring to. Again, CCS classroom budgets have not declined but have increased as indicated in response to Finding #5 above. As pay raises are negotiated with the union for certificated and classified staff, administration receives the same percent increase.
F11:
Many special sources of grants (such as Tobacco Use Prevention, Healthy Start and Violence Prevention) have been obtained for the CCS by a grant writer retained on the MCOE staff for which MCOE receives 8% for administration. Since some of these funds are not completely utilized, grants are apparently written which do not reflect the needs of CCS. Response (Office of Education): There is no paid grant writer retained on the MCOE staff. Every grant, except as noted below, that CCS has submitted and received has been written by CCS staff during their work hours. The current Director of CCS, the Coordinator for Child Development and the Coordinator for Prevention Education have written the Tobacco Use Prevention Grant, the CalSAFE Teen Pregnancy Grant, the Prevention in Action Grant, and the currently- being-developed Digital High School Grant. The Violence Prevention funding is not a grant; those funds are given to each county office and school district in the State following submission of a one-page assurance that spending will be used for specific activities. A paid grant writer, contracted for that specific purpose, wrote the CCS Healthy Start Grant. A Healthy Start Planning Grant, written by MCOE staff, provided funding for the grant writer. Two MCOE staff, along with a Public Health staff person, and a grant writer paid by Public Health, wrote the HIV/Aids Education Grant.
F12:
The MCOE Board meetings are held during the working day and often in distant parts of the County. Parents and teachers, who are working, find it difficult to attend. Besides, MCOE no longer televises its Board meetings. Response (Office of Education): The Mendocino County Board of Education is committed to having as much public participation as possible at their meetings. Because of the size of our County and the coast/inland accessibility factor, there is no one location that is equally convenient to all communities. Recognizing this, the Mendocino County Board of Education holds meetings throughout the year at various locations within the County, thus giving members of every community and the local school district staff the opportunity to conveniently attend and review local site- specific programs and issues. Video conferencing and regular evening meetings were tried and were not found to increase public participation. With no noticeable benefit, coupled with the added inconvenience and risk of night travel to Board members who come from all over the County, it was decided to discontinue evening meetings. Nevertheless, special hearings are held in the late afternoon or evening to accommodate interested parties. The Board will again review the issue of videotaping meetings. The involvement of ROP will be considered in this review.
F13:
The Grand Jury's ability to evaluate the MCOE audited budget was inhibited by the one and one-half months delay in the document's arrival from MCOE. Response (Office of Education): MCOE received copies of the audited budget the Grand Jury requested on April 11, 2000. A copy of this audit was mailed to the Grand Jury on April 12, 2000. MCOE did not inhibit the Grand Jury’s ability to evaluate the MCOE audited budget, and responded in a timely and expedient manner to all clear requests or questions. COMMENT ON GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 1999-2000: MCOE administration and Board are concerned about the many inaccuracies in the Grand Jury findings. In the future, MCOE encourages the Grand Jury to invite MCOE Superintendent of Schools or his designee or MCOE Board members, to respond to questions and provide information and backup documentation.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Grand Jury suggests that funding per classroom reflect the same dollar- per-student ratio as in 1985. Response (Office of Education): Current funding for CCS classrooms far exceeds the dollar-per-student ratio of 1985.
R2:
The MCOE Board and Superintendent should give their highest priority to the needs of CCS classrooms for budgetary and other support. The ADA increases should allow them to increase funding to CCS. Response (Office of Education): The MCOE Board and Superintendent give high priority to all programs that affect children. Regarding funding, as explained above, ADA has not increased, but in fact has decreased steadily since 1991. Even with ADA decreases, CCS classrooms have greater than ever access to instructional materials funding. The MCOE Board and 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 163 the Superintendent have supported access to these funding sources for CCS, and their use for instructional materials.
R6:
CCS has a leadership team of two administrators, three teachers, and one paraprofessional who are charged with making decisions about allocation of lottery funds in response to teacher requests. Response (Office of Education): True. The Leadership Team allocates lottery funds, as well as other discretionary funds. Recommendation Since the staff and faculty of the CCS, being a distinct entity within MCOE, have a better understanding of their students' special needs, the leadership team should continue to determine the allocation of all special funds. Response (Office of Education): The Leadership Team will continue to meet on a monthly basis to allocate funding based on proposals aligned with CCS program goals. For the 1999-2000 school year, the only funding requests turned down by the Leadership Team were for projects not aligned with CCS goals, or without clearly defined goals.
R11:
Many special sources of grants (such as Tobacco Use Prevention, Healthy Start and Violence Prevention) have been obtained for the CCS by a grant writer retained on the MCOE staff for which MCOE receives 8% for administration. Since some of these funds are not completely utilized, grants are apparently written which do not reflect the needs of CCS. Response (Office of Education): There is no paid grant writer retained on the MCOE staff. Every grant, except as noted below, that CCS has submitted and received has been written by CCS staff during their work hours. The current Director of CCS, the Coordinator for Child Development and the Coordinator for Prevention Education have written the Tobacco Use Prevention Grant, the CalSAFE Teen Pregnancy Grant, the Prevention in Action Grant, and the currently- being-developed Digital High School Grant. The Violence Prevention funding is not a grant; those funds are given to each county office and school district in the State following submission of a one-page assurance that spending will be used for specific activities. A paid grant writer, contracted for that specific purpose, wrote the CCS Healthy Start Grant. A Healthy Start Planning Grant, written by MCOE staff, provided funding for the grant writer. Two MCOE staff, along with a Public Health staff person, and a grant writer paid by Public Health, wrote the HIV/Aids Education Grant. Recommendation Care must be taken to seek grants more specifically aligned with the needs of the CCS students. There should be a review of all uncommitted grant funds. Response (Office of Education): No grants are submitted which are not aligned with MCOE/CCS goals. There are no uncommitted CCS grant funds.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
The case load has increased each year since 1997. There appears to be a need for another Deputy Alternate Defender. Response (Alternate Defender): The Alternate Defender’s Office was established in October 1997. Since that time the caseload has increased each year. The Alternate Defender’s Office presently handles 600-650 cases per year. The need for an additional attorney was met when Scott McMenomey was hired as a part-time attorney in September, 1999. That position became a full time position in January, 2000. Response (Sheriff): Neither agree nor disagree with this finding. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 153 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provide by the Alternate Defender. The need for an additional attorney was met when the Office hired a part-time attorney in September of 1999 and that position became full time in January of 2000.
