Mendocino County 2006-2007 - California Grand Jury Reports

July 23, 2007 — State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Arnold Schwarzenegger. Governor Division of Adult*

3 pages 6 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Parlin Fork operates their own sawmill and provides lumber for various projects.

F2: Chamberlain Creek has a complete wood working shop and makes many types of cabinets and signs for city, county, and State government.

F3: Opportunities exist at the camps for continuing education and skills development: a. GED certificates can be obtained through a supervised and facilitated mail order

F4: At the time of the inspection of the Parlin Fork camp, the Grand Jury witnessed the annual administration inspection of the inmates, and equipment. This was all in advance of, and to prepare for, the coming fire season. The procedure included the comprehensive inspection of each individual's safety clothing, tools and equipment, and their understanding of the methods and dangers of fighting fires. The crew buses and all other fire fighting equipment were also inspected.

F5: At both camps the symbiotic relationship between the CDC and CF was clearly evident.

F6: The Mendocino County Bookmobile serves both camps and is highly valued by the inmates.

July 23, 2007 — Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor State of California — Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Division of Adult*

1 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

June 07, 2007 — Are You Getting What You Pay For?

5 pages 31 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 31 findings

F1: The BOS is paid commute mileage to and from their principal residences.

F2: All Supervisors defined the term "reimbursement" as being repaid money previously spent.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: BOS policies be amended to require a recorded vote granting Supervisors permission to attend special events and other functions not considered to be official County business. (Findings 2-3, 8-14)

F3: All Supervisors indicated that they clearly understood the meaning of Travel Policy §A(2)(d).

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: the BOS “Travel & Meal Policy” be amended to require receipts be attached to the claim form. (Findings 3, 20)

R2: BOS policies be amended to require a recorded vote granting Supervisors permission to attend special events and other functions not considered to be official County business. (Findings 2-3, 8-14)

R4: any/all Supervisors that misinterpreted BOS travel policy revise these previous travel claims and return all over-payments to the County. (Findings 3, 8-13, 15, 21-22, 27-31)

F4: The Grand Jury found claims for reimbursement in the following areas: • Cell phones; • Telephone and long distance charges; • Internet service; • Newspapers; • Travel (in-county only).

F5: As many as three BOS members said they commute to Ukiah two to three times a week.

F6: All BOS members are allocated $144.96 monthly stipend for use of their personal vehicle in addition to 48.5¢ per mile for driving to work and approved County functions. County reimbursed commute mileage charges range from $100-$1,000+ per month per supervisor.

F7: Supervisors also receive a stipend of $25.00 per month for "County road inspection".

F8: The Grand Jury heard testimony from two Supervisors that "driving to all meetings", regardless of the meeting’s purpose, qualifies for a valid mileage claim.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: BOS policies be amended to require a recorded vote granting Supervisors permission to attend special events and other functions not considered to be official County business. (Findings 2-3, 8-14)

R4: any/all Supervisors that misinterpreted BOS travel policy revise these previous travel claims and return all over-payments to the County. (Findings 3, 8-13, 15, 21-22, 27-31)

F9: Testimony revealed that some Supervisors have a casual and loosely defined understanding of what is considered to be “official County business”, resulting in substantive travel policy abuse.

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: BOS policies be amended to require a recorded vote granting Supervisors permission to attend special events and other functions not considered to be official County business. (Findings 2-3, 8-14)

R4: any/all Supervisors that misinterpreted BOS travel policy revise these previous travel claims and return all over-payments to the County. (Findings 3, 8-13, 15, 21-22, 27-31)

R5: the Auditor’s Office require that the purpose of “County business mileage” claimed is clearly stated on the form. (Findings 9, 21-22, 27-28) COMMENTS The BOS should consider removing the “paid commute miles to work” feature now in current travel policy. This unusual perk is not given to other County employees and is certainly not given to the average citizen who commutes to work daily. The BOS should consider replacing all in-County mileage charges, commute miles included, with a flat mileage stipend similar to what is given other elected officials, department heads, and the CEO. The $145 “vehicle stipend” and the $25 “road inspection” fee, should be folded into the flat mileage stipend. Eliminating the “commute to work” feature would remove the need for a separate travel policy for BOS members. This egalitarian gesture would be well received by both the public and County employees. RESPONSE REQUIRED Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) Mendocino County Chief Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) RESPONSE REQUESTED Mendocino County Auditor-Controllers Office (All Findings; All Recommendations)

F10: Two Supervisors believe that any special event, which could include social functions, is considered to be County business and therefore billable to the County.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: BOS policies be amended to require a recorded vote granting Supervisors permission to attend special events and other functions not considered to be official County business. (Findings 2-3, 8-14)

R4: any/all Supervisors that misinterpreted BOS travel policy revise these previous travel claims and return all over-payments to the County. (Findings 3, 8-13, 15, 21-22, 27-31)

F11: Three Supervisors stated they do not charge mileage when attending special events and/or social occasions.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: BOS policies be amended to require a recorded vote granting Supervisors permission to attend special events and other functions not considered to be official County business. (Findings 2-3, 8-14)

R4: any/all Supervisors that misinterpreted BOS travel policy revise these previous travel claims and return all over-payments to the County. (Findings 3, 8-13, 15, 21-22, 27-31)

F12: Three Supervisors said official weekend meetings are rare.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: BOS policies be amended to require a recorded vote granting Supervisors permission to attend special events and other functions not considered to be official County business. (Findings 2-3, 8-14)

R4: any/all Supervisors that misinterpreted BOS travel policy revise these previous travel claims and return all over-payments to the County. (Findings 3, 8-13, 15, 21-22, 27-31)

F13: A sample of in-County travel reports for a period of 26 weeks, 1/1/2006 to 6/30/2006, showed the following: • Two Supervisors had 0 weekend travel days. • One Supervisor had 1 weekend travel day. • One Supervisor had 5 weekend travel days. • One Supervisor had 20 weekend travel days.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: BOS policies be amended to require a recorded vote granting Supervisors permission to attend special events and other functions not considered to be official County business. (Findings 2-3, 8-14)

R4: any/all Supervisors that misinterpreted BOS travel policy revise these previous travel claims and return all over-payments to the County. (Findings 3, 8-13, 15, 21-22, 27-31)

F14: Four Supervisors believe they should only be paid for mileage they have driven on County business.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: BOS policies be amended to require a recorded vote granting Supervisors permission to attend special events and other functions not considered to be official County business. (Findings 2-3, 8-14)

F15: According to testimony relative to travel policy §A(2)(d), four Supervisors believe that if no actual miles are driven and no expense is incurred for lodging then no reimbursement is due.

F16: Current mileage reimbursement is 48.5¢ per mile and is also the maximum rate the IRS currently allows.

F17: Three Supervisors stated that the current mileage reimbursement rate is adequate and two supervisors felt the current mileage rate was not adequate.

F18: The Clerk of the Board processes and authorizes all BOS reimbursement claims and forwards them to the Auditor’s Office for payment.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Supervisors submit all BOS authorized travel and other reimbursement claims directly to the County Auditor, rather then the Clerk of the Board office, for final approval. (Findings 18-19, 21-22, 27-28)

F19: The Clerk of the Board is directly subordinate to the BOS and is an at-will employee. This is the only case in the County where a subordinate is vested with the power to authorize personal expenses submitted by a superior.

Related Recommendations (1)

F20: The Auditor’s Office requires a lodging receipt to determine the lesser cost to the County, when making a claim under §A(2)(d).

F21: The Grand Jury found that in filling out in-County travel forms, most Supervisors did not consistently indicate destination, agency involved, and purpose of meeting.

