Mendocino County 2024-2025 - California Grand Jury Reports

June 24, 2026 — Digging Deeper - Board of Supervisors Oversight of Planning & Building

71 pages 14 findings 7 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 14 findings

F1: The BOS action taken by approving the response to the Grand Jury GJ25Report was a contravention to its Mission Statement and the Principles of Office.

F2: The lack of direction and unclear communication from the BOS to the CEO to manage, supervise, and maintain accountability in the daily operations within PBS has compromised public safety and best business practices.

F3: The BOS has not issued directives that would compel PBS’ full compliance with all State laws and County ordinances by creating current and comprehensive policies and procedures.

F4: There remains a critical need for the BOS to provide direction to create, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures ensuring equitable services to the residents of Mendocino County.

F5: In most divisions in PBS, policies and procedures that exist are not comprehensive and are unclear. of 18

F6: PBS staff are dedicated, hardworking individuals who desire a positive outcome for the public.

F7: The Cannabis Division’s clear policies, procedures, and expectations for personnel that have been created for this division are exactly what is needed for the entire department and should be the standard for the other divisions within PBS.

F8: Lack of policies and procedures has resulted in the PBS adapting to a pattern of practice dependent on individual employees’ institutional knowledge and discretion.

F9: Procedures that are incomplete, misnumbered, and have no style guidelines or retention logs, compel employees to rely on individual discretion and institutional knowledge.

F10: The safety of Mendocino County residents and their properties is left to the discretion of PBS employees due to inadequate implementation of PRC section 4290/Title 14.

F11: Building Division’s documentation reveals incomplete, poorly maintained, and sporadic contradictory directions to its employees.

F12: PBS continues to misinterpret the term “pre-existing” for illegally constructed residential and commercial structures which, as implemented by the County, circumvents the requirements of PRC section 4290/Title 14.

F13: The County’s inconsistencies in enforcing PRC section 4290/Title 14 enable an environment for favoritism, opportunity for bias, and continued failure to assure implementation of minimum wildfire protection standards. .

F14: The BOS has failed to ensure compliance with PRC section 4290/Title 14 and to ensure implementation of comprehensive policies and procedures throughout PBS.

Additional Recommendations 7

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to have, by December 1, 2026, a working draft of Policies and Procedures for all divisions within Planning and Building Services. The guidelines should be comprehensive, standardized, and easily accessible to all staff members to ensure that the processes are consistently followed and comply with regulatory requirements. [F2, F3, F4, F5, F8, F9, F10, F11]

R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors give directions to the Chief Executive Officer to instruct Planning and Building Services to have a final version of Policy and Procedures for all divisions by March 1, 2027. [F2, F3, F4, F5, F8, F9, F10, F11] of 18

R3: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to have a working draft by October 15, 2026, of Policies and Procedures in all aspects of the implementation of PRC section 4290/Title 14. [F10, F12, F13, F14]

R4: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to instruct Planning and Building Services to have a final version of Policy and Procedures for the application of PRC section 4290/Title 14 for all divisions by January 1, 2027. [F10, F12, F13, F14]

R5: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to have a working draft of Policies and Procedures for all divisions within Planning and Building Services. The guidelines should be comprehensive, standardized, and easily accessible to all staff members to ensure that the processes are consistently followed and comply with regulatory requirements, by January 1, 2026.

R6: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to instruct Planning and Building Services to have a final version of Policy and Procedures for all divisions, by April 1, 2026. A spreadsheet (See Exhibit 1) was developed by the Grand Jury that lists all Building Divisions’ policies, procedures, memorandums, and bulletins, showing the document number, title, revision date, description, Class K, PRC section 4290/Title 14, and any duplications. The Grand Jury found the following as of January 1, 2026. of 18 Policies: • No document revision log • Thirty-eight numbered policies (Numbered 1-46) • Based on the numeric system used, there are eight missing/non-existent policies • The last comprehensive revision was in 2015 • Only one policy referenced Class K • Only one policy referenced PRC section 4290/Title 14 • Four duplicate policies • Most of the titled policies are written as procedures (see Glossary) • No style guidelines (see Glossary) Procedures: • No document revision log • Four numbered procedures • Two unnumbered procedures • The last comprehensive revision was in 2023 • No Class K procedures • No PRC section 4290/Title 14 procedures • No style guidelines (see Glossary) Bulletins: • No document revision log • Fourteen numbered bulletins (Numbered 1-17) • Based on the numeric system used, there are three missing/non-existent bulletins • The last comprehensive revision was in 1993 (most recent individual bulletin revision was in 2011) • No Class K bulletins • Only one bulletin referenced PRC section 4290/Title 14 • One bulletin that contradicts two different policies • No style guidelines (see Glossary) Memorandums: • No document revision log • Fourteen numbered memorandums (numbered 1-15) • Based on the numeric system used, there is one missing/non-existent memorandum • The last comprehensive revision was in 2020 (most recent individual memorandum was in 2025) • No Class K memorandum • No PRC section 4290/Title 14 memorandum of 18 • One memorandum that

R7: Even with approval letters noted elsewhere in this Policy, it may be necessary to remove finishes to expose items for verification. The building inspector conducting the inspection will make determinations in the field as to items that will need to be exposed. This policy is effective as of the date of the signatures below. Policy Approved:__ ______________ Date: __2/6/2026______ Richard Angley, Chief Building Official Policy Approved: _________________________________________ Date: __2/5/2026______ Julia Krog, Director Planning and Building Services COUNTY OF MENDOCINO JULIA KROG, DIRECTOR PHONE: 707-234-6650 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES FAX: 707-463-5709 FB PHONE: 707-964-5379 860 NORTH BUSH STREET  UKIAH  CALIFORNIA  95482 FB FAX: 707-961-2427 752 SOUTH FRANKLIN STREET  FT. BRAGG  CALIFORNIA  95437 [email protected] www.mendocinocounty.gov/pbs BUILDING DIVISION POLICY #19 PROCEDURE FOR Permitting a Non-Residential Structure Built Without a Permit PREVIOUS POLICY Administrative Bulletin #1 PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to outline a procedure for the legalization of an existing non-residential structure built without a building permit. APPLICABILITY Non-Residential Structures, remodels and additions. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this policy are to: • Standardize the procedure to allow the permitting and legalization of non-residential structures built without a permit and provide a list of the required documentation to be submitted with the permit application. AUTHORITY The authority for this procedure is contained in the Mendocino County Code (“MCC”) Title 18 – Building Regulations Chapter 18.04.025 – California Codes Adopted, and the California Building Code (“CBC”) Section [A] 104. PROCEDURE

June 24, 2026 — History of Grand Jury Report

77 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

April 01, 2026 — Continuity Compliance Report

11 pages 11 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 11

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Board of The Board of Supervisors Supervisors ensures that all works to ensure that all future responses to Grand responses to Grand Jury Met Requirement Jury recommendations Requirements comply with comply with California Penal California Penal Code Code § 933.05. § 933.05.* Homelessness: A County-Wide Issue The 2024-2025 Grand Jury investigated the Care Response Unit (CRU) established in the City of Fort Bragg to address the growing problem of homelessness in Mendocino County. CRU was considered a state-of-the-art program based on the findings of Dr. Robert G. Marbut’s homelessness study commissioned by the BOS in 2019. *Responses are paraphrased and/or abbreviated The CRU program involves the integration of police outreach, mental health services, and temporary housing for unhoused individuals as they are located and identified within the Fort Bragg city limits. The CRU is law-enforcement driven and as such is unique in the county. The Grand Jury’s investigation included interviews with Fort Bragg and County officials, police and sheriff personnel and other advocates for the unhoused people in the area. In addition, the Grand Jury reviewed documentation, news reports, and studies on homelessness. See in greater detail the report and responses. Penal Code Recommendation Response* 933.05 Fort Bragg City Council

R2: The Mendocino County Civil The Recommendation has been Grand Jury recommends the implemented. The City of Fort Community Outreach Response and Bragg’s Care Response Unit Engagement program developers (CRU) has recently extended its continue to collaborate with the services geographically, and has Met County Behavioral Health, Social initiated further collaboration with Requirement Services, Sheriff’s Office and other County law enforcement, County departments and program behavioral health, and social managers to work with the Care services. * Response Unit. Mendocino County Sheriff

R3: The Grand Jury recommends This recommendation will not be the Board of Supervisors give implemented as it is not direction to the Chief Executive warranted. As explained in Officer to implement a plan to cease response to Finding 1 herein. * Did not meet issuance of Class K permits that are requirements not solely intended for habitable living space as prescribed by law, by July 1, 2025.

R4: The Grand Jury recommends The recommendation will not be the Board of Supervisors give implemented as it is not direction to the Chief Executive warranted. PBS complies with Officer to create an oversight its responsibilities.* committee by January 1, 2026, to Did not meet ensure that Planning and Building requirements Services adheres to requirements outlined specifically in: • California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 8 *Responses are paraphrased and/or abbreviated Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Penal Code Recommendation Response* 933.05 • California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 8 • Health and Safety Code 17958.2 • Health and Safety Code 17958.2 • Mendocino County Code Chapter 18.23 • Mendocino County Code Chapter 18.23 • Public Resource Code 4290.

R5: The Grand Jury recommends These recommendations will not the Board of Supervisors give be implemented as they are not direction to the Chief Executive warranted. As noted in the Officer to have a working draft of response to Finding 5, PBS has Policies and Procedures for all clear policies and procedures divisions within Planning and that relate to the handling of Did not meet Building Services. The guidelines permits, inspections, and fees. * requirements should be comprehensive, standardized, and easily accessible to all staff members to ensure that the processes are consistently followed and comply with regulatory requirements, by January 1, 2026.

R6: The Grand Jury recommends These recommendations will not the Board of Supervisors give be implemented as they are not direction to the Chief Executive warranted. As noted in the Did not meet Officer to instruct Planning and response to Finding 5, PBS has requirements Building Services to have a final clear policies and procedures version of Policy and Procedures for that relate to the handling of all divisions, by April 1, 2026. permits, inspections, and fees. *

R7: The Grand Jury recommends “This recommendation has not the Board of Supervisors instruct yet been implemented but will the Chief Executive Officer to be implemented in the future.” implement new software “However, implementation may applications for tracking all take up until November 1, Met processes in Planning and Building 2027.” * requirements Services, including but not limited to permits, inspections, fees, and Code Enforcement complaints, by April 1, 2026.

R8: The Grand Jury recommends This recommendation will not be Did not meet the Board of Supervisors direct the implemented as it is not requirements Chief Executive Officer to warranted because it duplicates *Responses are paraphrased and/or abbreviated Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Penal Code Recommendation Response* 933.05 implement a monitoring process for a prior and ongoing Board of Planning and Building Services that Supervisors-approved Executive includes supervisory checks and Office initiative from 2023.* audits to ensure adherence to the established policies and procedures, and to identify areas for improvement, by April 1, 2026.

R9: The Grand Jury recommends The recommendation will not be the Board of Supervisors give implemented as it is not direction to the Chief Executive warranted because it is already Officer to develop a structured sufficiently addressed through training program within Planning the current thorough PBS and Building Services based on all training program.* Did not meet laws, codes, ordinances and any requirements new policies and procedures. This program should include both initial training for new hires and ongoing refresher courses for existing staff, by April 1, 2026.

R10: The Grand Jury recommends “This recommendation will not the Board of Supervisors give be implemented as it is not direction to the Chief Executive warranted because it duplicates Officer to establish and document a prior and ongoing Board of Did not meet clear roles and responsibilities for Supervisors-approved Executive requirements all Planning and Building Services Office initiative from 2023.” * staff involved in the permitting, inspection, and fee collection processes, by April 1, 2026.

R11: The Grand Jury recommends The recommendation will not be the Board of Supervisors give implemented because it is direction to the Chief Executive already sufficiently addressed by Officer to create a communication the Department in their framework that establishes regular operations. * Did not meet meetings, addresses challenges, requirements and shares best practices to ensure all staff are aligned with the policies and procedures within Planning and Building Services, by July 1, 2025. Healing the Toxic Culture in the City of Willits Workplace The 2024-2025 Civil Grand Jury received a complaint detailing multiple irregularities including an intimidation and toxic workplace culture for the employees of the City of Willits. See the entire 2024-2025 Grand Jury report. *Responses are paraphrased and/or abbreviated The Grand Jury interviewed the parties in question as well as other witnesses. They also reviewed countless documents, including the written City of Willits’ Policy and Procedures Manual and the Willits City Council Manual of Procedures and Protocols currently in use. The Grand Jury made four recommendations to the City Council to improve the work environment for the employees and thus improve efficacy of the work they are empowered to perform. The Willits City Council met the response requirements of all four recommendations of the 2024-2025 Grand Jury. The response from the Willits City Council is summarized in the following table: Compliance with Recommendation Response* Penal Code 933.05

June 30, 2025 — Healing the Toxic Culture in the City of Willits Workplace June 30, 2025 Healing the Toxic Culture in the City of

35 pages 5 findings 21 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: The Grand Jury found the existence of a toxic and intimidating workplace culture at the City of Willits office (excluding the Police Department). This has prompted highly qualified, dedicated workers to leave City employment.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Grand Jury recommends the Willits City Council direct its City Manager to demonstrate compliance with the existing written Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual for the City of Willits, by July 31, 2025.

F2: The Grand Jury found the Willits City Council failed to provide oversight of top management for compliance with personnel policies and procedures. 2024-25 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Grand Jury recommends the Willits City Council create a mechanism for compliance and oversight to ensure all personnel policies are being followed, by January 1, 2026.

F3: The Grand Jury found the City of Willits employees do not have an effective avenue for bringing complaints to the attention of top management. This is due to the failure to follow the Willits Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Grand Jury recommends the Willits City Council direct the Willits City Manager to restore and fill the position of Human Resources Director by January 1, 2026.

F4: The Grand Jury found the City of Willits presently does not have a Director of Human Resources. Portions of the Willits Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual expressly contemplate such a position as employees are instructed to seek help from the Director of Human Resources.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Grand Jury recommends the Willits City Council conduct annual performance reviews of the Willits City Manager by April 30 of each year.

F5: The Grand Jury found that the Willits City Council had not conducted annual performance reviews of the Willits City Manager by April 30 of each year.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: DEBATE AND DECORUM A. Getting the Floor 6 B. Questions to Staff 6 C. Interruptions 6 D. Points of Order 6 E. Point of Personal Privilege 6 F. Decorum and Order, Council and City Staff 7 G. Decorum and Order, Audience 7 H. Enforcement of Decorum 7 I. Failure to Observe Rules of Order 7 J. Serial Meetings 7 K. Use of Technology 8 Subject Page

Additional Recommendations 16

Not linked to specific findings.

