Mendocino County Grand Jury

2019-2020

5 reports

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: Inmates can find a sense of pride and accomplishment carrying out basic camp functions whether it be involvement in the design, construction, and finishing of redwood cabinets, doors, tables, and signage for the State of California and the State Parks system, or performing maintenance on buildings and grounds for contracting agencies.
F2: The camp is jointly managed by CDCR and CAL FIRE, and efficiently provides valuable services to Cities, Special Districts, nonprofits, and County Departments within Mendocino County, at a cost savings. These services may not otherwise be available to districts and agencies in Mendocino County.
F3: The inmates’ community service experience, along with the educational opportunities offered through Lassen college and the Mendocino County bookmobile, help to reduce recidivism in the CDCR. Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 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 Grand Jury. REQUESTED RESPONSES CDCR Commander, Parlin Fork Conservation Camp (All Findings) CAL FIRE Division Chief, Parlin Fork Conservation Camp (All Findings) 3
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: SDs are part of the County’s method of providing necessary services to the residents
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: the County provide management/oversight of the TP account, (F1-F7)
R2: the BOS terminate from the TP, SDs which no longer contribute their full amount in taxes to the County, (CRTC §4702.7) (F1-F7)
R3: the BOS considers discontinuing the TP for Mendocino County. Discontinuation requires only a BOS Resolution; CRTC allows the BOS by resolution to opt out of the TP in any fiscal year. (F1-F7)
F2: Over the past few years, TP difference between projected revenue and actual revenue collected has been increasing.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: the County provide management/oversight of the TP account, (F1-F7)
R2: the BOS terminate from the TP, SDs which no longer contribute their full amount in taxes to the County, (CRTC §4702.7) (F1-F7)
R3: the BOS considers discontinuing the TP for Mendocino County. Discontinuation requires only a BOS Resolution; CRTC allows the BOS by resolution to opt out of the TP in any fiscal year. (F1-F7)
F3: The County is responsible for 100% payment to SDs of the projected revenue despite collected taxes. 4
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: the County provide management/oversight of the TP account, (F1-F7)
R2: the BOS terminate from the TP, SDs which no longer contribute their full amount in taxes to the County, (CRTC §4702.7) (F1-F7)
R3: the BOS considers discontinuing the TP for Mendocino County. Discontinuation requires only a BOS Resolution; CRTC allows the BOS by resolution to opt out of the TP in any fiscal year. (F1-F7)
F4: The County’s fiscal responsibility for the TP account could impact law enforcement, labor and County services.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: the County provide management/oversight of the TP account, (F1-F7)
R2: the BOS terminate from the TP, SDs which no longer contribute their full amount in taxes to the County, (CRTC §4702.7) (F1-F7)
R3: the BOS considers discontinuing the TP for Mendocino County. Discontinuation requires only a BOS Resolution; CRTC allows the BOS by resolution to opt out of the TP in any fiscal year. (F1-F7)
F5: An Investment Review Committee (aka Debt Committee) was established to provide direction on the impact of the TP on the County budget. TP performance was found to be normal and required no specific oversight at this time.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: the County provide management/oversight of the TP account, (F1-F7)
R2: the BOS terminate from the TP, SDs which no longer contribute their full amount in taxes to the County, (CRTC §4702.7) (F1-F7)
R3: the BOS considers discontinuing the TP for Mendocino County. Discontinuation requires only a BOS Resolution; CRTC allows the BOS by resolution to opt out of the TP in any fiscal year. (F1-F7)
F6: The GJ found no current strategic plan to protect County residential services, such as public works, health and human services, law enforcement, should a recession occur.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: the County provide management/oversight of the TP account, (F1-F7)
R2: the BOS terminate from the TP, SDs which no longer contribute their full amount in taxes to the County, (CRTC §4702.7) (F1-F7)
R3: the BOS considers discontinuing the TP for Mendocino County. Discontinuation requires only a BOS Resolution; CRTC allows the BOS by resolution to opt out of the TP in any fiscal year. (F1-F7)
F7: In the event of a decrease in income from property assessed taxes, the SD obligation of 100% could create a deficit in the County budget.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: the County provide management/oversight of the TP account, (F1-F7)
R2: the BOS terminate from the TP, SDs which no longer contribute their full amount in taxes to the County, (CRTC §4702.7) (F1-F7)
R3: the BOS considers discontinuing the TP for Mendocino County. Discontinuation requires only a BOS Resolution; CRTC allows the BOS by resolution to opt out of the TP in any fiscal year. (F1-F7)