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: any/all Supervisors that misinterpreted BOS travel policy revise these previous travel claims and return all over-payments to the County. (Findings 3, 8-13, 15, 21-22, 27-31)

F22: Individual Supervisors defined “official County business” as ranging from casual conversations with a constituent to scheduled business meetings with government agencies.

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: any/all Supervisors that misinterpreted BOS travel policy revise these previous travel claims and return all over-payments to the County. (Findings 3, 8-13, 15, 21-22, 27-31)

F23: Discussion of the BOS travel policy/budget has been described as controversial and difficult for the Supervisors.

F24: The Grand Jury heard testimony that two Supervisors would prefer a stipend in lieu of in-County mileage; an acceptable stipend policy would also be difficult to formulate.

F25: A stipend is fully taxable and will bring increased payroll taxes and retirement (8%) costs to both the County and Supervisors. In return, each Supervisor would receive a larger retirement and Social Security benefit.

F26: All BOS members have access to County-issued credit cards.

F27: BOS travel claim form (Form No. A/C - 06) is required to be signed, certifying that “under penalty of perjury that the within claim and the items as therein set out are true and correct.”

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: any/all Supervisors that misinterpreted BOS travel policy revise these previous travel claims and return all over-payments to the County. (Findings 3, 8-13, 15, 21-22, 27-31)

F28: Some Supervisors incorrectly applied the BOS “Travel & Meal Policy”. Examples include: • Staying at a private residence in Ukiah while charging for round trips from home to Ukiah; • Signing the travel claim form when such non-existent trips were listed; • Using travel claims for non-existent trips to offset other expenses incurred as a Supervisor; • Collecting travel money for attending political and social functions; • Claiming non-supported travel on weekends.

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: any/all Supervisors that misinterpreted BOS travel policy revise these previous travel claims and return all over-payments to the County. (Findings 3, 8-13, 15, 21-22, 27-31)

F29: There is an average of 22 working days in each month of the year.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: any/all Supervisors that misinterpreted BOS travel policy revise these previous travel claims and return all over-payments to the County. (Findings 3, 8-13, 15, 21-22, 27-31)

F30: In the month of June 2006, a Supervisor claimed 22 round trips between their residence and Ukiah.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: any/all Supervisors that misinterpreted BOS travel policy revise these previous travel claims and return all over-payments to the County. (Findings 3, 8-13, 15, 21-22, 27-31)

F31: The State Statute used by Grand Juries for recovering monies due the County is California Penal Code §932.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: any/all Supervisors that misinterpreted BOS travel policy revise these previous travel claims and return all over-payments to the County. (Findings 3, 8-13, 15, 21-22, 27-31)

June 07, 2007 — One Ceo for the Price of Two a Report on the Ceo Termination Process June 7, 2007

7 pages 31 findings 15 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 31 findings

F1: The initial draft CEO ordinance was approved by a vote of 4/1.

F2: The final draft CEO ordinance was approved by a vote 3/2.

Related Recommendations (2)

R8: the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27)

R29: 6. the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21) 7. the BOS put personal agendas aside for the good of the County and it’s citizenry. (Findings 5, 24) 8. the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27) 9. the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28) 10. the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28) 11. the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28) 12. the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 13. the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 14. the BOS be totally transparent in conducting the citizen’s business. (Findings 17, 31) COMMENTS For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)

F3: Search for the new CEO started in February 2005.

F4: The CEO ordinance was adopted unanimously via the consent calendar.

Related Recommendations (2)

R8: the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27)

F5: The CEO ordinance set forth clear guidelines concerning CEO authority.

Related Recommendations (5)

R5: the BOS provide clearly defined policy direction by majority vote. (Findings 5, 24, 28- 29)

R6: the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21)

R7: the BOS put personal agendas aside for the good of the County and it’s citizenry. (Findings 5, 24)

R8: the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27)

F6: On April 12, 2005 the BOS announced the selection, but not the hiring, of a new CEO.

F7: Through the consent calendar the BOS unanimously approved the appointment and “terms of employment” of the new CEO.

F8: The CEO “terms of employment” was a binding contract, effective May 8, 2005, and was agreed upon and signed by both parties May 9, 2005. The contract was accepted by the BOS on May 10, 2005

F9: June 7, 2005 was the first BOS meeting attended by the new CEO.

F10: The CEO contract set forth clear conditions and resulting consequences in the event of termination.

F11: The BOS could have terminated the CEO, by majority vote anytime prior to February 8, 2006, with minimal monetary penalty to the county.

F12: The BOS could have declared a “breach of contract” by written notice prior to May 8,

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: the BOS inform themselves fully before entering into any contract. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)

R4: Human Resources Department review all “at-will” and contract employees to ensure all contract conditions are met. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)

F13: The BOS could have held a performance review of the CEO prior to February 8, 2006, leading to a discussion of termination of the CEO’s services at minimal cost to the county.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: the BOS inform themselves fully before entering into any contract. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)

R4: Human Resources Department review all “at-will” and contract employees to ensure all contract conditions are met. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)

F14: The contract provided for automatic renewal for one year, if the BOS did not take action prior to February 8, 2006.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: the BOS inform themselves fully before entering into any contract. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)

R4: Human Resources Department review all “at-will” and contract employees to ensure all contract conditions are met. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)

F15: Some BOS members indicated they did not fully read the CEO contract, but instead relied on advice from others.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: the BOS inform themselves fully before entering into any contract. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)

R4: Human Resources Department review all “at-will” and contract employees to ensure all contract conditions are met. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)

F16: Most Supervisors indicated they had no knowledge of the three month termination clause in the CEO contract.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: the BOS inform themselves fully before entering into any contract. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)

R4: Human Resources Department review all “at-will” and contract employees to ensure all contract conditions are met. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)

F17: According to California Government Code §54950 “that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”

Related Recommendations (2)

R14: the BOS be totally transparent in conducting the citizen’s business. (Findings 17, 31) COMMENTS For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)

F18: There were clear indications of dissatisfaction with the CEO by members of the BOS, as early as December 2005, as shown by testimony and public records.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: prior to hiring a new CEO there be a candid discussion between the BOS and the candidate to determine compatibility of views and a philosophical understanding. (Findings 18, 25, 27)

F19: Failure by the dissatisfied Supervisors to act prior to February 8, 2006, resulted in the automatic renewal of the CEO contract. This automatic renewal ultimately cost the citizens of the County at least $167,000 in termination penalties.

F20: Testimony given indicates that a performance review, as agendized, was not actually carried out on June 27, 2006. Testimony indicated that a motion was made 3½ minutes into the meeting to fire the CEO. Counsel advised that the action could not be taken at that time, so it was decided to give a 24 hour notice to the CEO “to resign or else”; the vote was 3/2.

Related Recommendations (2)

R6: the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21)

F21: Prior to February 8, 2006 any BOS member whether dissatisfied or not with the CEO’s performance, could have initiated any of the options available to the BOS, by having an appropriate item placed on the agenda.

Related Recommendations (2)

R6: the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21)

F22: The failure of some Supervisors to be familiar with the conditions of the CEO contract is demonstrated by the suggestion to schedule the CEO performance evaluation in mid-September 2006.

F23: The BOS did not approve the CEO’s proposed County Organizational Chart until 2½ months after submittal by the CEO on June 21, 2005.

Related Recommendations (6)

R9: the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28)

R10: the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28)

R11: the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28)

R12: the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)

R13: the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)

F24: Individual Supervisor’s directives, reflecting their personal desires, are often contradictory and are not directives of the Board.

F25: On October 18, 2005 the BOS voted unanimously to formalize the CEO appointing authority of various department heads and their duties.