R6: MOTIONS A. Presentation of Motions 8 B. Second Required 8 C. Precedence of Motions 8 D. Particular Motions, Purpose and Criteria 8

R7: VOTING A. Voting Procedure 10 B. Change of Vote 10 C. Failure to Vote 11 D. Conflict of Interest 11 E. Reconsideration and Rescission of Prior Action 11 F. Lost Motions 11

R8: MINUTES A. Preparation of Minutes 11 B. Minutes of Hearings 12 C. Reading of Minutes 12

R9: ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, AND CONTRACTS A. Preparation of Ordinances, Resolutions, and Contracts 12 B. Prior Approval by Administrative Staff 12 C. Enactment of Ordinances 12 D. Adoption of Resolutions 13

R10: PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Application and Definition 13 B. Rights of Interested Persons 13 C. General Procedure 13 D. Presentation of Evidence 14 E. Continuances 14 F. Decision 15 G. Record of Hearing 15

R11: The Council deliberates and takes action.

R12: MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR: 15 ELECTION/RESPONSIBILITY

R13: COUNCIL GOALS A. Council Goals are set every two years by the City Council and reviewed annually. B. Staff will prepare an update on City issues, trends, and demographics to assist the City Council with preparations for their goal setting process. C. In December, the Mayor shall determine the process and facilitator he/she wishes to use for the annual review for the goal setting. The goal setting session shall be held as early in the year as possible to allow for development of work plans and allocation of resources through the budget process. Goals shall be established for two fiscal years starting on July 1 and ending on June 30. D. In December, the Mayor shall determine the process and facilitator he/she wishes to use for the annual review for the goal setting. The goal setting session shall be held as early in the year as possible to allow for development of work plans and allocation of resources through the budget process. Goals shall be established for two fiscal years starting on July 1 and ending on June 30. E. The purpose of the goal setting process is to establish a limited number of high priority consensus goals that the City will focus on for the next year. F. Staff will develop draft work plans for each goal for approval by the City Council. G. The City Manager and City Attorney are active participants in the goal setting process. Other staff may also participate in goal setting at the direction of the City Council. H. Staff will take steps to distribute Council goals to staff and the public. I. The City Council will review progress on the goals quarterly.

R14: COMMUNICATIONS 17 Subject Page

R15: COUNCIL/STAFF RELATIONS 18

R16: COUNCIL COMMITTEES 18

R17: CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES 19

R18: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 19

R19: STATIONERY USE AND RELATED GUIDELINES 19

R20: GENERAL A. Councilmembers will inform the City Clerk as early as possible when they will be out of town or absent from a meeting by completing an Absence from City form. B. Travel arrangements for City related business is coordinated with the City Clerk. C. For eligible expenses (i.e., any events outside of Mendocino County), receipts and travel expense reports are to be submitted no later than 30 days after the date of the expenditure.

R21: CONDUCT BY COUNCILMEMBERS 20

June 30, 2025 — **The information in this spreadsheet was taken directly from the actual reports - there are differences in

57 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

June 06, 2025 — Planning and Building Department Structural Issues: Exposing the Cracks

49 pages 15 findings 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 15 findings

F1: Mendocino County Planning and Building Services is misusing the intent of the Limited Density Rural Dwelling Permit/Class K resulting in inconsistent processing of applications.

F2: Class K permits are currently being issued for uninhabitable structures that do not meet the established criteria in MCC Chapter 18.23, threatening the life, welfare and property of our County residents.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to implement a plan to cease issuance of Class K permits that are not solely intended for habitable living space as prescribed by law, by July 1, 2025.

R4: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to create an oversight committee by January 1, 2026, to ensure that Planning and Building Services adheres to requirements outlined specifically in: • California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 8 • Health and Safety Code 17958.2 • Mendocino County Code Chapter 18.23 • Public Resource Code 4290.

F3: Mendocino County Planning and Building Services has failed to enforce PRC 4290 in the State Responsibility Area on pre-existing habitable, commercial and industrial buildings, creating a significant life safety hazard.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Mendocino County Chief Executive Officer to instruct Planning and Building Services to immediately enforce Public Resource Code 4290 for all new permits pertaining to pre- existing and habitable structures, commercial and industrial buildings, by July 1, 2025.

R2: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to create an oversight committee to ensure that Planning and Building Services adhere to requirements outlined in Public Resource Code 4290 in the State Response Area, by January 1, 2026.

R4: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to create an oversight committee by January 1, 2026, to ensure that Planning and Building Services adheres to requirements outlined specifically in: • California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 8 • Health and Safety Code 17958.2 • Mendocino County Code Chapter 18.23 • Public Resource Code 4290.

F4: The current inspection practice by PBS for pre-existing unpermitted homes is a deviation from the required inspection process outlined in MCC Title 18, Chapter 18.23.160. This deviation from the County Code threatens the life safety of any person inhabiting the structure.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to create an oversight committee by January 1, 2026, to ensure that Planning and Building Services adheres to requirements outlined specifically in: • California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 8 • Health and Safety Code 17958.2 • Mendocino County Code Chapter 18.23 • Public Resource Code 4290.

F5: There is a lack of comprehensive formalized policies and procedures within all divisions in PBS. This lack of clearly written guidelines leads to inconsistent practices, an increased risk of non-compliance and inefficiencies, including but not limited to the handling of permits, inspections and fees.

Related Recommendations (5)

R5: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to have a working draft of Policies and Procedures for all divisions within Planning and Building Services. The guidelines should be comprehensive, standardized and easily accessible to all staff members to ensure that the processes are consistently followed and comply with regulatory requirements, by January 1, 2026.

R6: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to instruct Planning and Building Services to have a final version of Policy and Procedures for all divisions, by April 1, 2026.

R7: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors instruct the Chief Executive Officer to implement new software applications for tracking all processes in Planning and Building Services, including but not limited to permits, inspections, fees and Code Enforcement complaints, by April 1, 2026. 2024-25 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County Government Committee –

R10: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to e stablish and document clear roles and responsibilities for all Planning and Building Services staff involved in the permitting, inspection and fee collection processes, by April 1, 2026.

R11: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to create a communication framework that establishes regular meetings, addresses challenges and shares best practices to ensure all staff are aligned with the policies and procedures within Planning and Building Services, by July 1, 2025.

F6: The lack of formalized policies and procedures has resulted in the absence of a clear framework for assessing staff performance in the timely processing of permits, inspections and fees. Without mechanisms for employees or managers to evaluate performance, there are no checks and balances in place to ensure compliance with best practices or established expectations, leaving room for inefficiencies and inconsistent results.

Related Recommendations (3)

R7: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors instruct the Chief Executive Officer to implement new software applications for tracking all processes in Planning and Building Services, including but not limited to permits, inspections, fees and Code Enforcement complaints, by April 1, 2026. 2024-25 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County Government Committee –

R8: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the Chief Executive Officer to implement a monitoring process for Planning and Building Services that includes supervisory checks and audits to ensure adherence to the established policies and procedures, and to identify areas for improvement, by April 1, 2026.

R10: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to e stablish and document clear roles and responsibilities for all Planning and Building Services staff involved in the permitting, inspection and fee collection processes, by April 1, 2026.

F7: The lack of a comprehensive structured training process leaves employees struggling to understand their roles, responsibilities and expectations, leading to errors in the office and in the field. 2024-25 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County Government Committee –

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to develop a structured training program within Planning and Building Services based on all laws, codes, ordinances and any new policies and procedures. This program should include both initial training for new hires and ongoing refresher courses for existing staff, by April 1, 2026.

F8: The lack of enforcement of the PRC 4290 by PBS has created an environment that allows hundreds, possibly thousands, of homes to be built that cannot be accessed by emergency personnel and their vehicles.

F9: The absence of established training programs and policies and procedures creates life safety hazards that threaten all residents in Mendocino County and places all first responder personnel at risk.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors give direction to the Chief Executive Officer to develop a structured training program within Planning and Building Services based on all laws, codes, ordinances and any new policies and procedures. This program should include both initial training for new hires and ongoing refresher courses for existing staff, by April 1, 2026.

F10: The Board of Supervisors has not provided adequate leadership, which allows PBS to remain mired in a cycle of ineffective past practices. Change and accountability are critical.

F11: Without the foundation of solid policies and procedures, the current practice of allowing discretion by staff creates an environment for potential litigation for the County.

F12: The Limited Density Rural Dwelling/Class K Ordinance, originally justified as a tool to address Mendocino County's housing shortage, has not served this purpose. Instead of facilitating the construction of needed housing, the ordinance has primarily allowed builders to circumvent standard building codes and regulations.

F13: The Class K Compliance Waiver may not relieve the County’s potential liability when PBS Building Inspectors finalize a new or pre-existing Class K structure without conducting all required inspections. The failure to conduct these inspections exposes the County to potential legal and financial risks, as well as undermines public safety.

F14: The Class K Compliance Waiver does not waive the requirements outlined in PRC 4290 for pre-existing habitable structures. Although the waiver provides certain exceptions, it does not exempt Class K structures from compliance with fire safety standards. Failure to adhere to these requirements jeopardizes public safety, allowing non-compliant structures to remain in use.

F15: The failure of PBS to respond to code enforcement complaints in a timely manner has created significant financial hardship for residents, who have been forced to seek legal representation to resolve disputes with PBS. This prolonged inaction has left many residents with unresolved issues, leading to financial burdens from legal fees and ongoing frustration. 2024-25 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County Government Committee –