F2:
The staff expressed concern regarding low salaries and inequities among departments. Research indicates that all attorneys employed by the County fall under the same pay structure. The County financed an independent study of the Mendocino County salaries (the Slavin Report). This study, dated January 2000, reveals that the salaries for Public Defenders in Mendocino County are substantially less than those paid by other counties included in the study. Response (Alternate Defender): Hopefully the implementation of the
F3:
Several Alternate Defenders objected to being searched prior to entering secure areas of the County Jail. The Grand Jury found that the Jail policy of making no exceptions to its established procedure was valid for security reasons. Response (Alternate Defender): The jail’s policy of searching visitors is certainly a valid policy. It has been the Department’s experience that once the jail staff is familiar with an attorney or investigator, the correctional officers tend to relax the policy a bit, so there is no feeling of “mistrust” between the jail staff and the attorneys and investigators. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F4:
There is no security counter between the public area and the secretary's work area. Response (Alternate Defender): The Alternate Defender’s Office consists of five individual offices that accommodate the Alternate 154 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Defender, three attorneys, and one investigator. The sixth employee, the legal secretary, is situated just inside the front door in an unenclosed area. Between the secretary’s desk and the front door is the main waiting area for clients when they visit our office. Although it would be beneficial to install a security counter between the secretary’s desk and the front door, there is insufficient space for such a counter as it is only about seven feet from the front door to the secretary’s desk. To install a security counter would, essentially, leave little or no space to accommodate our clients as they wait to see their attorney. Response (Sheriff): Neither agree nor disagree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. The people entering the office are clients of the Alternate Defender. The office must weigh safety versus perception by their clients.
F5:
The Office of the Alternate Defender has no policy and procedure manual. Response (Alternate Defender): The Alternate Defender’s Office does not have a policy and procedure manual per se. However, the County of Mendocino does have a Memorandum of Understanding, which is heavily relied upon in the daily functions of this office. Response (Sheriff): Neither agree nor disagree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F6:
The Office of the Alternate Defender is not a separate department. The Alternate Defender reports to the Public Defender. This subordination of the Alternate Defender encumbers his ability to directly address facility issues such as carpeting, entry and security. The Alternate Defender budget is administered and presented to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) by the Public Defender. Response (Alternate Defender): The Alternate Defender’s Office maintains a separate office from the Public Defender’s Office. The Alternate Defender’s Office has separate office space, a separate mailing address, separate phone lines, separate FAX lines, a separate copy machine, separate computers, etc. and separate files that cannot be accessed by anyone other than the employees of the Alternate Defender’s Office. The Alternate Defender does the personnel evaluations of all employees in the Alternate Defender’s Office. Although Alternate Defender’s budget is presented to the Board of 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 155 Supervisors by the Public Defender, the Alternate Defender’s budget is administered by the Alternate Defender. I believe this issue was addressed by the Public Defender’s response of August 23, 2000. (Refer to Public Defender’s response to
F7:
Carpeting is unsightly and needs to be replaced. Response (Alternate Defender): The carpeting in the Alternate Defender’s Office is unsightly and needs to be replaced. This office has attempted to negotiate with the landlord, Mrs. Feibusch, who contends there is nothing wrong with the carpet. With that said, this office is presently attempting to obtain bids to have the carpet replaced. Response (Sheriff): Neither agree nor disagree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. The Alternate Defenders Office is seeking bids to replace the carpet.
F8:
This office seems to be running smoothly. The employees shared a combined respect for one another and a contentment in their assigned duties. Response (Alternate Defender): The Alternate Defender’s Office is truly blessed, especially in an office with such a small staff and small quarters, to have people who are dedicated to the work they do on behalf of their clients, and who truly appreciate and respond to the needs of others. Response (Sheriff): Neither agree nor disagree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and thanks the Grand Jury for this comment. 156 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F9:
When interviewing prisoners at the Jail, the employees are concerned about their personal safety because of the length of time it takes the officers at the Jail to respond to their request to be released from the interview room. Response (Alternate Defender): The jail has essential two venues in the male side of the jail to interview clients: one interview room, and the law library. Because of the issues of confidentiality between an attorney and his/her client, there is only a buzzer and no intercom with which to summon correctional officers. It often takes pushing the buzzer several times over the course of several minutes to a half an hour before there is a response to release the attorney from the interview room. The concern is that there may be a time when there is a problem between parties in the interview room, and if there is not a reasonable response when the attorney presses the buzzer to be released, a situation could escalate resulting in injury to someone. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. The Alternate Defender states it often takes several minutes up to one half hour for a response to the buzzer to leave the interview room.
F10:
The performance of the Alternate Defender is not evaluated by the Public Defender, nor is it reviewed by the BOS, the County Administrative Officer or anyone else. Response (Alternate Defender): The Alternate Defender has received yearly reviews by the Public Defender. Response (Sheriff): Neither agree nor disagree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this finding. The review and evaluation of the Alternate Defender is done by the Public Defender.
