Mendocino County Grand Jury
2020-2021
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (5)
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The CEO and BOS have not clearly defined the scope, authority or recruitment strategy for the proposed CIO position.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
the BOS and CEO define the scope, authority, fiscal responsibility, recruitment strategy for and establish the position of Chief Information Officer/Director of Technology by August 1, 2021. Possibilities for filling this position include: outsourcing, consulting service or direct hiring of an at-will director with the charge to complete the ITMP by July 1, 2026. (F1, F2)
R2:
the CIO position focus on improving the IT infrastructure in a steady, timely manner with quarterly public status reporting of active and planned Initiatives to the CEO and BOS including planned start and completion dates, progress status, budgeted cost and spending to date. (F1, F2, F7-F9)
F2:
The completion of the 99 Initiatives of the IT Master Plan has been delayed by 21 months due to factors such as a low priority for improving IT, uncoordinated project management, budgetary commitments and demonstrated deficient leadership.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
the BOS and CEO define the scope, authority, fiscal responsibility, recruitment strategy for and establish the position of Chief Information Officer/Director of Technology by August 1, 2021. Possibilities for filling this position include: outsourcing, consulting service or direct hiring of an at-will director with the charge to complete the ITMP by July 1, 2026. (F1, F2)
R2:
the CIO position focus on improving the IT infrastructure in a steady, timely manner with quarterly public status reporting of active and planned Initiatives to the CEO and BOS including planned start and completion dates, progress status, budgeted cost and spending to date. (F1, F2, F7-F9)
F3:
The BOS approves funding for the ITMP but does not participate on the ITMP Steering Committee to communicate priorities, provide leadership and approve resources.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
by August 1, 2021, the BOS assign at least one member to take part in the quarterly ITMP Steering Committee meetings and report back to the BOS to set priorities for projects and to facilitate funding. (F3)
R6:
the BOS revise Policy 35 by October 1, 2021 and base its funding on the capital cost needs established in the ITMP. (F3, F4, F7-F9, F11)
F4:
Since some costs are recorded in departmental budgets but not consolidated into the ITMP, the total cost of the Initiatives is possibly underrepresented by millions of dollars.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
the BOS establish a consolidated, shared County IT Department responsible for all IT functions under the direction of a Chief Information Officer/Director of Technology by FY 2022. Any centralized IT staff that support the SO shall receive the requisite background check required by DOJ. (F4-F6)
R5:
the BOS with the CIO, as part of the FY 2022-23 budget, consolidate all IT related costs, including ITMP funds into a single IT budget that accurately reflects total IT costs. These costs could then be appropriately allocated to department budgets as a proportioned shared service thus providing greater transparency to the public. (F4, F7-F9)
R6:
the BOS revise Policy 35 by October 1, 2021 and base its funding on the capital cost needs established in the ITMP. (F3, F4, F7-F9, F11)
F5:
The SO IS Department has been allowed to operate separately from the County’s IS department which is a detriment to efficient delivery of services and cost effectiveness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
the BOS establish a consolidated, shared County IT Department responsible for all IT functions under the direction of a Chief Information Officer/Director of Technology by FY 2022. Any centralized IT staff that support the SO shall receive the requisite background check required by DOJ. (F4-F6)
F6:
If the IT staff with access to DOJ systems have received clearance to maintain equipment of the SO, there is no legal obstacle that would prevent reporting to a central IT Department headed by a CIO.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
the BOS establish a consolidated, shared County IT Department responsible for all IT functions under the direction of a Chief Information Officer/Director of Technology by FY 2022. Any centralized IT staff that support the SO shall receive the requisite background check required by DOJ. (F4-F6)
F7:
Project status reporting is not clearly or regularly represented to the public and the BOS, thus leaving them uninformed of IT’s priorities and project initiatives.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
the CIO position focus on improving the IT infrastructure in a steady, timely manner with quarterly public status reporting of active and planned Initiatives to the CEO and BOS including planned start and completion dates, progress status, budgeted cost and spending to date. (F1, F2, F7-F9)
R5:
the BOS with the CIO, as part of the FY 2022-23 budget, consolidate all IT related costs, including ITMP funds into a single IT budget that accurately reflects total IT costs. These costs could then be appropriately allocated to department budgets as a proportioned shared service thus providing greater transparency to the public. (F4, F7-F9)
R6:
the BOS revise Policy 35 by October 1, 2021 and base its funding on the capital cost needs established in the ITMP. (F3, F4, F7-F9, F11)
F8:
Project Manager position(s) are unfilled, or the need not recognized, which leads to project plans not consistently being prepared for the management of IT Initiatives.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