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R13-14: will allow for certain building permits to be issued online. Renewed emphasis on regular activity reporting has allowed staff to identify reports that don't import necessary data, and inconsistencies in currently available data. We are working to address these issues, and best practices will be implemented moving forward. o The Department created and released a 2012 Activity Report, which provides an overview of activities encompassing the three primary divisions of this department (Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement). A revised report will be released once the data has been standardized and is fully accessible. o A capacity assessment of the Department's Planning Division has been submitted to the Executive Office in the form of an Action Plan. This document compares the division's current ability to provide service against a comprehensive list of mandates and responsibilities. (A list of implementation items contained within the General Plan, Housing Element, and Ukiah Valley Area Plan has been attached to this report as supplemental information) The Action Plan recommends organizational changes to enhance PBS' ability to implement these mandates and responsibilities, which will reduce outstanding liability to the County. The Executive Office has approved recruitments that do not push the Department's FY 13-14 budget beyond net County cost assignments; full implementation of this plan will require Board approval of the Department's submitted budget. o Staff has begun standardizing the naming protocols used in PBS' fee schedule, and reorganizing the structure to facilitate further review and analysis. It is expected that a related item will come before the Board in FY 13-14. 1 o Initial PBS stakeholder meetings were held in Ukiah and Fort Bragg at the end of 2012; followup stakeholder meetings will be held in both locations in early July. These meetings are intended as an open forum for our stakeholders to communicate with department leadership. o In addition to many meetings with individual members of the community, the Director was invited as a speaker to a recent meeting of the Ukiah Rotary Club. In response to questions and concerns regarding the County's authority to regulate grading activities, information has been posted on the website which provides general information and specific sources of authority. The page remains a work in progress. Code Enforcement Officers, Building Inspectors, and Planners are in the field every day with a very limited ability to communicate in the event of an emergency. With support from the Sheriff, the Department is procuring public safety band radios for all vehicles. We are additionally pursuing new cell phone service and equipment that should provide more opportunities for staff to remain connected while working in rural areas of Mendocino County. The County's Fish & Game Commission is poised to resume operations with additional funding available for administration and reduced overhead costs made possible through changes in State legislation and County allocation of charges. Dr. Jeanine Pfeiffer has been engaged to provide the Commission with administrative support; the Department facilitated processing of the related contract. In January, the Director issued a Determination of Vested Rights for surface gravel mining activities which have historically occurred at the Rowland Gravel Bar, located at the confluence of the Main Eel and Middle Fork Eel Rivers. While archiving ten years of planning files within the Ukiah office, staff recognized many old records eligible for destruction in accordance with County policy. PBS has begun compiling these records, and will work collaboratively to ensure necessary approvals are in place for any action pursued. To enhance the public's ability to track positions and recommendations of the Department on matters which come before the Planning Commission, a new section titled "Recommended Action" has been added to Planning Commission agendas. To provide the public with a more timely record of actions taken during meetings of the Planning Commission, a "Notice of Decision" similar to "action minutes" is now posted after meetings. The Notice of Determination does not replace or modify the form of official meeting minutes. Preliminary information indicates the California Department of Fish & Wildlife will be releasing a technical memo on recommended setbacks from waterways. More information will be provided to the Board as it becomes available. Personnel On January 28, Andy Gustavson began work as the County's Chief Planner. The skills and abilities Mr. Gustavson brings to this role greatly complement existing resources within the Department. In addition to working as a planning consultant, he has served as a planner for the Counties of San Mateo, Sonoma, and the City of Healdsburg. Supervising Code Enforcement Officer, Ray Madrigal, resigned from County employment effective February 14, in order to move closer to extended family. Supervision of the Code Enforcement Division has been assumed by the Director. Effective Monday, May 14, Mark Kendra is serving as a Staff Assistant for the Department, providing support and re-establishing capacity within the Fort Bragg office of PBS. To enhance the consistency of practices between PBS' two locations, Mr. Kendra was trained in Ukiah for two weeks. Effective Monday, June 24, Jim Kerr will begin working for the County as a Code Enforcement Officer l. Adrienne Thompson, the Commission Services Supervisor, is out on leave for approximately three months. The Department has trained an extra help employee to fill this role on a temporary basis; critical duties include clerking for meetings of the Planning Commission, creation of agendas, and legal noticing. A recruitment is underway to bring a Staff Assistant Ill back into the Ukiah office of PBS. In addition to other duties, the selected employee will provide back-up for some of the missioncritical tasks of the Department that currently can be performed solely by the Commission Services Supervisor. As partial implementation of the Planning Division's Action Plan, a recruitment is underway to bring an experienced Senior Planner back in to the Department's Fort Bragg office. This position will re- establish onsite leadership and support for planning staff in that satellite office. Additionally, one opportunity in Fort Bragg and two opportunities in Ukiah have been created to allow qualified Planning staff to promote into positions with greater responsibility. Community Development Staff is working to bring the Mendocino County Lodging Association (MCLA) and Mendocino County Promotional Alliance (MCPA) contracts before the Board for consideration on June 18. Mendocino County's Economic & Demographic Profile is a report that was generated on an annual basis until FY 2010-2011. Funds have been requested in the FY 2013-2014 budget to resume creation of this document, which is useful for both the private and public sector. In 2006, the County received a HOME grant award of approximately $570,000, for investment in the affordable, self-help Lakewood Homes subdivision located on Lake Mendocino Drive. The subsequent economic downturn made it impossible for the developer, Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) to finish the required number of units according to the established timeline. These project delays forced the County out of compliance with the grant agreement. Recognizing the unusual circumstances, Housing & Community Development agreed this month to amend their agreement with the County as necessary to allow the County back into compliance with the program. On behalf of the County, the Community Development Commission of Mendocino County (CDC) operates a Downpayment Assistance Program in the form of deferred payment subordinate loans for income-qualified individuals. This program is typically funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) or HOME grant awards. In March, the County received its first ever request to approve a "short sale". A participant in this program was selling their home, and the market price would not generate enough revenue to fully repay the County's loan. CDBG staff indicated the approval of this short sale was a local decision; it was approved by the Director. Efforts are underway to establish capacity within the Health & Human Services Agency Workforce Investment Act (WIA) unit to oversee the CDBG program. To assist in meeting the immediate demands of that Program, this Department is hiring a contractor. Essential tasks in the contract will include assisting the County in clearing a program audit, requesting an extension of time for completion of studies in the Noyo Harbor, meeting special conditions of a new grant, and procuring a contractor for the County's Microenterprise Technical Assistance Program. The Director was designated as the County's WIA Conflict Resolution Officer, and a request for a hearing has been received from the Mendocino Private Industry Council. This will be scheduled and held in the near future. Building Division Every year, a number of permits are issued for projects that never received necessary inspections. PBS does not currently have a mechanism to determine whether these projects were canceled prior to construction, or if they were completed without benefit of inspections (and therefore completed without benefit of permit). While it is clearly the responsibility of the public to ensure their projects are compliant with regulations and have received all necessary inspections, the Department will be considering options to implement a methodical approach in contacting property owners with permits indicated by our records as expired/inactive, and reminding them of outstanding responsibilities. The California Building Code is updated every three years. It is expected the newest edition of the Code will be released June, 2013, with implementation of the new Code to begin January l , 2014. The Department will be bringing the Code to the Board for consideration and adoption after its release. The California Building Code requires permitting for both buildings and structures (such as private bridges). In recognition of expertise the County's Department of Transportation has with bridges, PBS has re-established a partnership with that Department to review plans and engineering as necessary for permitting of these structures. On May 14, 2012, the Board authorized a Fee Waiver program for building projects which result in the creation of either permanent new jobs or temporary construction jobs for non-residential projects. The program ran from June l, 2012 until November 30, 2012, and resulted in approximately $40,000 in waived fees for a total of four projects. It is expected that these projects will directly create 28 permanent new jobs in the county upon completion, with additional jobs created over time. Over the years, many policies have been created and implemented by the Department with primary goals that include clarification of Building Code and standardization of service delivery. Based on input from stakeholders, we are working to update these policies and will post them online. Code Enforcement To facilitate the sale of two unrelated coastal properties harboring long-standing public nuisance cases, the Department entered into agreements to reduce fees and penalties assessed by PBS. In return for this cooperation, the new owners of these parcels signed agreements to substantially abate the documented violations within one year. We are working to create and implement a Policy & Procedure Manual for the Code Enforcement Division to provide for the uniform enforcement of all applicable county and state building and zoning regulations by staff, and establish minimum standards of professionalism. A first draft was released to staff for review in early 2013. The final version will be used as the regulatory guideline in the day-to-day operations for staff, and for use in the training of new personnel. It can also be used as a tool to educate citizens in the methods used by code enforcement, as well as the limits of code enforcement responsibilities and procedures. The purpose of the Manual is to document guidelines for the following: 1. Departmental requirements for employees in the Code Enforcement Unit. 2. Prioritization of code enforcement cases. 3. Complaint procedure and initiation of cases. 4. Investigation and enforcement of county codes. 5. Prosecutions and legal aspects of code enforcement. 6. Basic duties and procedures of code enforcement staff. Efforts are underway to ensure our limited resources are spent resolving "high priority" complaints/cases. A formal procedure is being tested that prioritizes and ranks complaints received by code enforcement officers. This system is intended to provide a fair and consistent means to rank complaints and/or open cases after a preliminary review is undertaken in accordance with the manual. Any complaint which does not meet the minimum required ranking is assigned a number and placed in a complaint file. The number is assigned sequentially based upon the month and year it is received. The complaint information is kept on a log page that is maintained at the front of the complaint file. In the event multiple complaints are received with regard to the violation, its numerical ranking may rise and cause a response from staff. Through proper management of current cases, our Code Enforcement Officers are regularly achieving voluntary compliance from violators. They have also begun a focused effort to reduce a case backlog that spans decades, and recently exceeded 2,200 open cases. The Officers have been reviewing old cases, starting frÖm the most -longstanding violations and moving towards present day. We have found some of these cases are duplicates, some were incorrectly closed, and others can be reviewed and closed with little investigative effort due to changes in ownership, etc. The focus and effort of our staff in this regard has allowed the Division to close almost 400 active cases, and reduce the total number of open cases down to approximately 1,840. Year Cases Closed (From Jan 1- May 8) 2013: 292 2012: 43 2011: 10 2010: 32 The Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVA) Program is in the process of being restarted. The City of Willits recently adopted its resolution adopting the service authority. We are circulating paperwork between the Cities for signatures, and will be submitting a completed packet to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) which will include a Joint Powers Agreement signed by the County, Ukiah, Willits, and Fort Bragg. Assuming the CHP approves the submittal, it will then be forwarded to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) where a program will be created to extract the one dollar tax from vehicles registered within the County. After the program is created, we will then be able to re- launch the program. Recognizing that abandoned, low value, trailers and recreational vehicles (RV's) 4 are an attractive nuisance that can create a "dumping ground" if left for too long, a temporary process has been setup to address these vehicles by abating pursuant to Chapter 15.28 of the Mendocino County Code. Code Enforcement staff organized a two-day regional training opportunity at the County Administration Center. Holding this training event in Ukiah brought staff to the area from the Cities of Sonoma, Cotati, Rohnert Park, and it lowered (or eliminated) travel expenses for staff participating from the City of Willits and County of Mendocino. Water Agency. and Stormwater Compliance Mendocino County was inspected for compliance with its Stom Water Management Program in May of 2012 by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) and Environmental Protection Agency. Three of the six "minimum control measures" outlined in the County's Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) were reviewed during the audit inspection, with comments provided on two additional minimum control measures reviewed post-inspection. The compliance inspection resulted in the notification of programs in need of improvement or attention. The County subsequently received a Notice of Violation letter, dated November 7, 2012, and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Compliance Inspection Report, dated August 27, 2012. PBS staff has reconvened the stormwater working group, which includes staff from DOT, GSA, and Environmental Health. The Department has also contracted with LACO & Associates, for technical support in meeting initial deadlines established in the County's response to the stormwater audit. The budgets submitted for PBS and the Water Agency allocate resources to continue bringing the County into compliance with the current permit and requirements of the new permit. A stormwater update is scheduled before the Board on June 18, which will request a decision as to whether the County should remain a Phase Il Permit holder, or switch to a Phase I Permit. Additional information will be available for that discussion, along with a recommendation from the Department. Planning & Building has identified an opportunity to better leverage the staffing and financial resources of the County and the Water Agency in meeting the needs of both entities. To this end, time from a Planner has been specifically allocated in FY 13-14 to continue leading the Stormwater Program, and we will be working to better integrate the County's Hydrologist position into the PBS staffing structure. Integration of the Hydrologist position is currently envisioned through a Planning Division Technical Services Unit which would include the Department's Cartographer, with both positions reporting to the Chief Planner. As outlined in a February 22, 2008 memo from Roland Sanford to the Board of Supervisors, the 2004 sediment release incident at the Mill Creek Dams resulted in specific tasks for completion by the County. On April 24, the Mendocino County Resource Conservation District agreed to conduct investigation on PBS' behalf to determine the current status of these tasks, and identify any outstanding issues. Numbering of items below is consistent with numbering used in the 2008 memo. 1. Obtain Streambed Alteration Agreement to allow for refilling of Upper reservoir. Status: completed. 2. Prepare and implement Stream Restoration Plan. Status: completed. On June 12, 2008, a "Feasibility Assessment of Restoration Options for Mill Creek" was completed by Entrix Environmental Associates. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) subsequently issued Order IB05127WNME for the repair/replacement of a failed gate valve at the base of the upper dam on Mill Creek, east of the City of Ukiah. At the time, the RWQCB indicated minor restoration work at the site would satisfy part of the compensatory mitigation and major compensatory mitigation was deferred and to be determined at a later date. On February l, 2012, Mendocino County DOT filed the application for water quality certification for the removal of the Feliz Creek dam. Condition #5 of WDID No. 1B 12012WNME indicates that the dam removal satisfies the compensatory mitigation requirements for the Mill Creek Dams' previous Order (IB05127WNVE). 3. Obtain Streambed Alteration Agreement for Long-Term Operations and 5 Maintenance of Mill Creek Dams. Status: in process. The County's Hydrologist has been tasked with completion of this item. 4. Select and Begin Implementation of Off-Site Fish Passage Improvement Projects. Status: substantially complete; waiting for written verification from CDFW. The Feliz Creek Dam was removed in September, 2012. Staff from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) indicate that upon completion of a five- year monitoring plan, all required mitigation per CDFW will be satisfied. This position was expressed by CDFW in 2011, and a letter to the County, memorializing the position, has been in process since March of this year. On the County's behalf, the MCRCD followed up with CDFW on March 6, and again on May 30. At this time, there is no firm commitment from CDFW as to when the letter will be sent. 5. Items 5, 6, and 7 from the 2008 memo are related to the long-term maintenance and management of the Mill Creek Dams. These items are addressed in the Department of Transportation Director's Report dated June 10. Planning Division The Department received and provided comment on the City of Ukiah's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the potential Costco development. The Department received and provided comment on the City of Ukiah's request to amend their Sphere of Inflüence (SOI) The Mendocino Town Plan Update (MTPU) was initiated by PBS in 2011. The update process included a series of community meetings to gather input, and the current draft was considered by the Planning Commission at meetings in the Town of Mendocino in February and May of this year. The public has been very engaged in providing comment, and discussion on the more controversial elements of the MTPU did occur among Commissioners. The MTPU is scheduled to be brought back to the Planning Commission July 1 Ith for further deliberation. After receiving Planning Commission recommendations on the MTPU, the Board of Supervisors will consider the Town Plan Update and take action on the revised Town Plan and Zoning Code amendments. The resulting Local Coastal Program Amendment will be submitted for certification to the Califomia Coastal Commission. Staff is meeting weekly to develop criteria for two new zoning districts; Mixed Use General (MU2) and Mixed Use North State Street (MUNS). Successful adoption of these zoning districts will represent partial implementation of Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP) direction and also facilitate compliance with the Housing Settlement Agreement. As specified in the UVAP, this effort will include development of Design Review Guidelines, established through Development Standards. Staff anticipates bringing this to the property owners in July, with an anticipated review by the Planning Commission in August. Compliance with both the County's Housing Element and the Housing Settlement Agreement requires 24 acres of land, preferably within the Ukiah Valley area, be rezoned to allow for higher density housing opportunities (specifically, R-3 or "Mixed Use"). To this end, the Board has completed the rezoning of 8 acres of land next to the Brush St. Triangle, and decided against rezoning land along Lovers Lane. PBS staff met with the community on February 20 to discuss opportunities for rezoning some portion of the remaining 16 acres of land along S. State St. to R3. This meeting was primarily attended by neighbors who were concerned about the increased development density this rezoning would allow. PBS staff is subsequently working to continue compliance by bringing a recommendation forward that would rezone to R-3 three acres of land on Laws Avenue which is zoned Rl, but developed with apartment complexes. The proposed rezone will be brought to the Planning Commission for consideration on July 1 8th. PBS staff has identified land along S. and N. State Streets which will allow the County to complete the outstanding requirement for rezoning through the Mixed Use zoning designation. These parcels will be brought forward for rezoning upon adoption of the Mixed Use ordinance. Staff has completed a draft update to the Planning Commission's "Guidelines for the Development of Wireless Facilities". On a separate but related project, and at the direction of the Planning Commission, staff has drafted language to be inserted into the zoning code, identifying a new permitting process for certain types of wireless facilities (i.e. collocation applications, adding antennas to existing structures.) At the June meeting of the Planning Commission, staff will request 6 establishment of an ad-hoc working group of Commissioners to review both the Guidelines and Zoning Code update, and to work with staffin moving these items forward. Depending on changes to be made, staff would either schedule another stakeholder meeting or take the items to the full Commission. The Director issued an unclassified use determination in January establishing that a small indoor green material composting facility is a type of General Industrial use, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. This determination was made in response to a new composting facility that C&S Waste Solutions proposes to establish in a pear packing plant building in south Ukiah. The determination was appealed to the Planning Commission, with a claim that all composting facilities should be classified as "Significant Impact Services and Uilities" uses. The Planning Commission upheld the Planning Director's determination. Two appeals of this determination were then made to the Board of Supervisors; a hearing is scheduled for June 10. Two coastal development permits involving State Agencies are scheduled for Coastal Permit Administrator (CPA) hearings in June. The first is a Ten Mile Dune Restoration project in MacKerricher State Park. States Parks will remove the deteriorated northern portion of the old haul road, which runs along the coast north of Fort Bragg and through the park, to help reestablish the dune ecology. The Coastal Commission and community are concerned this project may reduce public coastal access. The second project is a Caltrans Highway 1 repair project, north of Fort Bragg that will realign a short segment of the roadway. The Coastal Commission is concerned the repair may impact coastal wetland resources and agricultural land, and may appeal. Regulation of County mining operations in general required by both SMARA and the County Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance (County Code Chapter 22.16) is ongoing with annual inspection reports currently being prepared for the 2012 mining season. These will be submitted to OMR within the coming weeks. Annual inspections typically take place in the late Fall/early Winter months, and will be scheduled for later in the calendar year. In addition, cost estimates and updated financial assurance mechanisms, which are also required annually but submitted at different times throughout the year by individual operators, continue to be monitored by PBS staff for adequacy. In 2011 , the California Department of Conservation Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) conducted an audit of the County's administration of the State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) program. A report was prepared by OMR's Lead Agency Review Team (LART), and submitted to the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) in July 2012. Subsequent to a review of the LART report by SMGB, the County received a 45-Day Notice to Correct Deficiencies (Notice) (dated December 21, 2012). The types of issues raised in the Notice involved mines that had been classified as "idle" under SMARA without a required Interim Management Plan (IN(P) or operations that have gone more than one year without updating annual cost estimates and financial assurances. A response to the 45 Day Notice was prepared by Planning and Building staff in February 2013 addressing the issues raised in the notice, which is scheduled to be discussed before the SMGB at its regular monthly hearing on June 13, in Sacramento. The Director and a staff planner will attend the SMGB's June meeting. Temporary events with more than 1,000 attendees require a minor use permit. On May 17, the Zoning Administrator approved the Northern Nights Music Festival which is scheduled to occur July 19, 20, and 21 in Cooks Valley. This approval has been appealed to the Board, and will be heard on June 18. On May 29, the Zoning Administrator approved the Enchanted Forest Festival, which is scheduled to occur June 28 — July I in Navarro. The County General Plan Housing Element is scheduled for an update in 2014; this project will need to be prioritized for timely completion. The 2013 Regional House Needs Allocation data, released by the California Department of Housing and Community Development earlier this year, establishes the total number of housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth. These numbers are then used to calculate affordable housing targets for the County and the cities within the county for the 2014 Housing Element Update. The 2013 RHNA allocation for the entire county dropped dramatically since the 2008, reflecting the recession and the related slow-down in housing growth. As a result the County's total fair share of countywide housing fell from 2,552 in 2008 to 168 in 2014. Staff worked with the Mendocino County Council of Governments (MCOG) on the 2013 allocation process, and recommends that the allocation reflect the capacity ofjurisdictions within the County to provide services needed to support housing, and not simply be based on proportionate population.