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: School safety is a high priority for MCOE and the school districts.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: the BOS work with the County Sheriff’s Department to develop a plan inclusive of law enforcement agencies (city, county, state) to place an officer in a locale where the average campus incident response time should be no greater than five minutes, (F1 – F2, F4 – F5)
R2: the MCOE work with the BOS to develop a strategic plan for the most expeditious response time to any school site incident, (F1– F5)
R5: school districts be encouraged to provide staff and IT to monitor student and staffs’ online communications, (F1, F6)
F2: Standard operating procedures for emergency services personnel is an “All Hands-on Deck” response.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: the BOS work with the County Sheriff’s Department to develop a plan inclusive of law enforcement agencies (city, county, state) to place an officer in a locale where the average campus incident response time should be no greater than five minutes, (F1 – F2, F4 – F5)
R2: the MCOE work with the BOS to develop a strategic plan for the most expeditious response time to any school site incident, (F1– F5)
R3: ongoing lines of communication among MCOE, school districts and first responders be maintained, (F2 – F4)
F3: Links of communication and resources are shared between MCOE and the districts.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: the MCOE work with the BOS to develop a strategic plan for the most expeditious response time to any school site incident, (F1– F5)
R3: ongoing lines of communication among MCOE, school districts and first responders be maintained, (F2 – F4)
F4: Due to the County’s geographic challenges, including cities and remote rural areas, there is no optimum incident response time by emergency services personnel. According to a 2013 FBI study, almost 70% of gun related active assailant events, last just five minutes. A third of those last fewer than two minutes.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: the BOS work with the County Sheriff’s Department to develop a plan inclusive of law enforcement agencies (city, county, state) to place an officer in a locale where the average campus incident response time should be no greater than five minutes, (F1 – F2, F4 – F5)
R2: the MCOE work with the BOS to develop a strategic plan for the most expeditious response time to any school site incident, (F1– F5)
R3: ongoing lines of communication among MCOE, school districts and first responders be maintained, (F2 – F4)
F5: Response time to an incident of five minutes or more is not acceptable. According to a 2013 FBI study, almost 70% of gun related active assailant events, last just five minutes. A third of those last fewer than two minutes. 4
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: the BOS work with the County Sheriff’s Department to develop a plan inclusive of law enforcement agencies (city, county, state) to place an officer in a locale where the average campus incident response time should be no greater than five minutes, (F1 – F2, F4 – F5)
R2: the MCOE work with the BOS to develop a strategic plan for the most expeditious response time to any school site incident, (F1– F5)
F6: According to superintendents interviewed, the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) has been and is negatively impacted by mental health pressures on students.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: the MCOE consider providing support for enhanced crisis intervention for mental health counselors to be available to school districts at a reasonable ratio of one counselor per 500 students. This action would address the need for post incident counseling and pro-active intervention with student issues, (F6)
R5: school districts be encouraged to provide staff and IT to monitor student and staffs’ online communications, (F1, F6)
F7: The MCOE does not track the County school districts’ compliance with the Education Code directive.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: the MCOE annually maintain a master copy and track the submittal of school safety plans to ensure compliance with the California Education Code. (F7)
Findings & Recommendations 10 findings
F1: County leadership has not published a strategic plan for the maintenance, upgrade, and replacement of the system. This has allowed the ECS microwave equipment to continue at end of life with an increasing number of outages,
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: the BOS commit funding for Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the Public Safety Microwave Replacement Project and replacement of the sheriff’s dispatch console. (F1, F5, F10)
R3: “the BOS direct staff to develop a long range plan for board review and adoption to ensure maximum emergency communication coverage by public and private entities with the goal of offsetting costs of ongoing maintenance and upgrades”. The 2019-2020 GJ found no long-range plan was developed and no cost sharing plan through co- location chargebacks was pursued. Reference GJ reports: Can You Hear Me Now? 2007 and Out With the Old and In With the New 2009.