the CIO position focus on improving the IT infrastructure in a steady, timely manner with quarterly public status reporting of active and planned Initiatives to the CEO and BOS including planned start and completion dates, progress status, budgeted cost and spending to date. (F1, F2, F7-F9)
R5:
the BOS with the CIO, as part of the FY 2022-23 budget, consolidate all IT related costs, including ITMP funds into a single IT budget that accurately reflects total IT costs. These costs could then be appropriately allocated to department budgets as a proportioned shared service thus providing greater transparency to the public. (F4, F7-F9)
R6:
the BOS revise Policy 35 by October 1, 2021 and base its funding on the capital cost needs established in the ITMP. (F3, F4, F7-F9, F11)
F9:
Project managers and process application analysts are critical and unfilled positions in Mendocino County's IT organization, which is already understaffed given the number of Initiatives in the ITMP as well as on-going operational needs.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2:
the CIO position focus on improving the IT infrastructure in a steady, timely manner with quarterly public status reporting of active and planned Initiatives to the CEO and BOS including planned start and completion dates, progress status, budgeted cost and spending to date. (F1, F2, F7-F9)
R5:
the BOS with the CIO, as part of the FY 2022-23 budget, consolidate all IT related costs, including ITMP funds into a single IT budget that accurately reflects total IT costs. These costs could then be appropriately allocated to department budgets as a proportioned shared service thus providing greater transparency to the public. (F4, F7-F9)
R6:
the BOS revise Policy 35 by October 1, 2021 and base its funding on the capital cost needs established in the ITMP. (F3, F4, F7-F9, F11)
F10:
The County’s efforts to secure its systems has not been evaluated by an independent audit in more than fifteen years which presents a considerable risk of systems compromise or ransomware attack.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
the Auditor/Controller, as part of their responsibility for safeguarding County assets, engage an independent outside auditor to evaluate the County’s systems, website and network security and recommend corrective actions. This is in addition to continued quarterly phishing testing. (F10)
F11:
The Auditor/Controller has not established the accounting procedure for the mandated funding reserve established by County Policy 35 which is obsolete and inadequately capped at $850,000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
the BOS revise Policy 35 by October 1, 2021 and base its funding on the capital cost needs established in the ITMP. (F3, F4, F7-F9, F11)
F12:
Unlike many modernized California Counties, there are few mechanisms for the public to request most on-line County services or electronically submit forms thus inadequately serving the needs of the public and efficiently processing through County staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
the BOS, through its CIO, engage a County-government-experienced consultancy to evaluate all websites managed with County funds, including those of Special Districts. This to include recommendations for the design/maintenance strategy and cost/benefit justified funding to better serve the public by January 1, 2022. (F12)
F13:
The County plans to issue an unnecessary and expensive RFP to select an alternative email service to replace GroupWise, when Microsoft email could simply be implemented. The County already licenses all other Office software from Microsoft except for email which is tightly integrated with all other Microsoft products.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
by August 1, 2021, the County IS cutover all County email services from GroupWise to Microsoft Exchange as the email server and Outlook for the user interface. (F13)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
MCRPD lost the opportunity to receive more than $2.5 million in grant funds because it operated in violation of State Codes and guidelines pertaining to the administration of the CAOHVPD Grants and award of the fence contract per PCC section 20682.5 (b).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
MCRPD’s BOD should amend its Bylaws within 60 days following release of this GJ report to require independent professional legal guidance for any project to assure that all 8 Assembly Bill No. 1234, Chapter 700 "Local agencies: compensation and ethics." Approved by Governor October 07, 2005. Filed with Secretary of State October 07, 2005. Grant(s) and the award of contracts comply with State codes and guidelines to guard against the loss of grant funding due to conflicts of interest and outdated bylaws. (F1)
F2:
MCRPD incurred debt which it has been unable to repay and led to bankruptcy because of purchasing the Highway 20 property prior to the completion of the feasibility study for the intended purpose of a golf course and the possible mismanagement of public funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
MCRPD’s BOD should engage a professional consultant to develop a feasibility study and strategic plan prior to the initiation of any capital improvement project (CIP). MCRPD should document and publish the report for public review and comment at least 60 days prior to the award of contract for any CIP. Complete disclosure and public notice in the letting of all Special District contract may avoid the loss of grant funding due to conflicts of interest and outdated bylaws. (F2)
F3:
MCRPD BOD does not have an effective mechanism to ensure training and compliance with conflict-of-interest rules.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