April 17, 2025 — Continuity Report Continuity Report

16 pages 1 findings 23 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 1 findings

F1: The response from the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors to

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors ensures that all future responses to Grand Jury recommendations comply with California Penal Code § 933.05.

April 17, 2025 — Homelessness:

8 pages 3 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: At the time of this report, the Grand Jury has not received outcome results from the Care Response Unit that would verify the success of the program.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that verified results from the Care Response Unit program, both positive and negative, be reported to the City Council of Fort Bragg by December 2025. (F1)

F2: The Care Response Unit is an exemplary, well-established program that addresses the critical needs of the visible homeless population in the City of Fort Bragg.

F3: Mendocino County’s Community Outreach Response and Engagement program has the potential to become a broad, countywide program that will work well with the e stablished Care Response Unit.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends the Community Outreach Response and Engagement program developers continue to collaborate with the County Behavioral Health, Social Services, Sheriff’s Office and other County departments and program managers to work with the Care Response Unit. (F3)

June 24, 2024 — Mendocino Coast Health Care District Sick, but Returning to Health

30 pages 20 findings 18 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 20 findings

F1: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: The Board struggled with the basics of organizational management and a lack of any significant progress on achieving core district goals for several years. However, the Grand Jury found that beginning in 2024 they turned a corner and improvements are happening quickly. The Board is to be commended for these improvements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F2: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: All versions of the Bylaws found contained a section that stated, “At least three signed copies of the Bylaws shall be maintained on file in the District office and a current copy maintained on the district website. Each director shall be given a copy of the Board Bylaws and Policy Manual.” It was clear that Directors had neither received the Bylaws nor the Policy Manual.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Update Bylaws, vote for approval and document in minutes, sign, date, and post on the MCHCD website. Distribute to all Board Directors. Complete by: August 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4)

R3: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Update or create MCHCD Policies, including, but not limited to: IT and Security, Document Retention and Handling, Financial Record Keeping and Reporting, Board Administration, and Comity. Approve, sign, date, post on the website, and distribute to all Board Directors. Complete by: November 30, 2024. (F2, F5)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F3: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: It is unacceptable that a copy of the Bylaws, properly approved by Board vote, signed and dated by the Secretary, and documented in the minutes, could not be found.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Update Bylaws, vote for approval and document in minutes, sign, date, and post on the MCHCD website. Distribute to all Board Directors. Complete by: August 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F4: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: All the versions of the MCHCD Bylaws the Grand Jury viewed contained most of what is needed; however, the Bylaws still need work and do not meet the current role and structure of the District.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Update Bylaws, vote for approval and document in minutes, sign, date, and post on the MCHCD website. Distribute to all Board Directors. Complete by: August 31, 2024. (F2, F3, F4)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F5: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Without a usable Policies Manual, significant issues with finances, recordkeeping, comity, etc. hampered the Board from completing their duties to the public.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Update or create MCHCD Policies, including, but not limited to: IT and Security, Document Retention and Handling, Financial Record Keeping and Reporting, Board Administration, and Comity. Approve, sign, date, post on the website, and distribute to all Board Directors. Complete by: November 30, 2024. (F2, F5)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F6: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Some agendas and many meeting minutes were missing from the website and Board records. This delayed and could jeopardize the audits and, therefore, the retrofit project.

Related Recommendations (3)

R5: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Complete all tasks needed to enable auditors to complete audits for the last three years (this includes providing all missing minutes and agendas, approved, signed, and posted on the website). Complete by: November 31, 2024. (F6, F7)

R8: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Post minutes and agendas in a timely manner, and adhere to Brown Act requirements regarding agendas, and meetings. Complete by: August 1, 2024. (F6, F10) 19

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F7: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: There were no audits conducted for several years, placing the District in a precarious legal and financial position, and contributing to significant public distrust because of the lack of transparency.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Complete all tasks needed to enable auditors to complete audits for the last three years (this includes providing all missing minutes and agendas, approved, signed, and posted on the website). Complete by: November 31, 2024. (F6, F7)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F8: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: There are several versions of the Mission Statement on the website and in Board documentation. It’s not clear what the current approved Mission and Vision statements are, and none of them properly reflect the MCHCDs current role, hindering its ability to function cohesively.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Agree and vote upon the mission statement of MCHCD. Post it on the website and include it in the MCHCD Bylaws and in the Policies Manual. Complete by: October 31, 2024. (F8, F9)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F9: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: The Board has done little to educate and inform the public about the Board’s new role and mission since the affiliation with Adventist Health, causing confusion and contributing to mistrust in the public.

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Agree and vote upon the mission statement of MCHCD. Post it on the website and include it in the MCHCD Bylaws and in the Policies Manual. Complete by: October 31, 2024. (F8, F9)

R6: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Complete an educational campaign for the public to help them understand the Mission and scope of authority of MCHCD. Complete by: December 31, 2024. (F9)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F10: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Violations of Brown Act: Meeting agendas did not have an appropriate level of detail and attachments were missing. There were also concerns by the public that serial meetings between 17 some of the Board members were happening. There has been a clear effort by the Board in 2024 to address these issues and they are to be commended.

Related Recommendations (2)

R8: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Post minutes and agendas in a timely manner, and adhere to Brown Act requirements regarding agendas, and meetings. Complete by: August 1, 2024. (F6, F10) 19

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F11: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: The reinvention of MCHCD, post affiliation, and the significant and public financial and administrative issues with the District, along with the fact that an MSR has not been completed in 10 years, should have initiated a LAFCo MSR.

Related Recommendations (1)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F12: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: After two years of struggling to complete the volume of work required of them, the present Board voted 4-1 to hire or contract with an agency administrator (general manager), and contracted with a financial expert as a temporary CFO. This staff support has made clear improvements in progress toward the district goals.

Related Recommendations (2)

R9: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide adequate professional staffing (i.e., a full-time general manager, and part time admin and finance support) to support the Board. This could be accomplished using a consultant model, hiring support staff, or some combination of the two. Complete by: December 31, 2024. (F12)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F13: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: The budgets have no written guidelines that could be shared with the Grand Jury and there was a lack of clarity about use of funds.

Related Recommendations (2)

R12: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Define and vote on the guidelines for using funds from all budgets. Complete by: December 31, 2024. (F13)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F14: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: The Board has not proactively reached out to the general public in an open forum for their input and discussion regarding the public needs, the future of healthcare at the coast, or the role of the MCHCD.

Related Recommendations (3)

R7: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Initiate community outreach as outlined in Discussion to gain insight into public priorities and needs. Initiate by: December 31, 2024. (F14)

R13: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Create a public advisory committee of 10-20 members of the public as described in the Discussion section. Complete by: December 31, 2024. (F14)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F15: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: The Board has struggled to create from scratch what has already been successfully implemented in other health care districts.

Related Recommendations (2)

R14: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Review other health care district’s websites and open dialogue with other health care district boards and the CSDA regarding ideas for policies, bylaws, and best practices. Complete by: May 1, 2025. (F15)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F16: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: It is unacceptable that there is no Bylaws or Policy requirement to take AB1234 Brown Act and Ethics training, or official record that all Board directors had taken the required AB1234 training.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Include in MCHCD Bylaws or Policies a requirement that all Board members take a Brown Act and Ethics training that meets AB1234 requirements upon taking office, and post verification of completion on the website. Complete by: August 31, 2024. (F16)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F17: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: The public has continually expressed concerns with transparency and with the financial management capabilities of the Board.

Related Recommendations (2)

R10: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Take advantage of CSDA certification programs: (F17) A. Get CSDA Transparency Certificate of Excellence, and a District of Distinction Accreditation. Complete by: April 1, 2025. B. Encourage at least one member of the Board annually to get a Certificate of Special District Governance to serve as a resource for the Board. Complete by: Ongoing. C. If a permanent General Manager (Director) is hired, encourage them to get a Special District Essential Leadership Skills Certificate. Complete by: Ongoing.

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Incoming Board members are not expected to have the knowledge necessary to run a health care district, but little training or support is provided to bring them up to speed.

Related Recommendations (3)

R11: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Gather and provide training options to new Board members upon election or appointment, as outlined in Discussion. Complete by: Ongoing (F18)

R17: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Develop an onboarding process and manual that outlines the expectations of Board members (roles and responsibilities), requirements (such as Brown Act and Ethics), and resources available (such as training). Complete by: April 30, 2025. (F18) 20 The Grand Jury recommends that Mendocino LAFCo:

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F19: While due focus has been given to the retrofit, the Board does not have a comprehensive facilities plan and therefore have been more reactive than proactive in their maintenance responsibilities as a landlord.

Related Recommendations (2)

R15: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Clarify and develop the facilities plan before lease negotiations begin later this year. Complete by: before signing of new lease (F19)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

F20: The lack of a five-year strategic plan has contributed to public confusion regarding the role and mission of the MCHCD, and the lack of a clearly outlined future path has prevented the public from having faith that the Board is leading the district in the right direction. 18

Related Recommendations (2)

R16: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Develop a five-year MCHCD Strategic Plan. Complete by: April 30, 2025. (F20)

R18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the MCHCD Board: Provide a Municipal Service Review on MCHCD on a priority basis. Complete by December 2024 (F11) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding. • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Civil Grand Jury report. • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REQUIRED RESPONSES - Within 90 days MCHCD Board of Directors: (F1-F10, F12-F20) and (R1 - R17) Mendocino LAFCo: F11 and R18 Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Ann Moorman Mendocino County Superior Court 100 North State Street, Dept. E Ukiah CA 95482 21 Office of the County Counsel County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury County of Mendocino 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1030 Ukiah CA 95482 IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT CIVIL GRAND JURY

Accountability at the County

45 pages 25 findings 24 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 25 findings

F1: The HR Department has not had consistent qualified leadership for the last 25 years.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Explore ways to encourage longer tenure for the HR Director role, such as including a bonus clause in the contract for a time commitment, or other incentives to stay. (F1, F2,

F2: The constant turnover in the HR Director position prevents clear direction or policy objectives and obstructs any possibility of a long-term vision for the department.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Prioritize hiring an HR Director, and target hiring by the end of 2023. Candidates must have HR specific education and qualifications, and either HR Director or significant HR Department experience (preferably for a county or municipality). Job posting should be live by September 30, 2023. Use all resources including recruitment agencies to get qualified candidates. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17,

F3: The constant turnover in the HR Director position has led to staff confusion, inefficacy, discouragement, and job attrition within the HR department.

F4: The current interim HR director is commended for doing all she can to support the HR department’s day-to-day functionality. However, leading the department forward is beyond her capacity because her time is split between five County departments and multiple other duties.

F5: The HR department employees, particularly the four HR managers, are commended for keeping the HR Department functioning through years of transitory HR Directors (or the lack thereof). However, HR managers are unable to engage in long-term strategic planning or process improvement as their workdays are preoccupied with putting out daily fires and ensuring the basic functions of HR are completed.

F6: The challenges faced by the HR Department are likely to continue for the foreseeable future because the BOS and CEO have stopped recruiting a department director and have recently unfunded the position. Performance Management - Performance management strategies are underutilized by the County, and the current performance review process does not promote professional development of employees and does not promote accountability. Specifically:

F7: Performance assessments are based solely on a numeric rating scale, severely limiting opportunities for constructive feedback. The lack of supporting information prevents sufficient accountability or a useful record of employee performance.

Related Recommendations (3)

R6: Write procedural guidelines describing the updated Performance Management policy, including the recommended changes to the assessment process, as well as guidelines on implementing formal goal-setting and ongoing coaching check-ins during the year. Complete within 12 months of hiring an HR Director. (F7, F8, F11, F12)

R7: Update the performance assessment form before EOY 2023 to include open text boxes under appropriate ratings to require supporting details, relevant qualitative feedback, and examples that justify the rating for all employees. (F7)

R8: Update the performance assessment form before EOY 2023 to include additional sections where managers can list the goals and expectations of the past year that the employee is being assessed against, a summary and assessment of their completed work, the short and long-term objectives, and steps for improvement when necessary. (F7, F11, F12) 22

F8: There is no process within HR or most County departments to ensure that employee performance assessments are consistent and equitable across workgroups and organizations.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: Direct the department heads (for department level) and HR (at County level) to perform oversight/audit of performance assessments to ensure consistent, equitable, and standardized assessments across workgroups, and to assess and develop managers’ performance assessment skills. This should be conducted annually beginning EOY 2023. (F8, F11, F12)

R6: Write procedural guidelines describing the updated Performance Management policy, including the recommended changes to the assessment process, as well as guidelines on implementing formal goal-setting and ongoing coaching check-ins during the year. Complete within 12 months of hiring an HR Director. (F7, F8, F11, F12)

F9: HR is unable to consistently ensure all performance assessments are completed, completed on time, and submitted to HR for the records.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Reinforce that assessments are mandatory for all employees, all levels, even step 5. Assessments should be audited and tracked by HR across the organization to ensure all are completed. This should be completed by EOY 2023. (F9, F10)

F10: Once employees reach step 5 of the salary schedule, they often no longer receive performance assessments, which limits opportunities for growth and accountability for their work. 19

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Reinforce that assessments are mandatory for all employees, all levels, even step 5. Assessments should be audited and tracked by HR across the organization to ensure all are completed. This should be completed by EOY 2023. (F9, F10)

F11: Managers do not receive sufficient training from HR or departmental leadership on effective performance assessment strategies. Neither HR nor departmental leadership participate in supervisor assessments of lower-level employees to evaluate supervisor’s performance management and assessment skills.