Related Recommendations (7)

R2: the BOS educate themselves on the various forms of executive management. (Findings 25, 28-29)

R9: the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28)

R10: the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28)

R11: the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28)

R12: the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)

R13: the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)

F26: Pursuant to the CEO ordinance, the CEO attempted to organize the executive level of County government.

Related Recommendations (6)

R9: the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28)

R10: the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28)

R11: the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28)

R12: the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)

R13: the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)

F27: Under the terms of the CEO ordinance there was no longer a direct link between the BOS and department heads; a fact ignored by the BOS. This information was provided to the board by the CEO on January 10, 2006.

Related Recommendations (6)

R9: the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28)

R10: the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28)

R11: the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28)

R12: the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)

R13: the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)

F28: Individual Supervisors do not determine policy. This is the role of the entire Board. A review of BOS minutes shows that this is a role they have failed to fulfill.

Related Recommendations (6)

R2: the BOS educate themselves on the various forms of executive management. (Findings 25, 28-29)

R5: the BOS provide clearly defined policy direction by majority vote. (Findings 5, 24, 28- 29)

R9: the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28)

R10: the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28)

R11: the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28)

F29: A willingness on the part of some BOS members to accept the CEO form of management as defined by the ordinance passed by the BOS, was totally lacking.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: the BOS educate themselves on the various forms of executive management. (Findings 25, 28-29)

R5: the BOS provide clearly defined policy direction by majority vote. (Findings 5, 24, 28- 29)

F30: Testimony and public documents make it clear the termination of the CEO was a decision made without forethought, resulting from conflicting personalities, and originating within a period of four days.

F31: The process of terminating the CEO was carried out in a manner which failed to meet the ideals of governmental transparency, and did not address the questions and concerns of the citizens of the County.

May 24, 2007 — A Report on the Lighthouse School and the Alternative Schools Campus in Fort Bragg May 24, 2007

4 pages 22 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 22 findings

F1: The campus for the Fort Bragg alternative schools is located approximately two blocks from the Fort Bragg High School.

F2: The buildings on this campus consist of six mobile units in an area surrounded by a large field and tall trees.

F3: The alternative campus buildings include: ! the Administration Office, where the principal, office staff, equipment, and a conference area are located; ! Noyo High School, a Continuation School for students in grades 9-12. Continuation School students attend class for four hours per day, and most work in the afternoon at local businesses. ! Shelter Cove School, a Community Day School for students in the 6th-8th grades. These students have been suspended, expelled from the Fort Bragg Middle School, or are on probation with the County Juvenile Probation Department in Fort Bragg. ! Lighthouse School, is a Community Day School for students in grades 9-12. Students attending this school have been suspended or expelled from the Fort Bragg High School, or are on probation with the County Juvenile Probation Department in Fort Bragg. ! A computer lab which is available to the students of the three schools. There is a separate schedule for each school and the students are allowed in the lab only under adult supervision. Internet access is for “education and research consistent with District goals” only. ! Exercise area with workout equipment. The students from the three schools may use the equipment, under constant adult supervision. Each school has its own scheduled time. The workout equipment was purchased with a grant.

F4: The students are separated by age for all activities on this campus due to the complex issues surrounding student behavior.

F5: Testimony indicates that the maximum number of students the Lighthouse School staff can effectively work with is 15. Currently, 90% of the students in the Lighthouse School are on probation.

F6: Lighthouse School staff consists of one Certified Teacher and a Classified Teacher (aide).

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: there be more than one certified teacher or aide in each classroom on the alternative schools campus. (Finding 6)

F7: The administration staff, teachers, and aides are supportive of their campus and students.

F8: When a student is first enrolled in the Lighthouse School a “Level of Freedom” is strictly enforced. At first they are escorted everywhere by a staff member until they earn the teacher’s and aide’s trust.

F9: If a student is disruptive in class at Lighthouse School, but not threatening to others, they are given tasks to do such as pulling weeds around their campus, clean chalk boards, etc. They are required to “Give Back Time”, which is equal to the time they were disruptive; during which they are supervised by a staff member, usually after school.

F10: The students on probation in Lighthouse School, for the most part, are students with behavioral problems. They are defiant, disruptive in class, and show very little or no respect for the teachers. Intervention efforts are started in the late elementary or middle schools.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: an intervention program be planned and implemented at the earliest possible level. (Finding 10)

F11: A Regional Occupation Program (ROP) within the FBUSD, located at the Fort Bragg High School, offers many different work-training classes. Due to a high level of cultural tension, the students at Lighthouse School find it very difficult to take advantage of the ROP classes offered.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The FBUSD instituted a job training program for the students of Lighthouse School. (Findings 11-12)

R4: additional funds be sought for a Lighthouse School student work training program, including summertime, and the associated staff. (Findings 11-12)

F12: There is no vocational training available to Lighthouse School students, other than the ROP program.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The FBUSD instituted a job training program for the students of Lighthouse School. (Findings 11-12)

R4: additional funds be sought for a Lighthouse School student work training program, including summertime, and the associated staff. (Findings 11-12)

F13: The atmosphere within the classroom for Lighthouse School is tense and stressful for the teacher and aide. If a student becomes disruptive or threatening to others, both the teacher and aide have cell phones with them at all times and may call the principal, or the police, as the situation requires.

F14: There is no “Campus Safety Officer” at either the Fort Bragg High School or the alternative schools campus.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: funds be obtained to hire a “Campus Safety Officer” to be shared by the Fort Bragg High School and the alternative school campus. (Finding 14)

F15: There is no security equipment installed in the alternative schools classrooms, such as video cameras. The Fort Bragg High School recently had video cameras installed in common areas.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: video cameras or other security equipment, be placed in all classrooms on the alternative schools campus. (Finding 15)

F16: Students on probation may be searched at any time if a teacher or administrator thinks it is necessary.

F17: A dress code is strictly enforced on the alternative schools campus. No gang attire or paraphernalia is allowed. Clothing and accessories must be appropriate for the learning environment.

F18: Counselors are available within the FBUSD. Three days a week they are available for drug counseling at the alternative schools. Two days a week the counselors are located on the elementary school campus for group counseling

F19: A large proportion of students speak both Spanish and English. Some of the teachers are not bilingual.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: recruitment be made for bilingual teachers and aides. (Finding 19)

F20: There is no additional training for new teachers prior to entering the Lighthouse School classroom.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: additional training be offered to new teachers coming to the campus. (Finding 20)

F21: Retention of teachers and aides is a problem due to the classroom situation and the high cost of living in the coastal area. Salaries are insufficient to support a family in the Fort Bragg area. There is no “At Risk Pay” or stipend for these teachers.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: teachers and aides who work in the alternative schools receive a hazard stipend. (Finding 21)

F22: Truancy is a problem at the alternative schools. If there is no improvement after a hearing before the SARB the matter is referred to the County District Attorney’s (DA) office. In the past the DA has not followed through on these cases.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: the District Attorney’s Office follow up on truancy cases after the SARB hearing. (Finding 22) Comments The Grand Jury strongly urges the FBUSD to explore resources for improving security at the alternative schools. Given the many challenges at the Lighthouse School and the other schools on the campus, the Grand Jury found the administration and staff are very dedicated and supportive of their students.

May 24, 2007 — Cpr . . . a Breath of Life (Cash Problems Recovery) a Report on Mendocino Coast Health Care District

5 pages 35 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 35 findings

F1: The District opened a 54 bed MCDH in June 1971.

F2: Over time the number of beds had been reduced to 49.

F3: The previous CEO did not support reducing the number of beds necessary to obtain CAH status.

F4: CAH limits the number of beds to 25 maximum.

