Mendocino County Grand Jury
2015-2016
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Policy 22 is obsolete and requires updating and formal adoption by the BOS.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
Policy 22 be updated by the IT department in cooperation with County Administration and adopted by the BOS as soon as possible. This policy update should define the circumstances by which email access is requested and granted, and must require maintenance of a log of all such transactions. (F1 –
R2:
The County acquire email software that adequately allows for super-user segregation of certain sensitive email accounts and provides management access to employee email only under circumstances as defined by County policy. (F1- F3).
R3:
The County adopt in its revised Policy 22, a best business practice to restrict the Mail Auditor function to one vetted employee. (F1-F3).
F2:
The current Unlimited Mailbox software does not adequately allow for super-user segregation of certain sensitive email accounts, e.g. Sheriff, DA, County Counsel, Board of Supervisors, Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The County acquire email software that adequately allows for super-user segregation of certain sensitive email accounts and provides management access to employee email only under circumstances as defined by County policy. (F1- F3).
R3:
The County adopt in its revised Policy 22, a best business practice to restrict the Mail Auditor function to one vetted employee. (F1-F3).
F3:
The limitations of the County email software that allows unrestricted super-user access to employee email by County management puts the County at risk for violating the protected nature of some communications, lends itself to abuse by County management, and exposes the County to unnecessary liability.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The County acquire email software that adequately allows for super-user segregation of certain sensitive email accounts and provides management access to employee email only under circumstances as defined by County policy. (F1- F3).
R3:
The County adopt in its revised Policy 22, a best business practice to restrict the Mail Auditor function to one vetted employee. (F1-F3).
F4:
The current bargaining ground rule that allows employee access to the County’s email system for the purposes of bargaining is in direct conflict with provisions of Policy 22, which does not permit email use for non-county business.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The County’s bargaining agent and the union consider modifying the mutually agreed-upon ground rules to prevent unlimited employee use of the County’s email system for the purpose of bargaining, at the earliest opportunity. (F4). Required responses: Pursuant to Penal Codes §933 and §933.05, responses are required from the following: Board of Supervisors – (All Findings and Recommendations) Chief Executive Officer – (All Findings and Recommendations) Requested responses: Pursuant to Penal Codes §933 and §933.05, responses are requested from the following: County Counsel – (All Findings and Recommendations) IT Manager –Findings (1-3) and Recommendations (1-3) Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code §929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The marijuana restitution program has proven effective in meeting its intended goals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The DA continue the marijuana restitution program as long as it is pertinent to State statute and County ordinance. (F1, F3)
F2:
Because the DA did not provide evidence to the Grand Jury of the existence of a program to assist indigent offenders, the Grand Jury was unable to reach a finding regarding such a program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The DA institute and demonstrate a publicly visible program to assist those who truly cannot afford to pay restitution. (F2) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933.05, responses are required from the following individuals: • The District Attorney (All Findings and Recommendations) • The Sheriff (F3) • The Chief Executive Officer (F3) Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code §929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. It may be noted that the District Attorney’s report of August 22, 2011, entitled Marijuana/Cannabis & H&S 11470.2 Dispositions, may be found as a link on the Grand Jury’s 2015-16 Report Webpage.
F3:
The program does not provide additional funds for law enforcement but instead reimburses law enforcement for costs associated with apprehension of offenders or abatement of illegal grows. However, County government as a whole benefits from an additional source of revenue.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The DA continue the marijuana restitution program as long as it is pertinent to State statute and County ordinance. (F1, F3)
R2:
The DA institute and demonstrate a publicly visible program to assist those who truly cannot afford to pay restitution. (F2) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code §933.05, responses are required from the following individuals: • The District Attorney (All Findings and Recommendations) • The Sheriff (F3) • The Chief Executive Officer (F3) Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code §929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. It may be noted that the District Attorney’s report of August 22, 2011, entitled Marijuana/Cannabis & H&S 11470.2 Dispositions, may be found as a link on the Grand Jury’s 2015-16 Report Webpage.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.