Related Recommendations (5)

R4: Direct the department heads (for department level) and HR (at County level) to perform oversight/audit of performance assessments to ensure consistent, equitable, and standardized assessments across workgroups, and to assess and develop managers’ performance assessment skills. This should be conducted annually beginning EOY 2023. (F8, F11, F12)

R6: Write procedural guidelines describing the updated Performance Management policy, including the recommended changes to the assessment process, as well as guidelines on implementing formal goal-setting and ongoing coaching check-ins during the year. Complete within 12 months of hiring an HR Director. (F7, F8, F11, F12)

R8: Update the performance assessment form before EOY 2023 to include additional sections where managers can list the goals and expectations of the past year that the employee is being assessed against, a summary and assessment of their completed work, the short and long-term objectives, and steps for improvement when necessary. (F7, F11, F12) 22

R9: Develop follow-up training on effective performance management for all employees (manager and frontline). This training should take the basics learned in the current Vector Solutions training and connect them to each employee’s particular workplace and the County’s specific PM process. Training development should begin by EOY 2023 and should be implemented in 2024. (F11)

R10: Develop a formal process for managers to implement and track ongoing coaching sessions with their direct reports within six months of the HR Director’s hire date. (F11, F12) Address workplace culture issues to cultivate a positive working environment and reduce attrition. Specifically:

F12: The County PM process does not facilitate performance management strategies like SMART goal setting, continuous coaching, or 180- or 360-degree assessments. Workplace Culture - A fair and healthy workplace environment is critical to employee satisfaction, retention, and productivity. Workplace culture issues are significantly impairing the County’s functionality. Specifically:

Related Recommendations (5)

R4: Direct the department heads (for department level) and HR (at County level) to perform oversight/audit of performance assessments to ensure consistent, equitable, and standardized assessments across workgroups, and to assess and develop managers’ performance assessment skills. This should be conducted annually beginning EOY 2023. (F8, F11, F12)

R5: Implement 180-degree assessments and employee assessments of their supervisors within 12 months of the new HR Director’s hire date. (F12)

R6: Write procedural guidelines describing the updated Performance Management policy, including the recommended changes to the assessment process, as well as guidelines on implementing formal goal-setting and ongoing coaching check-ins during the year. Complete within 12 months of hiring an HR Director. (F7, F8, F11, F12)

R8: Update the performance assessment form before EOY 2023 to include additional sections where managers can list the goals and expectations of the past year that the employee is being assessed against, a summary and assessment of their completed work, the short and long-term objectives, and steps for improvement when necessary. (F7, F11, F12) 22

R10: Develop a formal process for managers to implement and track ongoing coaching sessions with their direct reports within six months of the HR Director’s hire date. (F11, F12) Address workplace culture issues to cultivate a positive working environment and reduce attrition. Specifically:

F13: Workplace culture issues are a significant concern among employees and these issues have led directly to attrition.

Related Recommendations (4)

R11: Look into the feasibility of creating an Ombuds program or similar by March 2024. Responsibilities of the Ombuds would initially include training of all management staff on the process of appropriate handling of reported issues, underlining program principles of impartiality, confidentiality, independence, and informality to build trust that those raising concerns are legally protected. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

R12: Authorize formal Ombuds training/certification (such as International Ombuds Association) for Ombuds at minimum, immediately following the creation of the Ombuds program. Ombuds may then train any other staff responsible for accepting or working on employee reports. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

R13: Communicate Ombuds program to all County employees underlining program principles of impartiality, confidentiality, independence, and informality to build trust that anyone raising concerns is legally protected. Complete within three months of program creation. (F13,

R15: Direct the Ombuds to document results of investigations of reported issues, as well as any action taken to address the issue. Ombuds and their leadership should regularly review and ensure that corrective actions taken are appropriate in scale and effectively remedy the issue. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

F14: Employees feel that County leadership has not done enough to address workplace culture issues in some departments.

Related Recommendations (4)

R11: Look into the feasibility of creating an Ombuds program or similar by March 2024. Responsibilities of the Ombuds would initially include training of all management staff on the process of appropriate handling of reported issues, underlining program principles of impartiality, confidentiality, independence, and informality to build trust that those raising concerns are legally protected. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

R12: Authorize formal Ombuds training/certification (such as International Ombuds Association) for Ombuds at minimum, immediately following the creation of the Ombuds program. Ombuds may then train any other staff responsible for accepting or working on employee reports. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

R14: Direct the Ombuds to track and trend reported issues and report to leadership every six months to identify issues that may be becoming widespread. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17,

R15: Direct the Ombuds to document results of investigations of reported issues, as well as any action taken to address the issue. Ombuds and their leadership should regularly review and ensure that corrective actions taken are appropriate in scale and effectively remedy the issue. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

F15: Employees do not trust the existing process for reporting harassment and discrimination.

Related Recommendations (4)

R11: Look into the feasibility of creating an Ombuds program or similar by March 2024. Responsibilities of the Ombuds would initially include training of all management staff on the process of appropriate handling of reported issues, underlining program principles of impartiality, confidentiality, independence, and informality to build trust that those raising concerns are legally protected. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

R12: Authorize formal Ombuds training/certification (such as International Ombuds Association) for Ombuds at minimum, immediately following the creation of the Ombuds program. Ombuds may then train any other staff responsible for accepting or working on employee reports. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

R15: Direct the Ombuds to document results of investigations of reported issues, as well as any action taken to address the issue. Ombuds and their leadership should regularly review and ensure that corrective actions taken are appropriate in scale and effectively remedy the issue. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

R16: Communicate in 2023, and annually thereafter, with all employees to improve the awareness and understanding of the current discrimination and harassment policy and reporting options. (F15) 23 Address staffing issues by reducing the time from application submission to hire notification, and the total time from job requisition approval to hire. Specifically:

F16: There is no formal protected process for employees to report other types of workplace culture issues, which contributes to limited reporting due to fear of retaliation

Related Recommendations (3)

R11: Look into the feasibility of creating an Ombuds program or similar by March 2024. Responsibilities of the Ombuds would initially include training of all management staff on the process of appropriate handling of reported issues, underlining program principles of impartiality, confidentiality, independence, and informality to build trust that those raising concerns are legally protected. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

R12: Authorize formal Ombuds training/certification (such as International Ombuds Association) for Ombuds at minimum, immediately following the creation of the Ombuds program. Ombuds may then train any other staff responsible for accepting or working on employee reports. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

R15: Direct the Ombuds to document results of investigations of reported issues, as well as any action taken to address the issue. Ombuds and their leadership should regularly review and ensure that corrective actions taken are appropriate in scale and effectively remedy the issue. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

F17: There is no formal process for employees to report other types of workplace culture issues, therefor employees state they do not report because they see no meaningful change as a result.

Related Recommendations (3)

R11: Look into the feasibility of creating an Ombuds program or similar by March 2024. Responsibilities of the Ombuds would initially include training of all management staff on the process of appropriate handling of reported issues, underlining program principles of impartiality, confidentiality, independence, and informality to build trust that those raising concerns are legally protected. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

R12: Authorize formal Ombuds training/certification (such as International Ombuds Association) for Ombuds at minimum, immediately following the creation of the Ombuds program. Ombuds may then train any other staff responsible for accepting or working on employee reports. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

R15: Direct the Ombuds to document results of investigations of reported issues, as well as any action taken to address the issue. Ombuds and their leadership should regularly review and ensure that corrective actions taken are appropriate in scale and effectively remedy the issue. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

F18: Workplace culture and management issues cause attrition across departments and reduce applicants for County jobs. Understaffing is an ongoing issue with ripple effects throughout the County. Many of these issues were reported in the 2013 GJ “Human Resources” report. Specifically:

Related Recommendations (3)

R11: Look into the feasibility of creating an Ombuds program or similar by March 2024. Responsibilities of the Ombuds would initially include training of all management staff on the process of appropriate handling of reported issues, underlining program principles of impartiality, confidentiality, independence, and informality to build trust that those raising concerns are legally protected. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

R12: Authorize formal Ombuds training/certification (such as International Ombuds Association) for Ombuds at minimum, immediately following the creation of the Ombuds program. Ombuds may then train any other staff responsible for accepting or working on employee reports. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

R15: Direct the Ombuds to document results of investigations of reported issues, as well as any action taken to address the issue. Ombuds and their leadership should regularly review and ensure that corrective actions taken are appropriate in scale and effectively remedy the issue. (F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18)

F19: Understaffing across departments has caused underperformance, slow progress, and service failures at the County.

Related Recommendations (4)

R17: Set timeline expectations and track the hiring timeline with a standardized report from year to year, and report on them at department level and to the HR Director. Key metrics should include: • Time elapsed between when job was requested by department and approved, and when job was posted for hire • Time elapsed between when listing is posted and when list of approved applicants is given to hiring manager • Time elapsed between when the hiring manager receives a list of eligible applicants and when job offer is extended (F19, F20, F21, F22)

R22: Reestablish the collapsed MCELT Recruitment and Retention team to review the prior team notes and progress, add their own recommendations, and combine those with the GJ’s recommendations to determine how best to enact the recommendations they select. Reform the team by October of 2023. (F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24, F25)

R23: Identify positions that are particularly difficult to find applicants for due to widespread state and national shortages (such as Social Services), and research ways to support local training and certification at both high school and college level, as well as with the Mendocino County Office of Education’s Institute of Career Education. (F19, F20, F23)

R24: Track vital staffing statistics such as job vacancy rates and turnover rates in the County and include those statistics in the public CEO report. (F19, F20, F21, F22, F23) 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. RESPONSES

F20: The County has a 27.5% vacancy rate overall, with some departments experiencing vacancy rates as high as 49%.

Related Recommendations (4)

R17: Set timeline expectations and track the hiring timeline with a standardized report from year to year, and report on them at department level and to the HR Director. Key metrics should include: • Time elapsed between when job was requested by department and approved, and when job was posted for hire • Time elapsed between when listing is posted and when list of approved applicants is given to hiring manager • Time elapsed between when the hiring manager receives a list of eligible applicants and when job offer is extended (F19, F20, F21, F22)

R22: Reestablish the collapsed MCELT Recruitment and Retention team to review the prior team notes and progress, add their own recommendations, and combine those with the GJ’s recommendations to determine how best to enact the recommendations they select. Reform the team by October of 2023. (F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24, F25)

R23: Identify positions that are particularly difficult to find applicants for due to widespread state and national shortages (such as Social Services), and research ways to support local training and certification at both high school and college level, as well as with the Mendocino County Office of Education’s Institute of Career Education. (F19, F20, F23)

R24: Track vital staffing statistics such as job vacancy rates and turnover rates in the County and include those statistics in the public CEO report. (F19, F20, F21, F22, F23) 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. RESPONSES

F21: The hiring process is reported to average 2-4 months before an applicant is notified of a job offer, sometimes up to 6 months, resulting in the loss of qualified applicants.

Related Recommendations (6)

R17: Set timeline expectations and track the hiring timeline with a standardized report from year to year, and report on them at department level and to the HR Director. Key metrics should include: • Time elapsed between when job was requested by department and approved, and when job was posted for hire • Time elapsed between when listing is posted and when list of approved applicants is given to hiring manager • Time elapsed between when the hiring manager receives a list of eligible applicants and when job offer is extended (F19, F20, F21, F22)

R18: Provide training for department hiring managers on effective and timely hiring and interviewing to reduce the time required to interview qualified candidates. (F21, F22)

R19: Follow-up with hiring managers if interviews have not been completed within the expected timeline of receiving the list of qualified candidates. If hiring managers fail to conduct interviews in a timely way, HR should escalate to department heads. (F21, F22)

R20: Collect data on why applicants decline job offers. This data should be reported to the HR Director every six months. If there is a trend in reasons for declining, this must be reported to the BOS and to the CEO. (F21, F22, F25)

R22: Reestablish the collapsed MCELT Recruitment and Retention team to review the prior team notes and progress, add their own recommendations, and combine those with the GJ’s recommendations to determine how best to enact the recommendations they select. Reform the team by October of 2023. (F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24, F25)

R24: Track vital staffing statistics such as job vacancy rates and turnover rates in the County and include those statistics in the public CEO report. (F19, F20, F21, F22, F23) 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. RESPONSES

F22: Hiring managers average over a month to interview the approximately 10 people on the list of qualified candidates received from HR. 20

Related Recommendations (6)

R17: Set timeline expectations and track the hiring timeline with a standardized report from year to year, and report on them at department level and to the HR Director. Key metrics should include: • Time elapsed between when job was requested by department and approved, and when job was posted for hire • Time elapsed between when listing is posted and when list of approved applicants is given to hiring manager • Time elapsed between when the hiring manager receives a list of eligible applicants and when job offer is extended (F19, F20, F21, F22)

R18: Provide training for department hiring managers on effective and timely hiring and interviewing to reduce the time required to interview qualified candidates. (F21, F22)

R19: Follow-up with hiring managers if interviews have not been completed within the expected timeline of receiving the list of qualified candidates. If hiring managers fail to conduct interviews in a timely way, HR should escalate to department heads. (F21, F22)

R20: Collect data on why applicants decline job offers. This data should be reported to the HR Director every six months. If there is a trend in reasons for declining, this must be reported to the BOS and to the CEO. (F21, F22, F25)

R22: Reestablish the collapsed MCELT Recruitment and Retention team to review the prior team notes and progress, add their own recommendations, and combine those with the GJ’s recommendations to determine how best to enact the recommendations they select. Reform the team by October of 2023. (F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24, F25)

R24: Track vital staffing statistics such as job vacancy rates and turnover rates in the County and include those statistics in the public CEO report. (F19, F20, F21, F22, F23) 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. RESPONSES

F23: The County is experiencing major challenges retaining employees. Average turnover rate in the County was 30.6% in 2022, with turnover among some job classifications up to 120% in a year.

Related Recommendations (4)

R21: Assign a relocation support person for new employees within six months of publication of this report. Similar to a “concierge” type concept, they will help new employees adapt to, get connected with, and settled into our County. (F23, F24)

R22: Reestablish the collapsed MCELT Recruitment and Retention team to review the prior team notes and progress, add their own recommendations, and combine those with the GJ’s recommendations to determine how best to enact the recommendations they select. Reform the team by October of 2023. (F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24, F25)

R23: Identify positions that are particularly difficult to find applicants for due to widespread state and national shortages (such as Social Services), and research ways to support local training and certification at both high school and college level, as well as with the Mendocino County Office of Education’s Institute of Career Education. (F19, F20, F23)

R24: Track vital staffing statistics such as job vacancy rates and turnover rates in the County and include those statistics in the public CEO report. (F19, F20, F21, F22, F23) 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. RESPONSES

F24: Understaffing issues have been exacerbated by the instability within HR. Consistent turnover in HR leadership has impaired HR’s ability to effectively handle recruitment and on-boarding duties for other County departments.

Related Recommendations (2)

R21: Assign a relocation support person for new employees within six months of publication of this report. Similar to a “concierge” type concept, they will help new employees adapt to, get connected with, and settled into our County. (F23, F24)

R22: Reestablish the collapsed MCELT Recruitment and Retention team to review the prior team notes and progress, add their own recommendations, and combine those with the GJ’s recommendations to determine how best to enact the recommendations they select. Reform the team by October of 2023. (F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24, F25)

F25: The County as an employer has suffered due to the workplace culture, which makes the County less attractive to potential applicants. 21

Related Recommendations (2)

R20: Collect data on why applicants decline job offers. This data should be reported to the HR Director every six months. If there is a trend in reasons for declining, this must be reported to the BOS and to the CEO. (F21, F22, F25)

R22: Reestablish the collapsed MCELT Recruitment and Retention team to review the prior team notes and progress, add their own recommendations, and combine those with the GJ’s recommendations to determine how best to enact the recommendations they select. Reform the team by October of 2023. (F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24, F25)

Creative Approach to Improve Quality of Care for Family and Children’s Services

10 pages 7 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: FCS is chronically understaffed and struggles to fulfill its responsibilities in an effective manner.