F5: Historically, the average MCDH bed usage was about 18.

F6: The current CEO and CFO were hired in the Fall of 2006.

F7: The MCDH received CAH status in the Fall of 2006.

F8: The MCDH staff consisted of 295 full and part-time employees at the end of February 2007.

F9: MCDH is a union facility with a generous benefit package for employees. Wages and benefits account for nearly 60% of total budget costs.

F10: The MCDH five-member BOD have varied backgrounds in business or health care.

F11: CAH Medicare reimbursement is 100% of cost plus 1% profit allowance. Non- CAH Medicare reimbursement is approximately 33% of billed charges.

F12: CAH status and its billing reimbursements has the potential to improve revenue and cash flow.

F13: Capital Reserves have been substantially depleted.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: the BOD assure that financial controls implemented by the new management team continue. Both BOD and new senior management pursue all options for increasing revenues while putting cost controls in place, to increase cash flow. Comments The financial stability of MCDH has been seriously impacted by the closures of the Georgia Pacific Mill, reduction in the fishing and logging industry on the Coast, and combined with reductions in various reimbursement rates. This, together with apparent internal management problems, had left MCDH on the door of bankruptcy. It appears the BOD relied too heavily on the opinions of the previous CEO in their policy decisions. The previous CEO had a different vision for the future of MCDH, regardless of whether holding that position might ultimately negatively affect MCDH=s bottom line. MCDH had to look at other alternatives for solving the serious financial problems after the failure of the parcel tax measure. The citizens of Fort Bragg and the north Mendocino Coast could face the loss of this vital health care delivery system if the financial situation did not materially improve. The BOD removed previous senior management and retained a new CEO and CFO. The new administration has a positive vision on how to solve the financial issues and continue operation of this important community asset. The turn around has begun as their vision and programs are put in place. MCDH is by far not out of the woods; it will take a number of years to fully realize a breakeven, if not a profitable, position. The community itself is equally an important player in maintaining the financial stability of MCDH. MCDH is highly regarded for its medical care and delivery. However, all the adverse discussions concerning its financial condition have tainted community respect and opinion. This respect must be re-earned. It is important that MCDH BOD, management, and staff operate with total transparency and include the community at every level of decision-making processes. Conversely, the community as a whole must fully and completely support MCDH by using them for their healthcare needs as opposed to going out of the area. Together, they are interdependent on one another to sustain and promote this necessary vital healthcare asset for Fort Bragg and the north Mendocino Coast.

F14: Cash flow continues to be a major issue.

Related Recommendations (1)

F15: Mishandling of billing issues by the business office greatly impacted MCDH’s overall cash flow position.

Related Recommendations (1)

F16: MCDH conversion to a new computerized accounting and billing system program is complete and operational. The system has made reports and billings more timely and accurate.

F17: Patient billings (Accounts Receivables) now take approximately 44 days to receive payment, which is within Healthcare industry standards. Prior to the recent changes in management, the length of time to receive payment took as long as 60-90 days.

F18: The hospital generally pays outstanding invoices and obligations (Accounts Payables) in approximately 90-120 days. Healthcare industry standard is 45-60 days.

F19: MCDH currently owes between $4-4.3 million. MCHD projects that it may take a number of years to bring its Accounts Payables in line with industry standards.

F20: The most recent independent audit indicates a loss of over $5 million for fiscal year 2005/2006.

F21: The audit found that many 2005/2006 interim financial reports were misrepresented to the BOD. The reason is not readily evident.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: the BOD together with the CEO continue to perform their duties in a totally transparent manner. They must take a strong positive leadership role and exercise diligent oversight for all decisions regarding the future operations of MCDH.

F22: Accounts Receivables was often overstated. When this money was not received, cash flow was greatly impacted and MCDH was unable to pay its bills on time.

Related Recommendations (1)

F23: The audit made a note about a “going concern of uncertainty”. This uncertainty indicates a red light regarding the recent considerable operating losses and a need to increase revenues, put cost controls in place, and increase cash flow through better management of revenue.

Related Recommendations (2)

F24: In addition to the annual audit, the BOD now requires a quarterly review by an independent C.P.A.

F25: There is no apparent evidence of any malfeasance on the part of any previous senior administrators.

F26: The MCDH CEO sets the tone and style of empowerment and accountability for hospital operations.

F27: The previous administration and the BOD had different visions regarding the future direction for MCDH. The CEO and CFO envisioned growing hospital services and maintaining the 49-bed license.

F28: The BOD has the authority to approve the budget, external contracts, and staff appointments with guidance and recommendations from the CEO.

F29: In the interest of providing a higher level of transparency, the BOD reorganized committee structure from >Committees of the Whole=, i.e. BOD members only, to ones with broader community members’ involvement.

F30: MCDH is currently pursuing options to increase revenues, initiate cost controls, and increase cash flow through better management of revenue cycle functions.

F31: MCDH plans to acquire the Mendocino Medical Associates Rural Health Clinic License to create a MCDH Hospital-Based Rural Health Clinic (RHC).

F32: Operation of a Hospital-Based RHC in connection with CAH status is projected to result in higher reimbursements for both patient treatment and physicians’ compensation.

F33: The Hospital-Based RHC will provide a new revenue stream, with containment and reduction of associated management costs.

F34: MCDH projects a breakeven operation within five years with the implementation of the new management, tighter financial controls, CAH status and the RHC.

F35: MCHF is embarking on a community-wide capital fund raising campaign.

May 24, 2007 — Down the Drain a Report on the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District May 24, 2007

3 pages 18 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 18 findings

F1: UVSD is organized as a Special District.

F2: The UVSD Board of Directors (BOD) are appointed annually by the presiding officers of the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and the Ukiah City Council (UCC). It consists of two members of the BOS and a UCC member who are appointed annually.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the UVSD be reorganized to include elected board members. Terms of office should be staggered. (Findings 2, 4, 6, 7)

R2: the UVSD consider hiring a general manager to represent its interests. (Findings 2, 4, 6, 7)

F3: The UVSD is represented in legal affairs by the City of Ukiah Attorney and County Counsel.

F4: Operation and management of all UVSD assets and operations are performed by the City of Ukiah, including the new Project.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: the UVSD Board adopts policies and procedures that ensure they receive information in a timely manner. (Findings 4, 6, 7)

R4: the UVSD ensure that external financial and performance audits are performed. (Findings 4, 5)

F5: There have been no UVSD external audits conducted.

F6: The UVSD has no independent staff. City employees provide all staffing functions for the UVSD.

F7: The Grand Jury heard testimony from several sources that city staff has not presented vital information in a timely manner to the UVSD.

F8: The UVSD Waste Water Treatment Plant is faced with the necessity to process 21 million gallons of wastewater in the winter months as compared to 3 million gallons in the summer.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: the County, UVSD, and the City coordinate their efforts to address rainwater runoff. (Findings 8, 13)

F10: Sewer use is measured in ESSUs. These are based on the average discharge of a single-family residence.

F11: The Upgrading Project costs are shared between the City and UVSD on the basis of the relative ESSUs. The contractor is paid on the basis of the percentage of completion of the upgrading work.

F12: The costs for the Capacity Project are shared on the basis of a 65% UVSD/35% City ratio as established in the Project Agreement. The costs are paid out on the basis of percent completion.

F13: The 2005 contract for a new Waste Water Treatment Plant was planned to increase capacity by 2400 ESSUs, and to accommodate winter rainwater flow.

F14: Funds for construction come from two sources: sewer fees and new connections.

F15: The contract provides for mutual UVSD and City financial obligation for the next 30 years.

F16: The cost of the Project is financed by the City of Ukiah, which will be repaid by the City and UVSD ratepayers, and new connections; sewer rates are planned to continue to increase.