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The BOS should consider funding one additional Deputy Alternate Defender. Response (Alternate Defender): Refer to response to Finding 1. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation is directed to the Board of Supervisors. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 157 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Alternate Defender did not request additional staffing during the most recent budget process. With the addition of one attorney in Fiscal Year 1999-2000, the Alternate Defender feels he has adequate staffing. Time Frame for Implementation: An additional full time attorney was hired in January 2000.
R2:
The BOS should review the County attorney salary structure. Response (Alternate Defender): Refer to response to Finding 2. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation is directed to the Board of Supervisors. Response (Board of Supervisors): The salary structure was reviewed within the Slavin Study. Slavin Study recommendations implemented November 2000.
R3:
The County should install a security counter between the public area and the secretary's desk. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation is directed to the Board of Supervisors. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Alternate Defender has not requested this type of security measure. The Board will direct that the Risk Manager discuss this issue with the Alternate Defender to determine the safety factors.
R4:
A current policy and procedures manual needs to be developed. Response (Alternate Defender): Refer to response to Finding 5. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation is directed to the Alternate Public Defender. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation. Time Frame for Implementation: The Alternate Defender believes it would take until January 2002 to create a proper policies and procedures manual for its office.
R5:
The BOS should reconsider elevating the Office of the Alternate Defender to Department status, which would permit performance reviews of the Alternate 158 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Defender and let the Alternate Defender go directly to the BOS when needs arise. Response (Alternate Defender): Refer to response to Findings 6 &
R6:
The Sheriff should meet with the Alternate Defender and the Public Defender to determine a rapid response procedure that will guarantee that attorneys are released from the interview room in a more timely manner at the Jail. Response (Alternate Defender): Refer to response to Finding 9. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation has been implemented. The Jail Commander has met with the Public Defender to discuss this problem. Corrections Deputies and their supervisors have been reminded of the need to respond in a timelier manner when attorneys request to be released from the interview room. However as with so many other aspects of jail operations, the timeliness of the response is a function of the available staffing. Attorneys who are concerned about their safety also have the option of using non-contact interview areas. The jail has also sought cooperation from the attorneys in scheduling visits ahead of time, thus reducing the potential for delays due to a lack of available interview rooms. Response (Board of Supervisors): This recommendation has been implemented. The Jail Commander has met with the Public Defender and the Alternate Defender to discuss this concern. The Sheriff has stated that corrections deputies have been reminded of the need to respond in a timely manner. Time Frame for Implementation: Already implemented. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mendocino County Sheriff/Coroner Response Requested Mendocino County Alternate Defender Mendocino County Public Defender 160 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
R10:
Response (Public Defender): Letter dated August 23, 2000. Reads: “Our department has been requested to respond to the 1999-2000 Grand Jury recommendation that the Alternate Defender office be made into a separate department from the Public Defender office. There is nothing new in our response to this issue, and there does not appear to be any reason for the Grand Jury’s recommendation to separate the Alternate Defender from the Public Defender as a separate department. I wish to point out the very public letter I addressed to the Board of Supervisors, June 5, 1997, which the Board endorsed in August, 1997, and from which the Alternate Defender office was formed on October 1, 1997. Also, below please also find the portion of our response to last year’s (1998-99) Grand Jury in this regard, when they asked us to address this issue with respect to their investigation of the Public Defender. The only difference between that response and today is an additional successful year of the Alternate Defender office. Note also that no reported case has ever held contrary to the Castro and Christian cases referred to below. 1998-99 GRAND JURY RESPONSE BY PUBLIC DEFENDER RE: ALTERNATE DEFENDER: As indicated to the Grand Jury, the Alternate Defender'’ budget is prepared in conference with the Alternate Defender. The P.D. was involved in the hiring of the Alternate Defender, in conjunction with the Board of Supervisors. The model for the Alternate Defender office, as explained to the Grand Jury, is based upon Castro v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 232 Cal.app.3d 1432, and People v. Christian (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 986; and has been implemented in Contra Cost, Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, and Humboldt counties, as well as others. It has been implemented here with absolutely no problem regarding any conflict of interest, and at great financial savings to the County. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation is directed to the Board of Supervisors. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this recommendation. The current model the County is using for the Alternate Defender is used in several counties in California with savings realized. Evaluations of the Alternate Defender are prepared by the Public Defender. Time Frame for Implementation: Not applicable. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 159
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
MHRB members must reside within the Historic District. Property ownership in the Historic District is not a requirement. Historically, it has been difficult to find qualified applicants to serve on the MHRB. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 169 Response (Planning & Building Services): Staff has not observed a shortage of eligible Review Board members in recent years. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the finding that MHRB members must reside within the Historic District. The Board agrees with Planning and Building Services that a shortage of eligible Review Board members in recent years has not been observed.
F2:
MHRB members and staff are not required to have expertise or experience in historic preservation, architecture or other related fields. Response (Planning & Building Services): Agree with this finding in that there is nothing specific in County Code or employee job descriptions that require expertise or experience in historic preservation, architecture or other related fields, however, this knowledge and experience is a consideration at the time of appointment. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with Planning and Building Services’ response that although there is nothing specific in the County Code or employee job descriptions that requires expertise or experience in historic preservation, architecture or other related fields, this is a consideration at the time of appointment.