F2: Due to the lack of an effective hiring process, FCS and HR have difficulty in the timely recruiting of staff.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: FCS management implement a more effective recruiting program as soon as possible. (F1,

F3: FCS staff is consistently challenged to complete required tasks in a timely manner.

F4: FCS is experiencing significant staff turnover. This results in management not having adequate time to manage, mentor, train, and coach their employees effectively.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: FCS management make substantial efforts to retain existing staff. (F4, F5, F6)

R3: FCS create internships. (F4, F6, F7)

F5: Retention of existing FCS staff is a critical need that requires attention. If understaffing is not corrected, the functioning of FCS will be further impaired.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: FCS management make substantial efforts to retain existing staff. (F4, F5, F6)

R4: FCS continue to develop and encourage a positive workplace environment. (F1, F5, F6,

F6: There is a positive trend in recent FCS recruitment and hiring success.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: FCS management make substantial efforts to retain existing staff. (F4, F5, F6)

R3: FCS create internships. (F4, F6, F7)

F7: FCS staff have positive attitudes, job dedication, and commitment to their clients.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: FCS create internships. (F4, F6, F7)

Final Report 07/10/2022 Mendocino County Grand Jury 2021-2022 The Mendocino Unified School District Special Education

8 pages 10 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: The SELPA cost pools used to defray legal costs effectively hold school districts harmless because unbudgeted legal costs are back-filled from these SELPA carve- offs.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the SELPA shall analyze its legal fee cost-pool policy to make sure that it is not inadvertently causing districts to exercise policies and practices not in accordance with state or federal laws, or best academic practices. (F1-F3)

R2: the SELPA shall annually track trends, identify strategies and challenges, and develop a plan to identify school districts with extraordinary legal settlement carve-offs. Those districts shall then receive extra SELPA training, attention, and support to decrease the need for legal actions of any kind related to special education. (F1-F3)

F2: The GJ could find no evidence that the policies and procedures of the SELPA effectively monitor or analyze how well their legal settlement cost pool policies positively or negatively affect the learning outcomes of the students in our county school districts.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the SELPA shall analyze its legal fee cost-pool policy to make sure that it is not inadvertently causing districts to exercise policies and practices not in accordance with state or federal laws, or best academic practices. (F1-F3)

R2: the SELPA shall annually track trends, identify strategies and challenges, and develop a plan to identify school districts with extraordinary legal settlement carve-offs. Those districts shall then receive extra SELPA training, attention, and support to decrease the need for legal actions of any kind related to special education. (F1-F3)

F3: The SELPA governing board pays attention to budgets but there are no apparent professional repercussions or consequences for school district superintendents who overuse SELPA legal fee cost-pool set aside funds.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the SELPA shall analyze its legal fee cost-pool policy to make sure that it is not inadvertently causing districts to exercise policies and practices not in accordance with state or federal laws, or best academic practices. (F1-F3)

R2: the SELPA shall annually track trends, identify strategies and challenges, and develop a plan to identify school districts with extraordinary legal settlement carve-offs. Those districts shall then receive extra SELPA training, attention, and support to decrease the need for legal actions of any kind related to special education. (F1-F3)

F4: There is no CAC parental representative on the SELPA Governing Board, as required in the SELPA bylaws. The SELPA has failed to fill this vital role for the past two years.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: the SELPA shall immediately offer a per diem, mileage reimbursements and health benefits to an eligible CAC parent to fill the vacant parent position on the SELPA governing board. (F4)

F5: The MUSD parents had to seek and pay for their students’ special education evaluations and accommodations and then sue the district to force compliance with federal special education law. The MUSD paid $55,576 in reimbursement, travel, professional consultant, and legal fees from January 2021 to June 2022 to satisfy settlement agreements. The $55,576 was paid out of the MUSD general fund which reduced the funds available for general education.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: the MUSD shall present a plan in the first quarter of the 2022-23 school year that uses the $40,000 annual revenues earmarked for professional development for the next five years to reduce the number of parent legal actions to zero and provide training for all staff, administrators and district trustees that improve all practices, including campuswide harassment, related to the delivery of special education services to all applicable students. Administrators and Trustees shall train with a focus on special education legal requirements, budget implications and the importance of early educational interventions. (F5-F8)

R6: the MUSD shall develop a more transparent budget by the 2023-24 school year which clearly outlines special education service costs, legal costs defrayed by SELPA, unbudgeted legal costs that encroach on the district’s general fund, and staff development costs associated with special education training. The Superintendent shall make an annual report to the Board of Trustees on these associated special education budget items. (F5-

F6: The IEP provides early interventions and are key to long term educational success and social-emotional development, and yet MUSD’s IEP practices were indefensible in the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: the MUSD shall present a plan in the first quarter of the 2022-23 school year that uses the $40,000 annual revenues earmarked for professional development for the next five years to reduce the number of parent legal actions to zero and provide training for all staff, administrators and district trustees that improve all practices, including campuswide harassment, related to the delivery of special education services to all applicable students. Administrators and Trustees shall train with a focus on special education legal requirements, budget implications and the importance of early educational interventions. (F5-F8)

F7: The MUSD does not adequately inform parents of the availability of diagnostic methods such as the free North Coast Diagnostic Center clinical service, that are available to all students at the parents’ request.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: the MUSD shall present a plan in the first quarter of the 2022-23 school year that uses the $40,000 annual revenues earmarked for professional development for the next five years to reduce the number of parent legal actions to zero and provide training for all staff, administrators and district trustees that improve all practices, including campuswide harassment, related to the delivery of special education services to all applicable students. Administrators and Trustees shall train with a focus on special education legal requirements, budget implications and the importance of early educational interventions. (F5-F8)

R5: the MUSD shall make a more concerted effort to help parents understand their parental rights by holding local monthly parent CAC meetings via zoom and in person, on the topics related to special education rights and support systems for families. (F7)

F8: Neither the MUSD Principal nor the Superintendent demonstrated any deep understanding, knowledge, or perceived concern of the ramifications of special education classroom delivery or the legal cost encroachments to the district budget.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: the MUSD shall present a plan in the first quarter of the 2022-23 school year that uses the $40,000 annual revenues earmarked for professional development for the next five years to reduce the number of parent legal actions to zero and provide training for all staff, administrators and district trustees that improve all practices, including campuswide harassment, related to the delivery of special education services to all applicable students. Administrators and Trustees shall train with a focus on special education legal requirements, budget implications and the importance of early educational interventions. (F5-F8)

F9: When there is a settlement for violation of the IEP contract there is no public reporting mechanism so that the residents of the school district could easily discern the level of SpEd compliance at the school district, or the actual associated legal costs to the taxpayers.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: the MUSD shall develop a more transparent budget by the 2023-24 school year which clearly outlines special education service costs, legal costs defrayed by SELPA, unbudgeted legal costs that encroach on the district’s general fund, and staff development costs associated with special education training. The Superintendent shall make an annual report to the Board of Trustees on these associated special education budget items. (F5-

F10: Confidential settlement agreements contain non-disclosure clauses and make it very difficult to trace legal costs in the school district budget. The MUSD managers state that the reason for obscure budget line items is due to the legal requirement to maintain the family's rights to confidentiality. These line items could be shown in the school district budget with names redacted. Due to use of NDAs the GJ could not ascertain whether or not similar problems existed in other school districts in this county.

Redwood Valley County Water District

11 pages 8 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: The consolidation of local water agencies is the logical first step in not only securing water availability for the RVCWD’s residents and businesses, but for the entirety of the Ukiah basin. The GJ agrees with the 2003, 2008 and 2010 GJ reports and the consolidation

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the RVCWD immediately pursue all avenues towards consolidation with local water districts to obtain secure access to sufficient water rights to meet the health and safety needs of the RVCWD domestic, commercial, and agricultural customers. (F1-F3, F5)

R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) 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.

F2: The RVCWD Boards have failed in efforts to annex Russian River Flood Control. The initial short-sighted decision by Redwood Valley voters in January 1956 to not participate in the Coyote Valley Dam project and gain access to subsequent RRFCD water right contracts has continued to plague residents in the RVCWD, as attempts to secure water rights have never come to fruition.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: the RVCWD immediately pursue all avenues towards consolidation with local water districts to obtain secure access to sufficient water rights to meet the health and safety needs of the RVCWD domestic, commercial, and agricultural customers. (F1-F3, F5)

R2: the RVCWD shall agendize fiscal and water rights progress at their regular meetings. (F1-

R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) 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.

F3: It is in the best interest of Redwood Valley residents for the current RVCWD Board to support all efforts to voluntarily consolidate rather than for the State of California to implement SB 88 proceedings.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the RVCWD immediately pursue all avenues towards consolidation with local water districts to obtain secure access to sufficient water rights to meet the health and safety needs of the RVCWD domestic, commercial, and agricultural customers. (F1-F3, F5)

R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) 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.

F4: The $6.85 million principal balance in Federal Bureau of Reclamation Small Project Act loans remains a burden to the RVCWD, limiting access to available funding sources for infrastructure, maintenance, and upgrades.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: within 90 days, the RVCWD engage in negotiations with the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation to pursue partial or full loan forgiveness and/or develop a repayment plan. (F4)

R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) 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.

F5: Lack of water to supply agricultural customers has eliminated 23 percent of the RVCWD’s annual revenue. Having not received agricultural water for almost two years, agricultural customers are asking to have their meters removed, putting an additional $100,000 in meter revenues at risk. Consequently, vineyard production is reduced, district revenues are reduced, and some vineyard viability is put in jeopardy.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the RVCWD immediately pursue all avenues towards consolidation with local water districts to obtain secure access to sufficient water rights to meet the health and safety needs of the RVCWD domestic, commercial, and agricultural customers. (F1-F3, F5)

R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) 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.

F6: The BOS failed their fiduciary duty to fill the vacant seat on the RVCWD Board when the special district was unable to do so themselves.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) 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.

F7: Stakeholder apathy is not unique to RVCWD. Many special districts within Mendocino County struggle to generate interest in district stability and financial health. The GJ noted a lack of attendance at the RVCWD meetings and an apparent lack of concern over water rate hikes or daily water use limits.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: the RVCWD shall find ways to engage their stakeholders in water security. (F7)

R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) 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.

F8: The Mendocino County Water Agency (MCWA) is being reestablished for oversight of all water issues within the County. The MCWA would be the logical entity to bring forward monthly reports to the BOS to ensure RVCWD water security and the federal loan debt remain visible on the BOS legislative calendar.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: the District 1 member to the BOS monitor and report on the current negotiations toward consolidation of water districts in the upper Russian River watershed on a quarterly basis. (F8)

R6: the BOS establish monthly agendized reporting mechanisms to receive regular MCWA progress reports, with a focus on the RVCWD crisis. (F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following boards: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1, F4, F6, F8) and (R1, R3, R5, R6) Redwood Valley Water District Board (F1-5, F7) and (R1-4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: California State Senator, District 2, (All Findings) and (All Recommendations) 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.

County Programs of Last Resort: Public Administrator, Public Conservator and Public Guardian

6 pages 6 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: The GJ was concerned that no training manual is available regarding conservatorship proceedings. New staff are therefore reliant upon senior staff in SSD for their training.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the BHD and SSD establish and regularly update their Policy and Procedure Manuals for these programs. (F1)

R3: the information regarding the three programs and their general fund costs be transparent and available to the public by inclusion in quarterly departmental reports to the BOS. (F4-F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (F3-6) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individuals: Director of Behavioral Health (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Director of Social Services (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) 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.

F2: Due to the lack of a local psychiatric hospital and few nursing homes, patients are often placed far from their families resulting in lack of family support .

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: the BHD and SSD ensure family members are informed of the status of family members in out-of-county facilities on a quarterly basis. (F2, F3)

R3: the information regarding the three programs and their general fund costs be transparent and available to the public by inclusion in quarterly departmental reports to the BOS. (F4-F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (F3-6) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individuals: Director of Behavioral Health (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Director of Social Services (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) 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.

F3: When the status and conditions of all individuals are not shared with family members regularly, families become concerned about patients’ welfare, especially if the patient is placed out-of-the area.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: the BHD and SSD ensure family members are informed of the status of family members in out-of-county facilities on a quarterly basis. (F2, F3)

R3: the information regarding the three programs and their general fund costs be transparent and available to the public by inclusion in quarterly departmental reports to the BOS. (F4-F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (F3-6) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individuals: Director of Behavioral Health (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Director of Social Services (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) 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.

F4: The County is responsible to cover the costs of settling estates of those citizens that die without wills or relatives. The State assumes the remainder of assets with the County receiving only a small portion of the value of an estate. Most cases have minimal assets and the costs to the County are considerable.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: the information regarding the three programs and their general fund costs be transparent and available to the public by inclusion in quarterly departmental reports to the BOS. (F4-F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (F3-6) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individuals: Director of Behavioral Health (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Director of Social Services (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) 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.

F5: There are County general fund costs in all three programs. These costs appear to be mostly unknown to County taxpayers.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: the information regarding the three programs and their general fund costs be transparent and available to the public by inclusion in quarterly departmental reports to the BOS. (F4-F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (F3-6) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individuals: Director of Behavioral Health (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Director of Social Services (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) 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.

F6: The high costs of hospitalizations for 5150 clients to the County justifies re- establishing a PHF with Measure B funds.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: the information regarding the three programs and their general fund costs be transparent and available to the public by inclusion in quarterly departmental reports to the BOS. (F4-F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (F3-6) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individuals: Director of Behavioral Health (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) Director of Social Services (F1-F3) and (R1, R2) 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.