F17: The City Public Utilities Director supervises wastewater sewer operations. The City Public Works Director supervises streets, roads and is responsible for the storm runoff system.

F18: There is a Waste Water Treatment Plant on the old Masonite property.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: all participating parties in the UVSD investigate if the Masonite wastewater treatment plant is a viable resource. (Finding 18) Comments This report can only begin to address some of the wastewater issues that face the Ukiah Valley over the next 20 years. This year’s Grand Jury elected to begin addressing questions regarding sewer treatment issues and the organizational structure of the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District. Other questions regarding infiltration of storm waters into the treatment system, exfiltration of wastewater into the soil, release of effluent (treated water), and the impact of new State requirements will need to be addressed. The matter will be recommended to the 2007/2008 Grand Jury for investigation.

May 24, 2007 — Mendocino County Jail, Courthouse Holding Cells and Sheriff’s Evidence Room May 24, 2007

3 pages 30 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 30 findings

F1: The MCJ present staff consists of 49 personnel: • one Captain; • three Sergeants; • eight Corporals; • 37 Correctional Officers; • five Sheriff Booking Technicians; • one Inmate Services Clerk who co-ordinates programs; • one Kitchen Manager and two cooks; • one Custodial Supervisor, who manages the laundry; • an Accounting Specialist for the commissary and inmate money accounts; • one Office Assistant II, who manages the jail records; • and three retired Officers who transport inmates to court, and do other duties as required. Eight of the staff are bilingual in Spanish.

F2: The capacity of the Mendocino County jail is 305 inmates. At the time of the initial Grand Jury visit the population was 210 inmates. Temporary beds are available for those occasions when the jail’s capacity is exceeded.

F3: The Probation Department administers a program which reduces jail population by having adult offenders serve their sentence while remaining in the community, under the supervision of the probation department.

F4: In 2006, one case of tuberculosis, 22 cases of sexually transmitted disease, and 46 cases of drug resistant staphylococcus were identified. There were 1,428 visits by the psychiatrist, 4,834 visits by the mental health nurse, and 262 dental visits.

F5: The jail’s menu, which rotates monthly, is prepared by a registered dietician.

F6: Housing for male inmates consists of seven “units”.

F7: Women are housed separately, in two units.

F8: Educational resources are available for inmates seeking to obtain a GED.

F9: Programs which are available, include: • Addiction recovery programs, e.g. Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous; • Life skills; • Religious counseling.

F10: A law library is available to inmates. Access requires good behavior; an appointment is necessary.

F11: Inmates can send and receive mail. Incoming mail is opened and screened in front of the inmate and delivered the same day it is received. Outgoing mail is also screened.

F12: Inappropriate mail is held and given to the inmate upon release.

F13: A contracted phone company pays the Sheriff’s Office an annual guaranteed amount of $140,000 to be the service provider for the collect calls made from the jail. The money is used to support inmate services such as teachers, counseling, and exercise equipment.

F14: Inmates who exhibit good behavior may work while in jail. Work opportunities include the kitchen, garden, laundry, and the work crew. The “work crew” provides labor anywhere in the County under supervision by Correctional Officers.

F15: Inmates may have their sentence reduced for good behavior.

F16: Doors and common areas are monitored by security cameras.

F17: Correctional Officers work 12 hour shifts. There are a minimum of eight officers per shift.

F18: Because of continuing maintenance problems, the County General Services Agency has assigned two full time personnel to the MCJ.

F19: Most inmates are either directly or indirectly incarcerated as a result of drugs and/or alcohol.

F20: Cells are either single, double, or triple occupancy, or barracks style.

F21: Inmates in lockdown are allowed out of their cells 30 minutes per day.

F22: All inmates are allowed exercise privileges. Mendocino County Courthouse Holding Cells

F23: The four Courthouse Holding Cells, which are used to hold prisoners awaiting court hearings, were observed to be clean and in good working order. Mendocino County Sheriff’s Evidence Room

F24: The Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office central evidence facility, located in Ukiah, is the depository for most evidence collected from crime scenes.

F25: Budgeted staff consists of one and one-half positions.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: additional staff be provided for Evidence Room operations. (Findings 25, 27, 29) Comments The Grand Jury commends the staff of the Mendocino County Jail, and the General Services Agency, for the tremendous work they do in maintaining a safe and functional environment for the staff and inmates. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) Mendocino County Chief Executive Officer (All Findings; All Recommendations) Mendocino County Sheriff (All Findings; All Recommendations)

F26: This facility also processes evidence such as fingerprints, shoe prints, tire treads, etc. Some evidence is sent for testing to outside facilities.

F27: Evidence Room personnel strictly control all evidence. This fulfills the need for a “Chain of Evidence” necessary for criminal prosecutions.

F28: Evidence at this facility must be maintained until, by court order, it can be disposed of; or is released by the District Attorney’s Office.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: funds be provided for the purchase of new refrigeration equipment to suit the Evidence Room requirement. (Findings 28, 30)

F29: Evidence Room operations, including purging and disposition of evidence, require greater staff time than is presently available.

F30: The Evidence Room requires refrigeration for certain evidence. At present, their refrigeration capacity is aging and insufficient.

May 24, 2007 — Share and Share Alike a Report on Asset Forfeiture

10 pages 32 findings 14 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 32 findings

F1: AF was instituted to deprive persons of profits made and tools used in illegal activities. “Law enforcement is the principal objective of forfeiture.”

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: all AF expenditures and their purposes be directly linked to “law enforcement needs”, e.g. training, equipment, and community anti-drug programs etc. (Findings 1, 9, 12, 19)

F2: When AF money is seized, it is deposited into a trust fund account and held until it is either returned to the owner or forfeited.

F3: If the seized money is claimed by the owner and the AF officer deems the money is “ill gotten”, then a civil court case will be pursued.

F4: The MCDAO AF division handles the civil portion of AF cases. Any case which may involve criminal marijuana or drug activity is referred to the criminal division of the MCDAO.

F5: Seized assets, other than cash or bank accounts, may include autos, coins, jewelry, real property, or other personal property.

F6: Assets, other than cash, are held in evidence rooms or in the MCSO compound.

F7: COMMET is a grant funded division of the MCSO. COMMET is staffed by a Sergeant and a Deputy. They are aided by unpaid volunteers.

F8: The Grand Jury heard testimony regarding the recent application for COMMET grant money. It became necessary to “beg the Board of Supervisors to take the money” to fund the program.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: the grant application for COMMET always be approved. Without this resource, the MCSO can not effectively eradicate marijuana production within the county. (Finding 8)

F9: The primary task of COMMET is the prevention and eradication of non-medical marijuana production.

F10: COMMET makes a limited number of raids in cooperation with the Federal authorities. These raids result in larger seizures than other operations.

F11: MMCTF is multi-jurisdictional, and consists of a BNE Commander, local law enforcement, and other State agencies. Their primary work involves hard drugs. The MMCTF uses their monthly meetings to discuss strategy, on-going investigations, planning drug raids, and probation sweeps.

F12: The LEAA function is to direct AF funds toward anti-drug and anti-gang education and community based programs.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: an operational MOU for the LEAA panel be written, stating its mission and intended goals consistent with H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A)(ii). (Findings 12-15, 17)

R5: the MCPD participate fully as an equal on the LEAA panel as required by H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A)(ii), and the MCAFU. (Findings 12-14, 17)

F13: The LEAA does not have an MOU.