F3:
Testimony has shown that some members of the MHRB do not possess sufficient technical expertise. Response (Planning & Building Services): Supervising Planner, Doug Zanini, writes: “During my time as the Executive Secretary (to MHRB) I have observed that very little of what the Review Board does requires technical knowledge or expertise in architecture. I have also found that there are not many architects who specialize in historical preservation no am I aware of any architects in the local area that have bona fide credentials as an historical preservation architect. What is more important that technical knowledge is an intimate knowledge of the town and its history, ability to read architectural drawings, a passion for and a track record in historical preservation, and familiarity with the Design Guidelines.” Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with Planning and Building Services that, although it would be beneficial, the Review Board’s responsibilities do not necessarily require technical knowledge or expertise in architecture. The Board also concurs with the Department’s observation that there are very few architects who specialize in historical preservation in this community.
F4:
The Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services provides staff to support the MHRB. The staff is a Coastal Planner working out of the 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 171 Fort Bragg office. The primary function of the staff is to provide support to the MHRB as follows: a. prepares reports on applications b. schedules site views c. provides posting notices to property owners d. takes minutes at MHRB meetings e. posts notices at various public places f. investigate violations. Response (Planning & Building Services): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F5:
The staff does not make recommendations to the MHRB other than procedural. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F6:
Public notices are posted at the following locations: Post Office, Recreation Center, bulletin board at Wilkes-Bashford Building, property in question and an agenda is sent to the Mendocino Beacon newspaper and local radio stations. Adjacent property owners are not specifically notified. Response (MHRB): The above mentioned postings should be continued and, in addition, there should be a posting in a secure location where the notice cannot be removed or covered over. MHRB agrees that property owners within 300 feet of the subject property should be notified by mail in a timely way. This could be limited to applications requiring the higher fee, signifying a large scale project. Response (Planning & Building Services): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 174 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F7:
The County ordinance does not give the legal right to enforce violations to MHRB. Enforcement, under the jurisdiction of the Department of Planning and Building Services, does not always happen. Violations are handled in the following manner: a. Violations are received as complaints to the MHRB and referred to staff. b. Staff investigates to verify the complaint and sends a letter to the violating party. c. If compliance is not forthcoming after 30 days, a second letter is sent. Currently this process takes three months due to staff workload. d. If compliance does not occur after the second letter, the matter is referred to the Code Enforcement Section of the County Planning Department. e. Compliance can ultimately be forced by issuance of a citation, which can result in a court hearing; the entire process may be delayed due to the priorities of the Coastal Planner and Planning Department Code Enforcers. 176 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report (Priority is given to more important matters on their schedules, such as new permit applications or inspections involving public health or safety.) Response (Planning & Building Services): The Department agrees with this finding. As stated In 7e, the Department prioritizes violation cases based upon limited staff availability, other matters or duties such as permit processing and whether or not the public health or safety is threatened. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board with this finding. The Board concurs with the Department’s policy of prioritizing violation cases based upon staff availability and whether or not public health and/or safety is threatened.
F8:
The present system takes too long to resolve issues primarily because staff prioritize work according to relative importance. Consequently, issues such as signs, banners, and paint color, can extend for months before being resolved. The result is the perception that MHRB is an impotent entity. Testimony has questioned the value of MHRB rulings if they are not acted upon. There is also a perception that too much attention is being placed on "trivial" matters. Response (Planning & Building Services): Agrees with this finding. However, I would note that the last sentence appears to conflict with the first sentence in this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding as it relates to staff prioritization of work according to relative importance.
F9:
MHRB findings and decisions can be appealed to the BOS within 10 days. Response (MHRB): The ability of en applicant to appeal a MHRB decision to the Board of Supervisors ensures a “check and balance” in the approval process. Applicants are advised at the meeting of this appeal option and are advised to delay starting their project for 10 days in case an appeal is filed. Response (Planning & Building Services): Agrees with this finding 178 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F10:
Often, property owners who want to make changes to their property, claim that they were unaware of the historic preservation requirements when they bought property in the Historic District. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board can neither agree nor disagree with this finding, as information substantiating this claim has not been received.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R6:
Public notices are posted at the following locations: Post Office, Recreation Center, bulletin board at Wilkes-Bashford Building, property in question and an agenda is sent to the Mendocino Beacon newspaper and local radio stations. Adjacent property owners are not specifically notified. Response (MHRB): The above mentioned postings should be continued and, in addition, there should be a posting in a secure location where the notice cannot be removed or covered over. MHRB agrees that property owners within 300 feet of the subject property should be notified by mail in a timely way. This could be limited to applications requiring the higher fee, signifying a large scale project. Response (Planning & Building Services): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
MCC defines conditions which must be met to qualify for the use of the athletic facilities. Response (MCC): This statement is accurate.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury found evidence of MCC internal conflict about how best to accommodate requests for athletic facilities by schools having limited resources. Instances of obtaining the use of facilities by "back-door" methods were reported as a way of avoiding what was perceived by the requesters as "undue hassle" when following the official route. Response (MCC): Any "back door use" has been unauthorized use, which is eliminated when discovered. District policy clearly outlines the steps and requirements for facility use at Mendocino College (see Grand Jury Finding #1, above). These policies are applied equitably (see Grand Jury finding #5). Recommendation The Grand Jury recommends that the top administration and Board of Trustees of the MCC acknowledge public concern in these matters and critically review not only the financial aspects involved, but also the manner in which the use of facilities is being administered. Since the College is funded by the public, owned by the public for the use of the public, MCC should be especially sensitive to the perceptions projected to the public. Response (MCC): The administrators and trustees of the college not only acknowledge the public's concern in these matters, but are actively looking for innovative ways to expand and improve all of the outreach programs. This statement is backed up by the recent town meetings and the college's Mendocino 2000 program which expressly is aimed at bringing the community into decisions involving future and current plans for the college. The existing policies were carefully crafted with these ends in mind, and we are constantly monitoring to assure that the outside uses are being administered consistent with the policies now in place. Most of the outside users of college facilities understand the limitations which the college faces with regard to their use. The athletic facilities represent only a portion of the facilities utilized by the public. The complaints registered to the Grand Jury regarding athletic facilities are 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 185 only representative of a small percentage of uses of the District's facilities. Mendocino College facilities were built with public funds; however, amortization of costs associated with the original development of the facilities are not borne by the users. All charges for use of facilities are for direct costs associated with each use. Response Required Mendocino-Lake Community College District Board of Trustees Response Requested Mendocino Community College 186 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F2:
Although the daily fees have been reduced, the total cost for an organization to use MCC facilities has increased, in some cases, as much as 300-600% in a two-year time frame. Response (MCC): Charges for facility use were, and will be, changed in order to more accurately reflect the actual costs associated with 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 181 each use. Such changes reflect both adherence to policy as well as the resulting good stewardship by the college administrators and trustees. Direct costs include charging for: staff time to set up and take down furniture and equipment required for the activity, use of special equipment, costs associated with providing security during large events, and costs of waste disposal, utility and custodial services. In most cases, the fee charged for the facility rental has been reduced, especially for shorter duration events.