The Mendocino County Cannabis Equity Grant Program

13 pages 5 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: There was no process developed for the distribution of grant funds to individuals prior to applications being received. This has resulted in extended delays at every step from eligibility to application to communication to contract generation. This continues to prevent timely funds distribution to approved LEEP applicants.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: the BOS initiate a standing committee on cannabis including, but not limited to, consideration of LEEP progress updates, issues and challenges, and encouraging community input. The Grand Jury notes while all businesses are not equity applicants, these issues may be relevant as future grants (e.g., LJAG grants), become available. (F1- F5)

R2: the County promptly identify the issues which may be impeding the distribution of current direct grant funds by the August 2022 deadline and implement a plan for addressing those delays so that the potential loss of current and future grant funds can be avoided. (F1 - F3, F5) 3 Appendix C

R3: the County provide detailed instructions to future applicants for the CEG program regarding potential permit issues and record-keeping requirements (such as an expectation that applicants manage their cash flows and keep appropriate records), to facilitate the presentation of properly submitted applications and to ensure the use of funds are properly tracked. (F1 - F3)

F2: The county did not ask the state for requirements on record keeping for LEEP grant recipients until May 2022 and apparently did so only to establish the county’s risk of having to repay funds if they were not spent for approved purposes. Applications ready for final approval are being held up by County Counsel. The requirements3 do not appear to be onerous as they are quite similar to those previously communicated requirements. However, records which must be provided to the state may still cause even more information requests before final Cobblestone approval and should have been sought much earlier in the process.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: the BOS initiate a standing committee on cannabis including, but not limited to, consideration of LEEP progress updates, issues and challenges, and encouraging community input. The Grand Jury notes while all businesses are not equity applicants, these issues may be relevant as future grants (e.g., LJAG grants), become available. (F1- F5)

R2: the County promptly identify the issues which may be impeding the distribution of current direct grant funds by the August 2022 deadline and implement a plan for addressing those delays so that the potential loss of current and future grant funds can be avoided. (F1 - F3, F5) 3 Appendix C

R3: the County provide detailed instructions to future applicants for the CEG program regarding potential permit issues and record-keeping requirements (such as an expectation that applicants manage their cash flows and keep appropriate records), to facilitate the presentation of properly submitted applications and to ensure the use of funds are properly tracked. (F1 - F3)

F3: The MCD has not been adequately staffed or resourced to enable the timely processing of LEEP equity grants including communication with applicants. Inadequate MCD staffing continues with 10 vacant positions reported in May 2022 and only 12 current employees.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: the BOS initiate a standing committee on cannabis including, but not limited to, consideration of LEEP progress updates, issues and challenges, and encouraging community input. The Grand Jury notes while all businesses are not equity applicants, these issues may be relevant as future grants (e.g., LJAG grants), become available. (F1- F5)

R2: the County promptly identify the issues which may be impeding the distribution of current direct grant funds by the August 2022 deadline and implement a plan for addressing those delays so that the potential loss of current and future grant funds can be avoided. (F1 - F3, F5) 3 Appendix C

R3: the County provide detailed instructions to future applicants for the CEG program regarding potential permit issues and record-keeping requirements (such as an expectation that applicants manage their cash flows and keep appropriate records), to facilitate the presentation of properly submitted applications and to ensure the use of funds are properly tracked. (F1 - F3)

F4: The contractor chosen to implement the grants, Elevate Impact, has worked primarily in urban areas and lacks the capital project expertise needed to support and escalate the speed of LEEP grant distributions.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the BOS initiate a standing committee on cannabis including, but not limited to, consideration of LEEP progress updates, issues and challenges, and encouraging community input. The Grand Jury notes while all businesses are not equity applicants, these issues may be relevant as future grants (e.g., LJAG grants), become available. (F1- F5)

R4: the County offer a business plan creation and general business training to applicants as part of Direct Technical Assistance prior to application submission. Possible funding sources for such training could be investigated from existing resources, such as the grant funds allocated for Direct Technical Assistance. (F1 -

F5: The LEEP applications are delayed until a qualified planner can review the application. Qualified planners hesitate to work in the cannabis industry.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the BOS initiate a standing committee on cannabis including, but not limited to, consideration of LEEP progress updates, issues and challenges, and encouraging community input. The Grand Jury notes while all businesses are not equity applicants, these issues may be relevant as future grants (e.g., LJAG grants), become available. (F1- F5)

R2: the County promptly identify the issues which may be impeding the distribution of current direct grant funds by the August 2022 deadline and implement a plan for addressing those delays so that the potential loss of current and future grant funds can be avoided. (F1 - F3, F5) 3 Appendix C

Homelessness in Mendocino County is a Community Concern August 16, 2021

6 pages 7 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: The Mendocino County COC website is outdated and there is no single point of contact, such as an 800 number, for those in need of homeless services.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: the COC update its website, expand information dissemination, and develop a toll-free number to address homeless questions and issues by January 3, 2022. (F1)

F2: The COC is limited to coordinating funds to locally available services which can result in service gaps for the homeless.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: the COC, through local partnerships, place a high priority on addressing the hygiene needs of the homeless within 90 days of the release of this report. (F2)

R5: the COC work with local elected officials to identify and develop a Homeless Housing element by July 1, 2022. (F2, F7)

F3: The breadth of locally available services does not have or require written policies and procedures to monitor the level of service being provided for the homeless which results in service outcomes for the homeless not being measured.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: the COC develop clarity of responsibility for the issuance of funds and a process to evaluate the qualitative merits of a grant application by January 3, 2022. (F3)

F4: Gaps in the Homeless Services System of Care, such as coordinated, collaborative response teams of service providers and law enforcement, are filled by law enforcement agencies that are resource-limited and have unfilled liaison positions for effective Community Policing.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: City of Ukiah's City Council and the COC evaluate standards for partnership with HHSA and Law Enforcement within 180 days of the release of this report. (F4, F6)

F5: The COC has a quantitative rating system to grade service provider applicants. The rating tool does not evaluate prior objectives of an applicant to determine a history of successful outcomes. There is no rating system for similar services funded separately through County Health and Human Services.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: the COC develop clarity of responsibility for the grant applicants that require the agencies to identify specific goals and objectives for the grant funding period by November 30, 2021. These submittals will provide a baseline rating system for the COC to determine if the applicant can provide the identified goals and objectives prior to the issuance of funds in the next grant cycle. (F5)

F6: Law Enforcement agencies are represented on the COC by the UPD. With the absence of Federal guidance on how to coordinate police with program services, there is a collaboration gap between providers and government agencies that requires creative local solutions to establish protocols, and define clear roles for service providers and agencies, to foster working relationships.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: City of Ukiah's City Council and the COC evaluate standards for partnership with HHSA and Law Enforcement within 180 days of the release of this report. (F4, F6)

F7: The majority of members on the COC are employees of other agencies and struggle to address the level of service needed locally without policy guidance from the Board of Supervisors, City elected officials, or other assigned staff.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: the COC work with local elected officials to identify and develop a Homeless Housing element by July 1, 2022. (F2, F7)

R7: County and local elected officials prioritize the development of specific objectives that meet the homeless issues identified in the Strategic Plan within 180 days of the release of this report. (F7)

Mendocino County’s Distance Learning:

16 pages 7 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Students who failed to master core academic subjects or benefit from electives will require remedial classes to bring them up to their class level because of the year lost from the effects of DL.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: MCOE guide all schools in the County to develop and implement action plans to assess and remediate failed academic subjects. (F1)

F2: Maltreatment of children has been underreported during COVID. Data supplied by HHSA- CPS revealed a sharp decrease in reported cases of abuse due to educators having reduced visibility of the subtle signs of abuse or neglect, restrictions on home visits and interaction with students.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: MCOE develop or obtain interactive online training available 24/7 to mandated reporters of child maltreatment and expand training to include depression, cyberbullying, suicidal warning signs and sex trafficking. (F2, F3)

R3: MCOE allow mandated reporters to train on their own schedules which would provide flexibility of scheduling and cost savings. Interactive training would track attendance and comprehension as verified by online testing and provide certification upon successful completion. (F2, F3)

F3: During DL travel time and transportation costs were reduced for meetings among colleagues from distant school districts improving cross communication and sharing of ideas and approaches. Additionally. parents could more readily attend conferences with teachers using teleconferencing.

Related Recommendations (4)

R2: MCOE develop or obtain interactive online training available 24/7 to mandated reporters of child maltreatment and expand training to include depression, cyberbullying, suicidal warning signs and sex trafficking. (F2, F3)

R3: MCOE allow mandated reporters to train on their own schedules which would provide flexibility of scheduling and cost savings. Interactive training would track attendance and comprehension as verified by online testing and provide certification upon successful completion. (F2, F3)

R5: MCOE encourage all Districts to continue use of video conferencing among peer educators to collaborate and develop best practices and provide needed funding. (F3)

R6: MCOE encourage all school districts provide technologies to permit remote instruction of students due to illness or other conditions. (F3, F5)

F4: Some students accessed inappropriate content due to deficient filters monitoring internet searches and websites on computers used by students at home.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: MCOE prepare recommendations for schools to implement internet search filters to identify and block searches of inappropriate content. This may include guidance for parents in how to filter online searches by students during remote learning. (F4)

F5: DL enables students who might otherwise be unable to attend school the ability to continue studies with their teacher and classmates.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: MCOE encourage all school districts provide technologies to permit remote instruction of students due to illness or other conditions. (F3, F5)

F6: Asynchronous DL enables students who are self-motivated and can study independently to advance at their own pace. For example, using tools like Khan Academy to provide professional instruction of subjects.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: MCOE develop a catalogue with funding and accreditation mechanisms of third party or internally developed learning materials for specialized or core subjects. This would facilitate students who can study and advance at their own pace. (F6)

F7: California's E-rate and CTF grant programs provide discounted broadband services for students which otherwise might not have been available.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: MCOE work with all school districts to explore if they are eligible for E-Rate or CTF grants to provide broadband and telecommunications services to their underserved students. (F7)

📋Mendocino County’s Trailing Information Technology July 16, 2021

25 pages 13 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

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)

Meeting Mendocino County’s Needs for Housing Requires Coordination and Planning July 16, 2021

6 pages 11 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: The areas around cities have the best developed sewer and water systems for new housing in Mendocino County. Rural areas of the County do not have adequate public infrastructure and amenities to meet HCD projections. (R1, R3) 5 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-funding/homekey.shtml 6 August 5, 2020 | Ukiah Daily Journal

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: by January 1, 2022, County Administration provide direction to PBS to establish periodic meetings to work cooperatively with cities, infrastructure oriented special districts, and Tribal governments on meeting the needs established in the Housing Element. (F1, F7)

R3: by FY 2022-23 County Administrators organize a coalition with cities to establish a framework for annexations through tax-sharing agreements. (F1, F9)

F2: Due to COVID-19 restrictions, PBS has developed more efficient digital options for routine matters which has created a more streamlined process to free PBS to pursue new opportunities for solving departmental issues and verifying State regulations and statistics.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: PBS continue the development of digital systems to deal with routine applications so there is more time for researching innovative ways to plan for economic and housing development. (F2)

F3: MCOG is designated by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development to coordinate the housing need allocation process for Mendocino County. By default, this has become the regional planning agency.

F4: Lack of housing forces the price of existing housing to be unaffordable for working families as well as preventing new potential employees to choose to work in Mendocino County.

F5: The Median income of county residents and the higher cost of goods and services does not keep pace with the cost of new single-family homes, which discourages contractors from building here when they can profit from building in other areas.

F6: The current shortage of affordable housing will continue without Mendocino County hiring qualified housing and community development planners. Such assets would assist in locating funding sources for infrastructure improvements, attracting appropriate developers, and informing the BOS what effect proposed regulations may have on the development of new housing. (R6)

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: by December 1, 2021, the BOS direct PBS to set-up the Mendocino County Building In- Lieu Fund as a Building Trust Fund and report back to the BOS before the end of fiscal year 21-22. (F6, F9)

F7: There is no formal or consistent communication between PBS and its counterparts in the cities of Fort Bragg, Point Arena, Ukiah and Willits which is indicative of the lack of planning on a regional basis in this County.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: by January 1, 2022, County Administration provide direction to PBS to establish periodic meetings to work cooperatively with cities, infrastructure oriented special districts, and Tribal governments on meeting the needs established in the Housing Element. (F1, F7)

R2: by January 1, 2022, PBS host bi-monthly meetings with all housing development entities including the four incorporated cities to monitor progress of goals in the Housing Element. (F7)

F8: The prohibitive cost of new construction and limited income of most area residents makes new market-rate projects risky for builders.

F9: The activation of a Mendocino County Building Trust Fund (In-Lieu fund) would give Mendocino County leverage in encouraging proactive development to meet the county’s needs for infrastructure and housing projects.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: by FY 2022-23 County Administrators organize a coalition with cities to establish a framework for annexations through tax-sharing agreements. (F1, F9)

R6: by December 1, 2021, the BOS direct PBS to set-up the Mendocino County Building In- Lieu Fund as a Building Trust Fund and report back to the BOS before the end of fiscal year 21-22. (F6, F9)

F10: Federal and State funding is targeted to urban areas and the BOS does not direct PBS to actively seek mitigations on these restrictions to acquire funding for housing projects when State & Federal funds become available.

F11: As a result of restrictions on the use of local budget monies, Mendocino County’s Native American Tribes may only be invited to the table when discretionary funds for housing are available through Federal sources.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: by FY 2022-23 the BOS establish a framework to enact Policy 4.3b of USC, which encourages the development of additional housing for Native Americans. This will help the County to meet their obligation under State law to provide housing, including for special communities by 2027. (F11)

📋Mcrpd Lost Almost Three Million Dollars in Grant Funds from the State of California June 28, 2021

9 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

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)

“all Mail-in Balloting” in Mendocino County’s General Election Was My Vote Counted?

9 pages 8 findings 7 recommendations

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)

Continuity Report

8 pages 2 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

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.

The Orr Street Bridge - Twelve Years of Delay July 16, 2020

10 pages 10 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: The extension of Orchard Avenue to Brush Street relieved the traffic and made it possible to close the Orr St bridge for repairs which provided an opportunity for the WNA to seek a change in the use of the bridge.

F2: City Council decisions on October 6, 2010 and again on February 21, 2018 supported the WNA goals for bridge use but did not include formal assignments of Lead and Responsible Agencies which has resulted in long-term delays and increases in project scope and costs.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the City utilize public surveys funded by the Community Development Block Grant and in the final decision on the alterations to the bridge. (F2, F3)

R2: in future disagreements between Staff and Community Groups, the city investigate alternatives, document a decision and make quarterly progress reports. (F2, F3, F6,

F3: Since the closure of the bridge in 2009, development of housing and a new roadway on County land to the north ending abruptly at the bridge. This has accelerated the need for repairing the bridge for traffic and introduced new potential stakeholders to the project.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: the City utilize public surveys funded by the Community Development Block Grant and in the final decision on the alterations to the bridge. (F2, F3)

R2: in future disagreements between Staff and Community Groups, the city investigate alternatives, document a decision and make quarterly progress reports. (F2, F3, F6,

F4: Project delays caused by the change in project scope have resulted in increased costs for either repairs or alterations to the Orr Street Bridge. Bridge repair estimates in 2009 were $125,000, and in 2017 were between $300,000-$400,000. It is unknown what the costs for 2022 will be.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: if plans for projects change based on need or finance, the City shall inform interested parties of delays or fundamental changes. (F4)

R6: the Planning Department should be the agency that does research and seeks public input on projects that have ramifications beyond engineering and construction. (F4, F10, F11)

F5: The Regional Redwood trail crossing, one block West of Orr Street, with a pedestrian bridge over Orr Creek limits the justification for a pedestrian/bike only bridge on Orr Street.

F6: The bridge repairs have been included in the 2019 grant application for the entire Wagenseller Neighborhood which may cause delays in construction for two to four more years.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: in future disagreements between Staff and Community Groups, the city investigate alternatives, document a decision and make quarterly progress reports. (F2, F3, F6,

R5: the city prevent any use of the bridge until reconstruction or refurbishment is complete and the bridge deemed safe for access from either side. (F6)

F7: Refurbishment of the Orr Street Bridge for vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic would have met all the needs of the neighborhood residents and qualified for project exemptions under CEQA in 2009.