MCRPD’s BOD should engage an independent Outside Counsel to review its Bylaws within 90 days of this report; MCRPD’s Bylaws should be updated annually with outside Counsel at the beginning of each new term and post them on MCRPD’s website to make them available to the public. (F3)
F4:
MCRPD risks civil litigation or statutory violations as MCRPD BOD and Executive staff do not receive initial and annual training in Brown Act, Ethics and Harassment in compliance with AB1234.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
MCRPD’s BOD within 60 days of the start of their term and annually should receive training for Brown Act, Ethics and Harassment laws and regulations as required. All staff at the start of employment and annually thereafter should receive training for Brown Act, Ethics and Harassment laws and regulations as required. Records should be maintained to track participation. (F4)
F5:
MCRPD risks potential conflicts of interest and potential litigation as Bylaws do not require attendance of Counsel at its BOD meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
MCRPD’s BOD shall retain legal counsel with required attendance at every BOD meeting to avoid actions that may violate Federal, State, County, Local, Penal Code, Ethics or Brown Act violations. (F5)
F6:
MCRPD fails to provide financial transparency to the public as monthly financial statements are not routinely published for public viewing. Monthly financial statements would identify revenue sources such as rental fees, expenditures and capital commitments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
MCRPD shall prepare and publish on its website a monthly financial report as approved by the BOD to provide transparency to the public. This report should include a review of the monthly accounting of checks issued and revenue received. (F6)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Registered voter turnout during elections in Mendocino County usually exceeds the California average but more voters could benefit from County participation in the VCA.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
the Election Office explore eligibility exceptions to participation in the Voter’s Choice Act pertinent to rural counties with resources and infrastructure limitations. (F1 and F2)
F2:
The Elections Office use of AMBs reduces the risk of spreading COVID-19 and brings Mendocino County closer to alignment with the spirit of the VCA.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
the Election Office explore eligibility exceptions to participation in the Voter’s Choice Act pertinent to rural counties with resources and infrastructure limitations. (F1 and F2)
F3:
All employees performing the duties of a mail clerk in the Mendocino County Administration Center are not sworn to the State of California oath found in § 3, Article 20 of the State Constitution which may pose an accountability risk for the internal handling of Election mail.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Mendocino County Elections have its own United States Post Office Box for receipt of elections related materials to avoid delay caused by additional sorting in the Mail Room of the Administrative Office. (F3)
R3:
Mail Clerks who process mail from the USPS be administered the California Oath given duly sworn elections officials. (F3)
F4:
Voter requests for replacement ballots diminish Elections Office efficiency and productivity due to the reliance on manual processing of replacement ballots.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
for procedures regarding replacement ballots, the County Clerk’s Office request a feature from the tabulation software vendor to record either the original ballot or its replacement to automatically inactivate the unused ballot which would eliminate manual intervention by elections staff to inactivate and reactivate ballots. (F4 and F6)
F5:
The ballot count log should be contained in the transport box to mitigate manipulation after sealing the ballot box.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
two sworn individuals count and log the number of ballots collected from drop-off boxes in double custody. The dually signed count log be placed in the ballot transportation box and transported to the Elections Office. (F5)
F6:
The County does not have a computerized system that automatically compares signatures on ballot return envelopes with digital signatures of registered voters. Voter signatures are manually verified for every mail-in envelope by election staff comparing against signatures stored digitally in the Registrar’s Office resulting in increased labor expense and a higher likelihood of human error.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
for procedures regarding replacement ballots, the County Clerk’s Office request a feature from the tabulation software vendor to record either the original ballot or its replacement to automatically inactivate the unused ballot which would eliminate manual intervention by elections staff to inactivate and reactivate ballots. (F4 and F6)
R6:
the Elections Office inquire if a signature validation feature is available from Hart InterCivic or other vendor to automate the signature verification process, requiring only manual validation for mis-matching signatures which will reduce staff workload and automatically identify potential mismatching signatures, reducing the possibility of human error. (F6)
F7:
The County of Mendocino is among the 43 mainly rural counties not participating in the VCA due to difficulty in recruiting staff for its mandated additional early voting requirements and due to insufficient internet coverage and network access in the rural populated parts of Mendocino County which affect voter turnout.