F3:
According to MCC staff, these large increases in fees were imposed to reflect the "hours of use." In the past, some events, especially those of long duration, allegedly ran at a financial loss to MCC. Response (MCC): This statement is accurate.
F4:
As a result of the large increases, schools and organizations find it more and more difficult, if not impossible, to take advantage of the unique, excellent facilities. Response (MCC): Facility utilization by local school districts does not reflect this finding. The number of uses by local secondary schools does not reflect any significant decline since the facility use fees were revised. The past three years of athletic facility use by local secondary schools is as follows: 1997-98, 17 events; 1998-99, 22 events; 1999- 2000, 21 events.
F6:
Inspection of several recent accounting statements from the MCC Facilities Director's Office indicates that these new user fees are being administered equitably among all users. Response (MCC): The College appreciates the Grand Jury's affirmation of the consistent application of the College's Facilities Use Policy. The primary goal of the Facility Use Policy is: To make Mendocino College facilities available to outside users without adversely impacting the instructional programs of the College, either operationally or financially, and to do so in a fair and equitable manner.
F7:
Past requests by a local high school to provide its own concessions as well as security staff were denied by MCC. Having these services provided by MCC constitutes a significant portion of the users' overall expenses. Response (MCC): This statement is accurate. The practice also reflects District policy which allows the District to require these services be provided by the College when it is necessary for the District to protect its facilities and address liability issues. A number of years ago, when the College contracted with a high school for use of facilities, the high school maintained concession rights.
F8:
The Grand Jury found evidence of MCC internal conflict about how best to accommodate requests for athletic facilities by schools having limited resources. Instances of obtaining the use of facilities by "back-door" methods were reported as a way of avoiding what was perceived by the requesters as "undue hassle" when following the official route. Response (MCC): Any "back door use" has been unauthorized use, which is eliminated when discovered. District policy clearly outlines the steps and requirements for facility use at Mendocino College (see Grand Jury Finding #1, above). These policies are applied equitably (see Grand Jury finding #5).
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
12 hallazgos
F1:
As a result of numerous interviews, the Grand Jury became aware of the existing contention between some of the students and parents with teachers and administrators. Ironically, one of the teachers, who was praised by a school administrator for promoting sensitivity programs, was also the very teacher singled out by the students interviewed as the teacher showing the least respect toward the students. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent agrees with the finding.
F2:
Several parents stated that they feel their children attend school in an unsafe environment. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 187 Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Potter Valley Community Unified School District maintains a safe and clean environment. The district works hard to insure that all students and staff are safe. Our schools are inspected on a regular basis to insure compliance with state and federal safety mandates.
F3:
Several students and parents gave specific examples and quotations made on different occasions of totally inappropriate sexual innuendoes and ethnic slurs made not only by students, but also by a few of the faculty. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. While specific examples and quotations were reported, the district finds any sexual innuendoes or ethic slurs made by either students or staff as totally unacceptable behavior and subject to investigation.
F4:
Incidents of physical assault or threats of assault by a few faculty members were formally reported to the administration by parents and students over a period of years. This lends credence to concerns of an unchecked pattern of misconduct practiced not only by students but also by a few faculty members. Two top school officials verbally acknowledged some critical aspects of these incidents to the Grand Jury. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Once reports are formally given to the administration, action is undertaken to remediate the situation and take corrective action as appropriate.
F5:
Everyone interviewed stated that this type of misconduct is absolutely unacceptable. The efforts made by the school administrators to implement appropriate corrective action was, in several cases, frustrated by the lack of adequate and timely documentation, as clearly required by existing school policy. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent agrees with this finding.
F6:
In one of the most serious incidents, involving alleged physical assault by a faculty member, an administrator informed us that they did not become aware of the incident in their office until two years after it occurred and only then decided on a reprimand. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent agrees with this finding. 188 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F7:
The Grand Jury was frustrated by the School Administration's reluctance in allowing the Grand Jury to check personnel files to verify whether appropriate documentation exists, despite formal written opinions issued by the County Counsel and the District Attorney stating that such inspection is within the Grand Jury's purview. The Grand Jury never did get to see these personnel files. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent disagrees with the finding. The district after consultations with both employees and the district’s attorneys felt it was not mandated to release information contained in employees’ personnel files, and therefore, did provide this information to the Grand Jury. We do not think that this reluctance hindered the grand jury’s efforts.
F8:
School administrators, teachers, students and parents interviewed knew of the existence of numerous written policies distributed annually to parents delineating parent's rights and responsibilities. Everyone was also aware of the Disciplinary Action Charts posted throughout the school detailing appropriate response for violations committed by students. However, not one of the administrators or teachers interviewed was familiar with any similar documents pertaining to misconduct by faculty or administrators, though such rules do exist. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent agrees with the finding.