F8: The root cause for inaction on the bridge is that the focused outcome pursued by the WNA requires more planning and a CEQA review which can take years to complete under normal circumstances. FF910. . TPhreo jCecitty d eCloauyns chila vceo uleldd htoav teh efo crumrarellnyt abslsiigghnteedd tchoisn dpirtoiojenc to tfo t hthee O Prrla Sntnrienegt DBreipdagretm. ent and not Public Works after accepting recommendations from a community group.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: in areas like the Wagenseller/Brush neighborhood which straddle the City and County jurisdiction, it is essential for agencies to coordinate plans for the area. (F8, F9)

F10: The City Council could have formally assigned this project to the Planning Department

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: the Planning Department should be the agency that does research and seeks public input on projects that have ramifications beyond engineering and construction. (F4, F10, F11)

F11: The Planning Department was not informed of the line-item fund available for bridge repair/refurbishment in the City budget while managing the application for CDBG funds.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: the Planning Department should be the agency that does research and seeks public input on projects that have ramifications beyond engineering and construction. (F4, F10, F11)

Mendocino County Jail

4 pages 7 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: In addition to ADA violations, uneven and dangerous sidewalks on the jail campus expose the County to potential liabilities.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: the BOS ensure that jail maintenance work orders with liability issues for the County be given priority. (F1-F4)

R2: the BOS protect County assets by maintaining a fully staffed FFD maintenance crew, which will allow a dedicated worker for the jail. (F1-F3)

R4: the BOS, as a priority, develop strategies and financial incentives to facilitate hiring and retention of COs for the jail. (F5, F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1-F6) and (All Recommendations) 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

F2: Unfilled positions of maintenance employees within FFD directly contribute to the deferred maintenance on the jail campus.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: the BOS ensure that jail maintenance work orders with liability issues for the County be given priority. (F1-F4)

R2: the BOS protect County assets by maintaining a fully staffed FFD maintenance crew, which will allow a dedicated worker for the jail. (F1-F3)

R4: the BOS, as a priority, develop strategies and financial incentives to facilitate hiring and retention of COs for the jail. (F5, F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1-F6) and (All Recommendations) 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

F3: A fully staffed maintenance crew would allow a dedicated worker to focus on the jail.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: the BOS ensure that jail maintenance work orders with liability issues for the County be given priority. (F1-F4)

R2: the BOS protect County assets by maintaining a fully staffed FFD maintenance crew, which will allow a dedicated worker for the jail. (F1-F3)

R4: the BOS, as a priority, develop strategies and financial incentives to facilitate hiring and retention of COs for the jail. (F5, F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1-F6) and (All Recommendations) 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

F4: The vacant, dilapidated prefabricated structure on the jail campus continues to deteriorate and is unsafe. Delaying the removal will increase the cost over time.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: the BOS ensure that jail maintenance work orders with liability issues for the County be given priority. (F1-F4)

R3: the BOS authorize and fund immediate removal of the dilapidated prefabricated structure on the jail campus. (F4)

R4: the BOS, as a priority, develop strategies and financial incentives to facilitate hiring and retention of COs for the jail. (F5, F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1-F6) and (All Recommendations) 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

F5: Due to staff shortages, COs are currently scheduled to work a 60-hour week. This practice questions safety and efficiency which contribute to officer burnout.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: the BOS, as a priority, develop strategies and financial incentives to facilitate hiring and retention of COs for the jail. (F5, F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1-F6) and (All Recommendations) 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

F6: Establishing recruitment and retention incentives would aid in hiring and retaining COs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: the BOS, as a priority, develop strategies and financial incentives to facilitate hiring and retention of COs for the jail. (F5, F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (F1-F6) and (All Recommendations) 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

F7: The GJ commends the Mendocino County Jail leadership, COs and support staff for their dedication to duty especially during the pandemic.

Mendocino County Family and Children’s Services

28 pages 22 findings 23 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 22 findings

F1: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: No matter what efficiencies are put in place, the most effective measure by far is addressing low staffing issues. Low staffing leads to late reports, late filings, and extended time in the system that indisputably causes trauma and harms children. 9

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: FCS work with Human Resources to address and increase staffing. (To be completed by October 2024) F1

F2: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: FCS employees demonstrate a genuine passion for the work of improving the lives of children. Short-staffing, missed deadlines and excessive overtime means they are unable to provide the quality of services desired. Consequently, staff suffers from moral injuries and burnout.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: FCS management provide increased and ongoing therapy for staff desiring it. (To be completed by October 2024) F2

F3: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: 24% of children in foster care in Mendocino County are Native children. Since communication and attention to Native children and tribal issues is crucial, increasing attendance and participation in the established Round Tables could be productive.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Since 24% of children in foster care are Native American, further attention be given by FCS to improve relations and communication with ICWA representatives. Involvement in established Round Tables needs to increase in order to assure adequate attention to Native children. (To be completed by October 2024) F3

F4: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Out-of-county placement of dependent children negatively impacts the availability of social workers to perform work for children placed in-County because of the additional travel time needed to complete mandated visits.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Rather than sending Mendocino County social workers to make routine monthly visits to foster children in other states and counties, Mendocino County should explore arrangements for visits by 11 the Social Services agencies where Mendocino County foster children are placed. (To be completed by October 2024) F4

F5: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: When a social worker is absent or the position is unfilled, there is no regular provision to fill the open position. This consistently contributes to a backlog of court reports to be filed with the court.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: FCS management find ways to provide coverage for absent Social Workers to alleviate heavy caseloads for other staff members. (To be completed by October 2024) F5

F6: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Usually there are no consequences for or incentives to prevent FCS from filing late court reports.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: FCS management develop incentives for staff members’ timely reports. (To be completed by October 2024) F6

F7: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: FCS regularly fails to meet the legally mandated timelines for the filing of court reports. This results in some court proceedings having to be continued, to the detriment of children, families, and the court.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: FCS management and social workers develop a strategic plan that will eliminate late court reports. (To be completed by October 2024) F7, F8

F8: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: When FCS fails to meet legally mandated timelines for the filing of court reports they are not providing the children and families with due process, possibly creating a civil rights violation liability for Mendocino County.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: FCS expand their attractive and informative Face Book advertising to other websites, including Mendocino County’s, for all job openings. (To be completed by October 2024) F14

F9: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: The System Improvement Plan has been out of date since 2021, contributing to a lack of accountability.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: FCS management be required to encourage immediate approval of a new SIP plan that addresses FCS staffing issues. (To be completed by October 2024) F9

F10: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Mendocino County does not have a QA department in FCS to provide quality services and correct systems that can lead to problems.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: Mendocino County implement a QA department in FCS. (To be completed by May 2025)

F11: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Reducing overtime requires filling open staff positions and increasing salaries to boost morale and reduce burnout.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: FCS immediately fill vacant staff positions. (To be completed by October 2024) F11

F12: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: It is difficult to decipher the FCS budget. Lack of specific line items causes lack of transparency and understanding of how the money is used.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: Prior to the beginning of Fiscal Year 2025-26, the County budget provide more transparency concerning decoding and identifying line items and specifics of distribution and allocation of funds for FCS. (To be completed by January 2025) F12

F13: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Based on funding from the State of California and Mendocino County to FCS, it appears that the County could increase staff positions and/or salaries in FCS, thus boosting morale and reducing burnout.

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: Mendocino County use monies in the FCS budget for staffing, reducing overtime and salary adjustments. (To be completed by January 2025) F13

F14: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Mendocino County Human Resources continues to struggle with recruiting new workers for FCS. 10

Related Recommendations (1)

R14: FCS work with County Human Resources to streamline the hiring process so it takes no more than two months between a candidate’s application and a decision by the County. (To be completed by October 2024) F15, F16

F15: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Applications for new county employees within FCS can take up to six months to process, resulting in some interested and capable workers choosing to abandon the process and seek employment elsewhere. Advertised positions consistently have a short deadline for application.

Related Recommendations (1)

R15: Advertised positions should not have an application deadline. (To be completed by October 2024) F15

F16: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Contributing to short-staffing, there is lack of a pool of applicants who have expressed interest in positions.

Related Recommendations (1)

R16: There be a permanent open application process to create a pool of qualified people for all FCS Vocational Assistants, Social Services Assistants, Social Worker, and Social Worker Supervisor positions (To be completed by October 2024) F14, F15, F16

F17: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Understaffing at FCS leads to high caseloads and low worker morale, frequently contributing to high worker turnover and a lack of experienced workers.

Related Recommendations (1)

R17: FCS address understaffing which leads to high caseloads and low worker morale, frequently contributing to high worker turnover, a toxic culture and lack of experienced workers. (To be completed by October 2024) F15, F16, F17 12

F18: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: The current four-day workweek and Friday office closure within Mendocino County FCS are detrimental to public access to services.

Related Recommendations (1)

R18: Mendocino County and FCS explore ways to keep the FCS offices open 5 days a week while allowing employees to maintain their four-day/ten-hour shifts by implementing staggered schedules. (To be completed by January 2025) F18

F19: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Social Worker Assistants regularly do field work rather than the Social Worker, who uses that time to complete mandated reports.

Related Recommendations (1)

R19: Increase staffing, including the three unfilled Vocational Assistant positions, to alleviate the problem of using Social Workers and Social Worker Assistants for transportation of children. (To be completed by October 2024) F16, F19, F20

F20: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Vocational Assistant positions could be used for transportation duty, but positions are unfilled.

Related Recommendations (1)

R20: The Office of the Ombudsman be expanded to include services for children, allowing for immediate advocacy prior to approaching FCS. (To be completed by May 2025) F21

F21: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: Currently, Mendocino County’s Office of the Ombudsman does not offer services to provide immediate advocacy for children prior to approaching FCS but offers only Aging and Adult Services.

Related Recommendations (1)

R21: FCS use all possible means to reference the California DSS Ombudsperson for information and assistance. (To be completed by October 2024) F21

F22: The Mendocino County Civil Grand Jury finds that: There is an underutilized state-wide computer system, CWS/CMS, developed to help social workers.

Related Recommendations (1)

R22: FCS management provide training for the use of the California state-wide computer system, CWS/CMS case management system, and assure the system is used to its fullest advantage. (To be completed by October 2024) F22

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R23: The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors create a committee whose sole mission is to independently and accurately evaluate the status of timely court filings by FCS. They will report their findings quarterly to the Board of Supervisors. (To be completed by October 2024) F7, F9,

Measure B Re-examined

6 pages 8 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: The wording of the Measure B ordinance was very precise on the collection of the taxes. The ordinance was imprecise about the execution of the programs. There is insufficient organizational direction in the Measure B Ordinance. This has resulted in a lack of ground rules for discussions and making recommendations to the BOS.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: in future ordinances prepared for ballot measures, the function and responsibility of County Departments, Advisory Boards and Committees be spelled out in greater detail. (F1, F2)

F2: In the Measure B Ordinance, the responsibilities of the B Committee were unclear, resulting in members assuming authority which belonged to the BOS.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: in future ordinances prepared for ballot measures, the function and responsibility of County Departments, Advisory Boards and Committees be spelled out in greater detail. (F1, F2)

F3: There has been no direct funding for SUDT as recommended in the Measure B Ordinance and the Kemper Report. The GJ determined this to be a serious oversight.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: the BOS fund SUDT programs as required by Measure B Ordinance No. 4387. (F3, F7)

R4: the BOS give direction to staff to identify and pursue additional funding to supplement the Measure B one-eighth cent sales tax by applying for grants and State funding. (F4, F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (All Findings) and (R1, R2, R4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following individual: Auditor-Controller (F4, F5) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: Director of the Behavioral Health Department (F3, F7, F8) and (R2, R4) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires reports of the Grand Jury not containing the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.

F4: A required function of the B Committee is to review annual audits and to ensure transparent use of funds. Annual independent audits of taxpayers’ money were not performed resulting in no definitive answer to what funds are available or have been expended.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: the County Auditor ensures annual independent audits be conducted of Measure B funds as required, commencing with the initial funding of the measure and to include election and consultant costs. (F4, F5)

R4: the BOS give direction to staff to identify and pursue additional funding to supplement the Measure B one-eighth cent sales tax by applying for grants and State funding. (F4, F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (All Findings) and (R1, R2, R4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following individual: Auditor-Controller (F4, F5) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: Director of the Behavioral Health Department (F3, F7, F8) and (R2, R4) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires reports of the Grand Jury not containing the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.

F5: The first 15 months of operations are excluded from the commissioned audits. Not starting from day one does not give a complete financial picture.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: the County Auditor ensures annual independent audits be conducted of Measure B funds as required, commencing with the initial funding of the measure and to include election and consultant costs. (F4, F5)

R4: the BOS give direction to staff to identify and pursue additional funding to supplement the Measure B one-eighth cent sales tax by applying for grants and State funding. (F4, F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (All Findings) and (R1, R2, R4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following individual: Auditor-Controller (F4, F5) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: Director of the Behavioral Health Department (F3, F7, F8) and (R2, R4) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires reports of the Grand Jury not containing the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.

F6: The high vacancy rate of County employees, particularly for social service workers and nursing staff, has raised concern. Contractors for staffing the new programs and facilities may have difficulty employing sufficient local staff. This problem plagued the previous PHF facility which led to its closure.

F7: The GJ and service providers are concerned that SUDT programs will not receive adequate attention and funding under Measure B.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: the BOS fund SUDT programs as required by Measure B Ordinance No. 4387. (F3, F7)

R4: the BOS give direction to staff to identify and pursue additional funding to supplement the Measure B one-eighth cent sales tax by applying for grants and State funding. (F4, F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (All Findings) and (R1, R2, R4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following individual: Auditor-Controller (F4, F5) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: Director of the Behavioral Health Department (F3, F7, F8) and (R2, R4) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires reports of the Grand Jury not containing the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.

F8: The GJ is concerned that the high costs to construct the PFH facility may reduce funds available for other proposed services and programs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: the BOS give direction to staff to identify and pursue additional funding to supplement the Measure B one-eighth cent sales tax by applying for grants and State funding. (F4, F8) RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following board: Board of Supervisors (All Findings) and (R1, R2, R4) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are required from the following individual: Auditor-Controller (F4, F5) and (R3) Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, responses are requested from the following individual: Director of the Behavioral Health Department (F3, F7, F8) and (R2, R4) Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires reports of the Grand Jury not containing the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.

📋Issues with the Mcrpd Property Use Agreement (pua) The park grant program was designed to support an off-highway

6 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

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).

Page 30

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.

Page 30

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.

Page 30

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.

Page 30

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.

Page 30

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.

Page 30

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)

Responses to Grand Jury Reports Summary of PC 933.05 Penal Code § 933.05 provides for only two (2) acceptable responses

2 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.