F2: With an increasing ECS failure rate, as shown in the graph on , every emergency the County faces puts first responders at even greater risk.
F3: There is substantial building degradation at the remote sites (vaults), and deferring the needed site upgrades puts any new ECS equipment in jeopardy.
F4: The lives of Mendocino County residents depend on the integrity of the remote microwave-radio buildings. By de-prioritizing these buildings, the County is not well positioned to protect the Life, Health, Safety, and Welfare of its residents through the ECS.
F5: The current BOS faces a planning scenario similar to the 2007 and 2009 BOS, including impending risks to funding due to the current economic situation. Tabling funding for the new microwave system and infrastructure upgrades a second time will impact Mendocino County residents’ safety.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: the BOS commit funding for Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the Public Safety Microwave Replacement Project and replacement of the sheriff’s dispatch console. (F1, F5, F10)
F6: By not actively pursuing chargebacks for co-location from participating entities at remote microwave sites, the County is losing a potential revenue stream to augment funding for the new system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: the County pursue co-location chargebacks for revenue as recommended in the 2009 Grand Jury report ‘Out With The Old And In With The New’. (F6) 7
F7: By not using the work order system consistently to track maintenance and repairs, there is no supporting documentation for accurate forecasting and budgeting. 6
F8: The separate tracking and reporting systems used by Facilities and IS do not interface. This inhibits communication between the two departments and severely limits a coordinated effort to maintain remote sites and associated ECS microwave equipment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: as part of Phase 2 of the ECS replacement, the Wiki and work order systems be replaced with a single, index-based system used by both departments which would create efficiency in tracking projects and work orders. (F8)
F9: The lack of cross training within IS and little formal documentation of maintenance procedures put the ECS at risk by leaving the department without a sufficient number of qualified technicians to manage the County’s investment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: IS develop maintenance procedures for the ECS equipment and documented maintenance schedules. This would support efficiencies in equipment repair and maintenance and facilitate training of new technicians. (F9)
F10: While the GJ found budgeted line items for Phase 2, Phase 3, and the sheriff’s console relocation and replacement, in the IT Master Plan it found no evidence of committed funding by the BOS. This leaves all residents and first responders vulnerable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: the BOS commit funding for Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the Public Safety Microwave Replacement Project and replacement of the sheriff’s dispatch console. (F1, F5, F10)
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: “the BOS appoint an individual or committee to establish procedures to receive suggestions regarding upgrades to the system, to evaluate any new or expanded uses and to initiate planning and budgeting for such improvement that are found to have merit”. The 2019-2020 GJ found no official record of meetings of any such committee in the past eight years.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: The 2018-2019 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury issued 24 recommendations requiring responses from 4 different County agencies or governing boards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Future Mendocino County Civil Grand Juries continue to issue annual continuity reports. RESPONSES No responses are required or requested. This is a public report on the procedures of the GJ in the interest of transparency. The GJ procedures manual is being reviewed and revised. This will enable subsequent grand juries to hold responding parties accountable for the minimum legal requirements of California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Pg. 9 -2020
F2: Mendocino County Civil Grand Juries have not issued continuity reports in the past 10 years.
F3: Accountability for respondents to meet the requirements of California Penal Code §933 and §933.05 has not been tracked by the Mendocino County Civil Grand Juries.