F9:
The Grand Jury found the recent interim changes in Potter Valley School Administrative personnel and their collectively stated dedication to correct these deficiencies encouraging. Existing plans to work together with the Mendocino County Human Rights Commission to find new ways to improve awareness of the need to respect diversity is considered a step in the right direction. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent agrees with the finding.
F10:
All parents interviewed stated they were not adequately informed about actions taken by the school administration following the report of incidents. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. While some parents may not believe that they were adequately informed, disciplinary action taken by the administration and/or board of trustees cannot always be discussed or divulged due to confidentiality of employee personnel files and student rights.
F11:
Hazing by football team members involving physical abuse was reported by several students and parents and fully acknowledged by a staff member interviewed by the Grand Jury. Appropriate disciplinary action was taken in some instances, but on other occasions, the record shows that only after 190 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report pressure exerted by the affected parties including coverage in the media, was appropriate action taken as required and clearly stated in the widely publicized Disciplinary Action Chart. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent agrees with the finding.
F12:
Several students and parents expressed apprehensions about possible retaliatory actions, which might be exercised by fellow students and certain members of the faculty and administrators following the reporting of abusive incidents. Several of the teachers and administrators acknowledged that such apprehensions among some of the students and parents undoubtedly exist and are largely responsible for the lack of appropriate reporting of alleged incidents, which prevents any meaningful investigation and action. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent agrees with the finding.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R9:
The Grand Jury found the recent interim changes in Potter Valley School Administrative personnel and their collectively stated dedication to correct these deficiencies encouraging. Existing plans to work together with the Mendocino County Human Rights Commission to find new ways to improve awareness of the need to respect diversity is considered a step in the right direction. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent agrees with the
R10:
All parents interviewed stated they were not adequately informed about actions taken by the school administration following the report of incidents. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. While some parents may not believe that they were adequately informed, disciplinary action taken by the administration and/or board of trustees cannot always be discussed or divulged due to confidentiality of employee personnel files and student rights. Recommendation Efforts must be made to keep all affected parties totally informed of decisions made by the administration and of actions to be taken. Open communication among administration, teachers, students and parents is essential for establishing good rapport. Response (Potter Valley School): The recommendation has been implemented. Efforts will be made to keep all parties informed of any decision made by the administration as it relates to a specific incident.
R11:
Hazing by football team members involving physical abuse was reported by several students and parents and fully acknowledged by a staff member interviewed by the Grand Jury. Appropriate disciplinary action was taken in some instances, but on other occasions, the record shows that only after 190 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report pressure exerted by the affected parties including coverage in the media, was appropriate action taken as required and clearly stated in the widely publicized Disciplinary Action Chart. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent agrees with the
R12:
Several students and parents expressed apprehensions about possible retaliatory actions, which might be exercised by fellow students and certain members of the faculty and administrators following the reporting of abusive incidents. Several of the teachers and administrators acknowledged that such apprehensions among some of the students and parents undoubtedly exist and are largely responsible for the lack of appropriate reporting of alleged incidents, which prevents any meaningful investigation and action. Response (Potter Valley School): The respondent agrees with the
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
9 hallazgos
F1:
A conflict of by-laws Section 9 and 16 existed. Section 9 states; "All complaints must be filed within five (5) days upon receipt of bill, or water delivery." Section 16 states; "All complaints must be filed within ten (10) days upon receipt of bill, or water delivery." Response (Potter Valley Irrigation District): The 2000 Final Draft of the District By-Laws was reviewed by the Board of Directors at the June 21st Regular Meeting. The Bylaws were edited and reworked to eliminate the conflict of ByLaws that existed in the old version in use at this time. Also the statement in By-Law Section 16 regarding a customer losing the right to complain was deleted. The final Draft was approved to go to an attorney for review of the terminology and legality of the rules contained in the new District By- Law document. When returned the District By-Laws will be sent out to every customer of the Potter Valley Irrigation District.
F2:
By-law Section 16, also states, "A customer loses his/her right to complain after ten days." 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 193 Response (Potter Valley Irrigation District): Customers were contacted and preferred that the Water Bills be sent at the end of the water season as in the past. However, when the updated By-Laws are sent out to the District customers, they will be notified that the District will provide them a up to date water bill at any time of the water season upon request.
F3:
No written receipts are given to customers upon delivery of water. Response (Potter Valley Irrigation District): At the July 19th regular meeting, on a motion by Dir. Bob Hess, seconded by Dir. Oberfeld, the Board approved taping all future Board meetings and retaining the tapes for one year. Supt. Elliott was authorized to purchase a tape recorder for this purpose.
F4:
Customers are billed annually in October. Response (Potter Valley Irrigation District): Supt. Elliott has set up an on-going training program for all employees scheduled for the 1st Monday of each month at which the water tender record keeping as well as other aspects of the water tenders’ job will be reviewed, and signed off by the employees present.
F5:
The Secretary/Treasurer is currently filling the position of acting Tax Collector. Response (Potter Valley Irrigation District): Willits Attorney, Christopher Neary, was scheduled to meet with the Board at the July 19”’ meeting but was unable to attend. He is interested in serving as the legal counsel for the Potter Valley Irrigation District on an on-call basis. He is scheduled to be at the August 16th meeting to meet the Board of Directors to discuss the position.
F6:
It was determined after interview of board members, that nepotism no longer exists within the PVID. 194 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Potter Valley Irrigation District): The Board of Directors will give serious consideration to increasing the Superintendent’s salary in January 2001 when the District Budget is set up for the year and the District Salary Schedule is established.