F8:
The Elections Office does not have complete oversight of all its stored equipment but retains the full budget liability for replacing damaged equipment. This makes budget planning problematic.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Mendocino County’s Executive Office notify the Elections Office at least one week in advance of any relocation of election-related materials and arrange for a representative of the Elections Office to supervise any relocation of election materials to avoid damages to equipment and budget liabilities to the department. The Elections Office must have independent and immediate access to any storage area housing its equipment. (F8)
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Several 2019-2020 jury reports do not effectively solicit timelines for implementation from respondents through the report recommendations, leading some respondents and their legal advisors to draft responses out of compliance with §933.05(b) of the CPC.
F2:
Responses from the BOS and CEO on the Emergency Communication System report are in conflict. This poses a challenge to public confidence in the County’s commitment to upgrading and maintaining the ECS. Reports issued by the 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 Grand Jury. APPENDIX: § 933 Comments and Reports on Grand Jury Recommendations. (a) Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject may be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time during the term of service of a grand jury. A final report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments, including the county board of supervisors, when applicable, upon finding of the presiding judge that the report is in compliance with this title. For 45 days after the end of the term, the foreperson and his or her designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report. (b) One copy of each final report, together with the responses thereto, found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on file with the county clerk and remain on file in the office of the county clerk. The county clerk shall immediately forward a true copy of the report and the responses to the State Archivist who shall retain that report and all responses in perpetuity. (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters .1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. (d) As used in this section "agency" includes a department. § 933.05 Response to Grand Jury Recommendations-Content Requirements; Personal Appearance by Responding Party; Grand Jury Report to Affected Agency… (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of § 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding per- son or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in or- der to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During the investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
MCRPD lost the opportunity to receive more than $2.5 million in grant funds because it operated in violation of State Codes and guidelines pertaining to the administration of the CAOHVPD Grants and award of the fence contract per PCC section 20682.5 (b).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
MCRPD’s BOD should amend its Bylaws within 60 days following release of this GJ report to require independent professional legal guidance for any project to assure that all 8 Assembly Bill No. 1234, Chapter 700 "Local agencies: compensation and ethics." Approved by Governor October 07, 2005. Filed with Secretary of State October 07, 2005. Grant(s) and the award of contracts comply with State codes and guidelines to guard against the loss of grant funding due to conflicts of interest and outdated bylaws. (F1)
F2:
MCRPD incurred debt which it has been unable to repay and led to bankruptcy because of purchasing the Highway 20 property prior to the completion of the feasibility study for the intended purpose of a golf course and the possible mismanagement of public funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
MCRPD’s BOD should engage a professional consultant to develop a feasibility study and strategic plan prior to the initiation of any capital improvement project (CIP). MCRPD should document and publish the report for public review and comment at least 60 days prior to the award of contract for any CIP. Complete disclosure and public notice in the letting of all Special District contract may avoid the loss of grant funding due to conflicts of interest and outdated bylaws. (F2)
F3:
MCRPD BOD does not have an effective mechanism to ensure training and compliance with conflict-of-interest rules.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
MCRPD’s BOD should engage an independent Outside Counsel to review its Bylaws within 90 days of this report; MCRPD’s Bylaws should be updated annually with outside Counsel at the beginning of each new term and post them on MCRPD’s website to make them available to the public. (F3)
F4:
MCRPD risks civil litigation or statutory violations as MCRPD BOD and Executive staff do not receive initial and annual training in Brown Act, Ethics and Harassment in compliance with AB1234.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
MCRPD’s BOD within 60 days of the start of their term and annually should receive training for Brown Act, Ethics and Harassment laws and regulations as required. All staff at the start of employment and annually thereafter should receive training for Brown Act, Ethics and Harassment laws and regulations as required. Records should be maintained to track participation. (F4)
F5:
MCRPD risks potential conflicts of interest and potential litigation as Bylaws do not require attendance of Counsel at its BOD meetings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
MCRPD’s BOD shall retain legal counsel with required attendance at every BOD meeting to avoid actions that may violate Federal, State, County, Local, Penal Code, Ethics or Brown Act violations. (F5)
F6:
MCRPD fails to provide financial transparency to the public as monthly financial statements are not routinely published for public viewing. Monthly financial statements would identify revenue sources such as rental fees, expenditures and capital commitments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
MCRPD shall prepare and publish on its website a monthly financial report as approved by the BOD to provide transparency to the public. This report should include a review of the monthly accounting of checks issued and revenue received. (F6)