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: an operational MOU for the LEAA panel be written, stating its mission and intended goals consistent with H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A)(ii). (Findings 12-15, 17)

R3: LEAA scheduled meetings be held, published, and open to the public. (Findings 13- 14)

R5: the MCPD participate fully as an equal on the LEAA panel as required by H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A)(ii), and the MCAFU. (Findings 12-14, 17)

F14: The LEAA has not held a meeting as a stand alone panel.

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: an operational MOU for the LEAA panel be written, stating its mission and intended goals consistent with H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A)(ii). (Findings 12-15, 17)

R3: LEAA scheduled meetings be held, published, and open to the public. (Findings 13- 14)

R5: the MCPD participate fully as an equal on the LEAA panel as required by H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A)(ii), and the MCAFU. (Findings 12-14, 17)

F15: LEAA funds are distributed annually. H&SC §11489(b) requires these funds to be distributed quarterly. (See Appendix B)

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: an operational MOU for the LEAA panel be written, stating its mission and intended goals consistent with H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A)(ii). (Findings 12-15, 17)

R4: funds dispersed to the LEAA occur quarterly as required by H&SC §11489(b). (Finding 15)

R14: MCAFU disbursements to agencies under the operational MOU, be revised to reflect H&SC §11469(b) and H&SC §11489(b)-§11489(b)(2)(A)(ii). (Findings 15, 18, 30-31) Ref: Fig. 1; Method 2 COMMENTS It became clear during the investigation, that to most people, the Asset Forfeiture program is confusing and commonly misunderstood. While the pertaining statues and codes are clear about percentages of funds to be distributed to the law enforcement agencies, they are not as clear as they could be about how funds can be used for drug education and law enforcement needs. It is also clear that there is confusion on how AF funds can be used, which may have resulted in some inadvertent violations of the pertinent codes and statues. Agencies need to implement a self-policing policy to insure the proper use of AF funds. Budgets must include all items that would “normally” be purchased through a budget. Reliance upon anticipated AF funds is supplanting, regardless of how it is done. The Grand Jury wishes to thank all the interviewees for their cooperation. They were also pleased to discover that the county’s law enforcement agencies are cooperative and are performing their duties in a most professional way.

F16: LEAA funds are held in a separate County account until disbursement.

F17: The MCPD has not been asked for input or opinion regarding the distribution or spending of LEAA funds.

F18: The MCDAO disperses AF funds, as directed by the MCAFU. H&SC §11489(b) requires these funds to be distributed quarterly. (See Appendix B)

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: all State AF funds be accumulated, transferred, and distributed quarterly to local agencies as required by H&SC §11489(b). (Finding 18)

F19: The sharing and spending of forfeited assets are different under Federal and State guidelines.

F20: Federal AF funds are kept separate from State AF funds to prevent commingling.

F21: H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A), with the exception of subparagraphs i & ii, is mute concerning AF expenditure guidelines. (See Appendix B)

F22: Up to 80% of the net seizure proceeds in Federal cases may be returned to the finder agency. An agency makes a claim, based on their contribution, on a “DAG 71” form.

F23: The Grand Jury heard testimony that AF monies could be spent on law enforcement equipment, supplies, salaries for new positions for a limited time, overtime pay, and anti-drug/anti-gang programs.

Related Recommendations (2)

R7: MCAFU revise their operational MOU to reflect the strictest possible definition of expenditures to avoid the appearance of supplanting. The MCEO and the MCACO should be consulted for budget and audit purposes. (Findings 23, 28, 31)

R12: all County AF expenditures of $5,000 or more require BOS approval. (Findings 23, 28-29, 31) Ref: Fig. 1;Method 2

F24: The MCACO has not conducted AF audits on a regular basis of agencies within their jurisdiction. There is no record of external audits.

Related Recommendations (2)

R8: audits of AF funds and their use be conducted annually as required by H&SC §11469(h). (Finding 24)

R9: details of all AF expenditures with their reimbursement requests be forwarded to the MCACO in a timely manner. (Findings 24-25)

F25: The accounting records for the MCDAO are detailed. These details are not forwarded to the MCACO when reimbursements for AF funds are requested.

Related Recommendations (2)

R9: details of all AF expenditures with their reimbursement requests be forwarded to the MCACO in a timely manner. (Findings 24-25)

R10: AF reimbursement requests be matched to records or invoices. (Findings 25-27)

F26: The MCACO has not matched requests for AF reimbursements with related records or invoices.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: AF reimbursement requests be matched to records or invoices. (Findings 25-27)

F27: The AF accounting records for the MCSO and COMMET are detailed and can be readily matched with the records of the MCACO.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: AF reimbursement requests be matched to records or invoices. (Findings 25-27)

F28: AF purchases totaling $10,000 or more, require BOS approval.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: all County AF expenditures of $5,000 or more require BOS approval. (Findings 23, 28-29, 31) Ref: Fig. 1;Method 2

F29: The MCSO used AF money for law enforcement equipment, supplies, and donations.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: all County AF expenditures of $5,000 or more require BOS approval. (Findings 23, 28-29, 31) Ref: Fig. 1;Method 2

F30: As shown by Figure 1, the disbursement formulas contained in the MCAFU MOU and H&SC §11489(b), result in different disbursements.

Related Recommendations (2)

R13: AF disbursements made to the MCDAO fall within the spirit of H&SC §11469(b) and H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A). (Finding 30) Ref: Fig. 1;Method 2

F31: Use of AF funds to supplant budgets is forbidden.

Related Recommendations (1)

F32: Testimony revealed that morale among most of the agencies is high and they work well together.

May 24, 2007 — Down the Drain a Report on the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District May 24, 2007

7 pages 15 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 15 findings

F2: The UVSD Board of Directors (BOD) is appointed annually by the presiding officers of the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and the Ukiah City Council (UCC). It consists of two members of the BOS and a UCC member who are appointed annually. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District agrees with this Finding.

F3: The UVSD is represented in legal affairs by the City of Ukiah Attorney and County Counsel. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District disagrees with this Finding. The County Counsel represents the UVSD in legal affairs.

F4: Operation and management of all UVSD assets and operations are performed by the City of Ukiah, including the new Project. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District agrees with this Finding.

F5: There have been no UVSD external audits conducted. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District agrees with this Finding. It is true that external audits have not been routinely conducted on an annual basis. The last complete financial audit of the UVSD was done for the year fiscal years 1997 and 1998. The UVSD is presently in the process of a finance audit for the five-year period ending June 30, 2005. Said audit report was completion on August 15, 2007, and presented to the UVSD Board of Directors on August 23, 2007.

F6: The UVSD has no independent staff. City employees provide all staffing functions for the UVSD. DOWN THE DRAIN A Report on the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District May 24, 2007 Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District disagrees with this Finding. The Clerk of the Board has traditionally provided agenda, minute and records management services to the UVSD. As stated under Finding No. 3, the County Counsel provides representation in legal affairs. Since September 2006, a Deputy County Executive Officer has been assigned to serve in the role as an interim Executive Officer to the UVSD. In addition, a staff service agreement has been developed and approved for the reimbursement of County departments providing staff services to the UVSD.

F7: The Grand Jury heard testimony from several sources that city staff has not presented vital information in a timely manner to the UVSD. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the District has no direct knowledge of the testimony. Regardless, the Board shares a concern with the Grand Jury regarding timeliness of information presentation by the City of Ukiah. The UVSD Waste Water Treatment Plant is faced with the necessity to process 21 million gallons of wastewater in the winter months as compared to 3 million gallons in the summer. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District agrees with this Finding.

F9: The 2005 Project includes $33 million for the upgrade (Upgrade Project), $24 million for new construction (Capacity Project), and $12 million for financing costs for a projected total cost of $69 million. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District agrees with this Finding.