F7:
District record keeping was sloppy, and for some customers the water rates were incorrect.
F8:
Sloppy handwritten record keeping and financial bookkeeping data have been upgraded from handwritten to computer record keeping.
F9:
The Superintendent's salary was not commensurate with occupations in Potter Valley, with the same or lesser responsibilities.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
A taping of all board meetings should be considered, and tapes retained for one year.
R2:
PVID is encouraged to have an on-going training program for all employees, which emphasizes the need for accurate record keeping.
R3:
The Board of Directors consider having legal counsel on an on-call basis for their board meetings.
R9:
The Superintendent's salary was not commensurate with occupations in Potter Valley, with the same or lesser responsibilities. Recommendation PVID give serious consideration to increasing the Superintendent's salary. Comment The PVID was found to be financially sound. The governing board interviewees were knowledgeable, forthright and candid in their assessment of operations of the district. There was no evidence of corruption or favoritism. It appeared that efforts were being made to treat customers of the district fairly. The PVID is currently in the process of updating its by-laws. Citizens' complaints reviewed in the board meeting minutes for the past year appear to have been resolved. The district is making efforts to improve the irrigation system. The Superintendent is to be commended for his hands-on knowledge and dedication to the district. Response (Auditor-Controller): As a special district with an independently elected/appointed board of directors, the financial management of the affairs of the district rest solely with the district directors and not the County of Mendocino. For the past number of 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 195 years, the district has been independently audited by outside auditors who also have the responsibility for reviewing the internal control procedures in place in safeguarding the fiscal assets of the district. The County of Mendocino nor my Office have any responsibility in that regard. However, we do act in a fiduciary capacity to insure that compliance reporting of annual financial transactions is timely submitted to the State Controllers Office on an annual basis. Response Required Mendocino County Auditor Controller Potter Valley Irrigation District Board of Directors 196 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
9 hallazgos
F1:
Clearigate, a chemical herbicide, was applied to the water reservoir twice without notification to district water users. Response (RVCWD): The Board agrees that Clearigate, an herbicide manufactured by Applied Biochemists, was applied to its water 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 197 reservoir. The Board agrees that it did not notify district water users before the Clearigate was applied. The Board notes that notification of district water users was not required at that time by District policy or state or federal law, and hat the district had no information at that time to suggest that the application of Clearigate would have any adverse affect on the quality of District water.
F2:
There were two infractions of the State of California Pesticide Regulations (SCPR). The Environmental Protection Agency of which SCPR is a part, levied a fine of $900.00, i.e., $700.00 against RVCWD and $200.00 against Applied Biochemist. Response (RVCWD): The Board disagrees that the Environmental Protections Agency(“EPA”) levied a fine of $900 based on two infractions of State of California Pesticide Regulation. The county Agricultural Commissioner, not EPA, imposed a fine of $700, not $900. The fine was based on a violation of Food and Agriculture Code Section 12973 which states: “The use of any pesticide shall not conflict with labeling registered pursuant to this chapter which is delivered with the pesticide.” The violation did not involve the failure of the District to give prior notice to District customers of its intent to use Clearigate.
F3:
Clearigate was applied to water in the reservoir in excess of Clearigate label instructions. Response (RVCWD): The Board agrees that the Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner found that there may have been an over- application of Clearigate based on label instructions. The Board notes that the first time Clearigate was used in the District’s raw water reservoir, it was applied by Bill Thomas who is employed by Applied Biochemists, the manufacturer of Clearigate. The Department of Agriculture determined that Mr. Thomas calculated the amount of Clearigate to apply, and that he actually performed the first application on May 13, 1999. That application was also observed by a representative of the Agricultural Commissioner who did not note any violations at the time of the application. District employees, including the General Manager, relied upon the manufacturer to properly apply Clearigate in compliance with label instructions developed by the manufacturer.
F4:
The Allied Biochemist, Inc. representative acted as a Pest Control Adviser without first registering with the Mendocino County Agriculture Commissioner. Response (RVCWD): The Board agrees that the Agricultural Commissioner found that Applied Biochemists’ employee should have registered with the Agricultural Commissioner as a Pest Control Adviser (“PCA”) before writing a recommendation for the use of Clearigate. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 199
F5:
Mendocino County Health and Agricultural Departments' oficials indicated use of Clearigate did not present an extreme danger to the health of RVCWD customers. Response (RVCWD): The Board disagrees with the Grand Jury’s characterization that Mendocino County Heath and Agriculture Department officials indicated that use of Clearigate did not present “an extreme danger” to the health of District water users. Rather, the county Agriculture Department stated that Clearigate is registered with the U.S. and California EPAs for use in potable water resevoirs. It has no use restrictions during or following applications. Although the material data sheet describes health hazard data, it is based on human exposure to 100% concentrations which are never achieved in the field. The hazards described on the label are based on people handling the concentrated product. When products are registered with the EPA, there are built in safety factors of at least 100 times below the level where injuries could occur. The California Department of Health Services –Drinking Water Field Operations Branch wrote: Upon investigation by DWP in conjunction with the Office of OEHHA, Clearigate was confirmed to be non-health hazardous to humans and is commonly used for aquatic weed control in potable water reservoirs.
F6:
Mendocino County Agriculture Department requested the State of California Department of Pesticide Regulation reevaluate the use of Clearigate in domestic water supplies. Response (RVCWD): The Board has no knowledge on which to agree or disagree with this finding.
F7:
The RVCWD Manager has the responsibility to add chemicals to the water for the district. Response (RVCWD): The District’s General Manager is the administrative head of the District and is responsible for the day-to-day management of the District and its employees, subject tot he policies adopted by and the ultimate control of the Board.
F8:
The RVCWD Manager has been employed by the District for over 20 years. According to testimony he apparently believes he can act independently of the Water District Board of Directors. Response (RVCWD): The Board does not believe the statement in finding no. 8 constitutes a “finding.” It draws a conclusion about what 200 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report the district’s General Manager believes from unspecified “testimony.” It is the Board’s opinion that such statements undermine the credibility of a Grand Jury report. The Board does not understand what the report means by “acts independently of the Board.” The Board has not been presented with evidence that the General Manager has exceeded his authority or failed to follow policies established by the Board.
F9:
According to testimony, the RVCWD Manager has, on previous occasions, misinformed the members of the Board of Directors regarding happenings or events within the RVCWD of which they should be cognizant. Response (RVCWD): The Board cannot agree or disagree with this finding, because it is vague and unspecific. The Board does not understand how these vague statements relate to the Clearigate incident, which appears to be the subject of the Grand Jury investigation. Again, it is the Board’s opinion that such vague and apparently unrelated statements undermine the credibility of a Grand Jury report.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R3:
Clearigate was applied to water in the reservoir in excess of Clearigate label instructions. Response (RVCWD): The Board agrees that the Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner found that there may have been an over- application of Clearigate based on label instructions. The Board notes that the first time Clearigate was used in the District’s raw water reservoir, it was applied by Bill Thomas who is employed by Applied Biochemists, the manufacturer of Clearigate. The Department of Agriculture determined that Mr. Thomas calculated the amount of Clearigate to apply, and that he actually performed the first application on May 13, 1999. That application was also observed by a representative of the Agricultural Commissioner who did not note any violations at the time of the application. District employees, including the General Manager, relied upon the manufacturer to properly apply Clearigate in compliance with label instructions developed by the manufacturer. Recommendation The RVCWD Board of Directors should follow the law and insist that the Water District Manager adhere to all chemical label instructions. Response (RVCWD): The Board agrees that it should follow the law and that its employees should follow the law and chemical label instructions. The Board notes that its employees made a good faith effort to do that in applying Clearigate and justifiably relied on the manufacturer’s employee to correctly apply the material.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
12 hallazgos
F1:
For the last several years there have been three members on the Board. WCWD By-laws require five members.
F2:
WCWD By-laws require monthly Board meetings. The WCWD meeting schedules are not kept.
F3:
Citizens filing complaints, and requesting to be placed on the agenda, are not given proper attention as required by law. They may or may not receive a hearing on their complaint.
F4:
The Billing Clerk, a volunteer, executes water shut-offs for delinquent customers, without consulting the Board.
F5:
The Grand Jury heard testimony that the rate schedule is unfair.
F6:
Meters are read once a month and recorded by the WCWD Manager. Even though there are meters in place, the customers of the district are now charged on a flat rate basis.
F7:
One large lot, which is divided into seven parcels, has five RVs,(cid:31) all hooked up to one water and sewer line and paying a single rate of $76.50 per month.
F8:
Monthly billings are not mailed out to customers on a specified date.
F9:
Citizens are threatened with penalties and shut-offs without first receiving a monthly statement.
F10:
Waste Water Capital Reserve Fund is currently in arrears. This Fund is mandated by the California State Water Resources Control Board to be paid annually.
F11:
A Board member failed to disclose all property holdings on Statement of Economic Interests Report Form (California Fair Political Practices Form 700) dated March 10, 1999.
F12:
The Grand Jury's interviews and review of letter responses to a concerned citizen's inquiry, indicated a great dissatisfaction in the manner in which the affairs of the WCWD are being handled by the current Board. Concerned citizens feel that they are not treated fairly.(cid:31) 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 205
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R2:
WCWD By-laws require monthly Board meetings. The WCWD meeting schedules are not kept. Recommendation Board meetings should be conducted on a regular monthly schedule.
R3:
Citizens filing complaints, and requesting to be placed on the agenda, are not given proper attention as required by law. They may or may not receive a hearing on their complaint. Recommendation The Board must conduct hearings on all complaints in accordance with WCWD Regulations.
R4:
The Billing Clerk, a volunteer, executes water shut-offs for delinquent customers, without consulting the Board. Recommendation The WCWD Board should review and approve all water shut-offs prior to execution as required by WCWD Regulations.
R7:
One large lot, which is divided into seven parcels, has five RVs,(cid:31) all hooked up to one water and sewer line and paying a single rate of $76.50 per month. Recommendation 204 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report A complete review of all properties within the district, both occupied and vacant, be made to determine if the district is receiving all revenues due.
R10:
Waste Water Capital Reserve Fund is currently in arrears. This Fund is mandated by the California State Water Resources Control Board to be paid annually. Recommendation Delinquent payments into the Fund should be brought up to date.
R11:
A Board member failed to disclose all property holdings on Statement of Economic Interests Report Form (California Fair Political Practices Form 700) dated March 10, 1999. Recommendation The Grand Jury recommends that the Mendocino County District Attorney determine if any action is indicated. Response (District Attorney): At the request of the Grand Jury, all documentation was referred to the Fair Political Practices for its consideration of any action they deem appropriate. That agency has primary enforcement jurisdiction under the Fair Political Practices Act.
R12:
The Grand Jury's interviews and review of letter responses to a concerned citizen's inquiry, indicated a great dissatisfaction in the manner in which the affairs of the WCWD are being handled by the current Board. Concerned citizens feel that they are not treated fairly.(cid:31) 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 205 Recommendation The Board should consider hiring a general manager to conduct the affairs of the District and that the Board act as a policy making body only. Response (Westport County Water District Board of Directors): No response received. Response Required Mendocino County District Attorney Westport County Water District Board of Directors 206 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report