F10: Sewer use is measured in ESSUs. These are based on the average discharge of a single-family residence. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District agrees with this Finding.

F11: The Upgrading Project costs are shared between the City and UVSD on the basis of the relative ESSUs. The contractor is paid on the basis of the percentage of completion of the upgrading work. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District agrees with this Finding. DOWN THE DRAIN A Report on the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District May 24, 2007 12. The costs for the Capacity Project are shared on the basis of a 65% UVSD/35% City ratio as established in the Project Agreement. The costs are paid out on the basis of percent completion. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District agrees with this Finding.

F13: The 2005 contract for a new Waste Water Treatment Plant was planned to increase capacity by 2400 ESSUs, and to accommodate winter rainwater flow. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District agrees with this Finding.

F14: Funds for construction come from two sources: sewer fees and new connections. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District agrees with this Finding.

F15: The contract provides for mutual UVSD and City financial obligation for the next 30 years. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District agrees with this Finding.

F16: The cost of the Project is financed by the City of Ukiah, which will be repaid by the City and UVSD ratepayers, and new connections; sewer rates are planned to continue to increase. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District agrees with this Finding.

F17: The City Public Utilities Director supervises wastewater sewer operations. The City Public Works Director supervises streets, roads and is responsible for the storm runoff system. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District agrees with this Finding.

F18: There is a Waste Water Treatment Plant on the old Masonite property. Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District agrees with this Finding. DOWN THE DRAIN A Report on the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District May 24, 2007 Recommendations The Grand Jury recommends that: 1. the UVSD be reorganized to include elected board members. Terms of office should be staggered. (Findings 2, 4, 6, 7) Response (Ukiah Valley Sanitation District): The Recommendation requires further analysis. The District agrees that there should be a formal governance discussion by the UVSD by January 1, 2008.

May 03, 2007 — Mendocino County Juvenile Hall May 3, 2007

2 pages 23 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 23 findings

F1: The staff consists of: one Superintendent, four Supervising Correctional Officers, 22 Correctional Officers, one Licensed Vocational Nurse, one Mental Health Clinician, and five staff who are employed in the kitchen.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: budgeted staff not be reduced. (Finding 1-2)

F2: There are six unfilled Correctional Officer positions.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: a study be made to determine suitable wages. (Findings 2-3)

R2: the six vacant staff positions be filled. (Finding 2-3)

R3: budgeted staff not be reduced. (Finding 1-2)

F3: It is difficult filling these positions due to low pay and a lack of qualified applicants. Most failing applicants are unable to pass the background investigation.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: a study be made to determine suitable wages. (Findings 2-3)

R2: the six vacant staff positions be filled. (Finding 2-3)

F4: The maximum capacity for the facility is 43 youths, on average there are 27 to 35.

F5: All youths fill out a health questionnaire and receive a physical, which includes a TB test.

F6: Older or violent youths are separated from the younger ones.

F7: Males and females are housed separately; however, they attend school and outdoor recreation activities together.

F8: Individual gangs are not segregated. The facility has zero tolerance for any gang activity, including graffiti.

F9: All youths are given an orientation on acceptable behavior each time they are incarcerated. There is a “step program”, whereby all youths can advance from an entrance step level of zero, and earn additional privileges by achieving steps one and two.

F10: Good behavior is rewarded with activities that include “in-house field trips”, gardening and yard work. Magazines, posters, CD’s, books, TV, and telephone privileges are also provided.

F11: Eighty percent (80%) of the youths are repeat offenders and of these 75% exhibit unacceptable behavior.

F12: Youths with mental health and/or behavioral issues require approximately 85% of the Correctional Officers’ time.

F13: Seventy five percent (75%) of the youths have substance abuse problems.

F14: Special diets are available for any youth who requires it; diabetic and low fat diets are two examples. The menu is varied throughout a six-week cycle.

F15: The contracting phone company transfers some of the money they receive from collect call charges to the MCJH. This money is used for recreational and entertainment purposes for the youths.

F16: MCJH provides rehabilitation of youths through counseling, life skills and parenting classes, and Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous programs. Religious services are available for those who wish to attend.

F17: Year-around school is mandatory.

F18: Video observation and security are maintained for doors and common areas throughout the facility at all times.

F19: At night, individual cells are visually checked every fifteen minutes.

F20: Maintenance is provided by the General Services Agency on a priority basis.

F21: The maximum sentence at Juvenile Hall is one year.

F22: MCJH had a County funded juvenile work program which was discontinued in 2003.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: the juvenile work program be reinstated. (Finding 22)

R5: asset forfeiture monies be utilized to fund the first year of a juvenile work program. (Findings 22-23) Response Required Mendocino County Juvenile Hall (Findings 1-22; Recommendations 1-5) Board of Supervisors (Finding 22-23; Recommendations 1, 3-5) Mendocino County Juvenile Probation (Finding 21; Recommendation 4-5)

F23: Asset Forfeiture funds can be used to fund the juvenile work program for one year.

Related Recommendations (1)

May 03, 2007 — Waste Not . . . Want Not a Report on the Gualala Community Services District May 3, 2007

3 pages 16 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 16 findings

F1: GCSD was established in 1987 to provide wastewater and sewer treatment service.

F2: Each parcel has its own interceptor tank. Wastewater effluent is then processed at the treatment facility.

F3: GCSD consists of a total of four Zones. Currently, only Zones 1 and 2 are being serviced for a total of 353 parcels along the Highway 1 corridor.

F4: Testimony indicates there are no immediate plans by GCSD for expansion of service to Zones 3 and 4.

F5: All new development within the Zones 1 and 2 must connect to the wastewater treatment system.

F6: GCSD treatment facility is located south of the Gualala River in Sonoma County.

F7: Treated wastewater from the Sea Ranch north treatment facility is processed at the GCSD facility to tertiary standards for irrigation use on the Sea Ranch Golf Course.

F8: GCSD is currently in dispute with the Sea Ranch Golf Course for non- payment for tertiary treated water provided by GCSD to the golf course.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: the GCSD take all steps necessary to resolve the dispute with the Sea Ranch Golf Course regarding payment for treated irrigation water.

F9: GCSD has placed liens against the Sea Ranch Golf Course in the amounts of those non-payments.

F10: An employee of Sea Ranch Golf Course serves as an elected member of the GCSD BOD, but does not vote on Golf Course issues before the Board.

F11: All BOD members have access to GCSD data, records and information.

F12: GCSD has experienced a lack of interested community members to serve on its board.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: the GMAC and the GCSD make every effort to work together on common issues facing each other individually for the ultimate overall benefit of the citizens of the Gualala community. Comments Over the years, GCSD has experienced difficulty in finding interested persons to serve on the board. As a result a small dedicated group has attempted to provide guidance and leadership to the District, not always doing things totally in conformance with normal procedures and governing laws. The BOD is aware of past procedural problems and is taking steps necessary to operate within all laws governing Special Districts. The GCSD is required to provide treated effluent to the Sea Ranch Golf Course as a contract condition in the initial establishment of the District. The Golf Course has stopped paying the District for the treated effluent, requiring the District to lien the Golf Course for the amounts due. GSCD must take all efforts and positive steps to resolve this dispute and remedy the related impact on cash flow caused by these non-payments. GCSD currently has no plan for expansion of the District into Zones 3 and 4. This decision appears to be in conflict with the GMAC position and intent.

F13: The BOD of GCSD is aware of past procedural rules of order discrepancies, i.e. required public notice of meetings, ADA compliance, and public relations. It is taking steps necessary to correct them and operate within and in accordance with current law.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: the BOD conduct all activities of GCSD in a totally transparent manner in accordance with all applicable laws governing a special district.

F14: The BOD has participated in the mandated Ethics Training.

F15: Discrepancies of staff management techniques, processes, and procedures have been noted by the Board. Steps have been initiated to correct these issues.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: the BOD conduct all activities of GCSD in a totally transparent manner in accordance with all applicable laws governing a special district.

F16: Required annual audits have not been performed in a number of years. A new CPA has been retained and up to date audits are anticipated.

April 05, 2007 — Are We Ready for the Big One?

5 pages 24 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 24 findings

F1: MESA, a Joint Powers Agency between the County of Mendocino and the incorporated cities, was established in 1996.

F2: MESA was operationally shut down part way through 2005.

F3: On February 13, 2006, the MESA organization was dissolved. The responsibilities reverted to the County of Mendocino on July 1, 2006.

F4: Expert testimony emphasizes that extensive planning and training reduces errors and chaos during disasters.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

R4: time and money be allocated to insure that all staff mentioned in the EOP are aware of their role and trained to function effectively. (Findings 4-6, 8, 11, 13- 15, 18, 24)

F5: Title 7 includes but is not limited to the following: • establishes SEMS, NIMS, and ICS as the means of effectively preparing for, responding to, and recovering from emergencies in Mendocino County. • specifies the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) as Director of Emergency Services, and the Mendocino County Sheriff as Assistant Director of Emergency Services. • creates the position of Emergency Services Coordinator for the County of Mendocino and the Mendocino County Operational Area. • defines the Mendocino County Operational Area as consisting of the County and all political subdivisions within the County area, including cities, special districts, and school districts.

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

R4: time and money be allocated to insure that all staff mentioned in the EOP are aware of their role and trained to function effectively. (Findings 4-6, 8, 11, 13- 15, 18, 24)

R7: funds be located to continue the MCOE Emergency Coordinator position. (Finding 22, 23) Comments The EOP, a generic plan, needs modification to meet the particular needs of this County. To maintain the plan’s relevance the EOP must be periodically reviewed. Records of staff training are currently maintained in each County department. Without a central database it’s not possible to insure that all necessary participants are trained to the appropriate level and will be able to function in a cooperative manner. The very nature, geography, and remoteness of communities in this county makes it challenging to prepare for and deal with hazardous situations. The extensive training needed for emergencies, unless funded by Federal grants, is rarely considered a priority. Training in general is the most often cut budget item when county government is seeking funding for politically valuable programs. County government’s major responsibility is the safety and protection of its population. This County needs to make emergency and disaster preparedness a priority. Response Required Emergency Services Coordinator (Findings 5-14, 18-20, 24; Recommendations 1-6) Chief Executive Office (Findings 5, 8-10, 13-14, 18; Recommendations 1-6) Board of Supervisors (Findings 7-9, 15, 19-20, 24; Recommendations 1, 3, 4, 6) Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office (Findings 4-5, 14, 16, 19-21, 24; Recommendations 1, 2, 4) County Counsel (Findings 5, 6, 15) Fire Chief’s Association (Recommendation 5) Mendocino County Office of Education (Findings 22-23; Recommendation 7) Response Requested Health & Human Services Agency (Findings 13, 17-18; Recommendations 2, 4)

F6: The Emergency Services Coordinator’s many duties include coordinating or providing required training in SEMS, NIMS, and ICS. Some other responsibilities are researching, applying for, and administering emergency services and homeland security grants.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

R4: time and money be allocated to insure that all staff mentioned in the EOP are aware of their role and trained to function effectively. (Findings 4-6, 8, 11, 13- 15, 18, 24)

F7: A requirement for maximum Federal and/or State reimbursement for disaster- related damages is documented training in and compliance with, SEMS, NIMS, and ICS.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

R3: the County Emergency Coordinator be given resources to develop a comprehensive and detailed database of key staff training to demonstrate compliance with SEMS, NIMS, and ICS. (Findings 7, 8, 15)

F8: The Emergency Services Coordinator has no budgeted staff.

F9: A previous Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) was approved in 1973. A plan was proposed in 1996, but not approved. The Board of Supervisors approved the current EOP in October of 2006. The plan is consistent with SEMS, NIMS, and ICS.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: the EOP be reviewed and discussed by all departments, and amended to include specific plans for the most likely emergencies. (Findings 9-11)

F10: The current EOP was developed by a private consultant to meet State requirements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: the EOP be reviewed and discussed by all departments, and amended to include specific plans for the most likely emergencies. (Findings 9-11)

F11: In response to a Grand Jury questionnaire, several county department managers replied they were not consulted during the plan’s development; several did not know that a plan had been approved.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: the EOP be reviewed and discussed by all departments, and amended to include specific plans for the most likely emergencies. (Findings 9-11)

F12: There is presently no centralized tracking system to record the training of Mendocino County employees and elected officials in SEMS or NIMS.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

F13: Each county department is required to develop an Emergency Action Plan, which determines how a department will respond to a local emergency. The departments are also required to train their staff in the Emergency Action Plan, as well as SEMS and NIMS, and maintain the associated compliance records.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

R4: time and money be allocated to insure that all staff mentioned in the EOP are aware of their role and trained to function effectively. (Findings 4-6, 8, 11, 13- 15, 18, 24)

F14: Some county departments have not met the required levels of preparedness training.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

R4: time and money be allocated to insure that all staff mentioned in the EOP are aware of their role and trained to function effectively. (Findings 4-6, 8, 11, 13- 15, 18, 24)

F15: Under California State Government Code §3100, county employees are required to respond to local disasters.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

R4: time and money be allocated to insure that all staff mentioned in the EOP are aware of their role and trained to function effectively. (Findings 4-6, 8, 11, 13- 15, 18, 24)

F16: First response authorities (e.g. fire and law enforcement) have specific training for dealing with various levels of emergency situations in accordance with their department’s equipment and protocols.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

F17: The Mendocino County Public Health Department conducted training for health related emergencies and situational drills funded under Federal grants.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

F18: Funds are not available to provide disaster training involving multiple departments unless specific grants are received,

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

F19: Some volunteer groups have organized as Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), a community-based preparedness and response system. The State of California provides training for these teams. A related program is the Student Emergency Response Team, which has only recently begun training.

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

R5: the Fire Chief’s Association develop a program to monitor and support the CERT and grassroots response groups. (Findings 19, 20)

R6: the County locate and secure funding to support training of CERT groups. (Finding 19)

F20: In addition to CERT, several grassroots groups have organized and trained throughout the county, to assist themselves in the event of a local disaster.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

F21: Mendocino County department heads and the BOS received Emergency Operations Center (EOC) training in November 2006, organized by the Emergency Services Coordinator.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

F22: In November, 2006, Mendocino County Office of Education (MCOE) designated an Emergency Coordinator. Under a program offered by the MCOE Emergency Coordinator, 22 school employees received emergency training.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: a schedule of exercises for key emergency response staff be developed to identify and validate necessary systems and equipment in the event of a large scale emergency. (Findings 4-7, 12-22)

F23: The Grant paying for the current MCOE Emergency Coordinator expires in June 2007.

F24: In the event of a major disaster, populations from other areas may be relocated to Mendocino County stressing already scarce resources. Everyday emergencies in other counties often involve Mendocino County resources.

April 05, 2007 — Can You Hear Me Now?

4 pages 22 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 22 findings

F1: The emergency communications system in the County consists of multiple layers. a. Mobile radios (both handheld and in-vehicle) are used for local communications and access to the repeater system. b. Repeaters relay radio communications past geographic barriers, such as ridgelines. c. Microwave system is a high frequency communications system that relays communications between the various repeaters, and provides control of individual repeaters.

Related Recommendations (1)