Merced County Grand Jury

2004-2005

18 reports

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: Atwater’s City Codes: 2:04.060 (City Manager) & 2:08.320 (City Council) each clearly state that City Council members are not to interfere with administrative services, either publicly or privately. They are not to give orders or instruction to any subordinate of the City Manager. A Council Member may give orders to the City Manager only with the knowledge and concurrence of the whole Council. The above-mentioned codes do not state consequences should a Council Member violate these ordinances.
Page 34
F2: Atwater City Council meetings are aired live the second and fourth Monday of each month.
Page 34
F3: The City of Atwater has a toll free phone number for people to report complaints against city employees. These complaints are reviewed by the appropriate department head.
Page 34
F4: Council members violate Atwater City Code 2:08.320 on a consistent basis. There are numerous instances in open City Council meetings alone to verify this. These actions often go unchecked. 34
Page 34
F5: Some Council members have tried to interfere in Internal Affairs investigations. This is a violation of California Labor Laws (Cite Law).
Page 35
F6: A council member appears to use his authority to settle personal vendettas.
Page 35
F7: Furthermore, some council members attempt to manipulate the Council calendar.
Page 35
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: The committee found that the complaint did not have merit. The results of the traffic collision report for the incident did not find either party at fault. The financial hardship and resulting repercussions were not caused by the APD report.
Page 19
F2: The committee noted that the complaint filed with the Atwater Police Department was assigned for additional review. The professional opinion of an outside agency was sought within a reasonable time period.
Page 19
F3: The committee noted that supplemental reports are made to reflect findings of follow-up. The committee also noted a supplemental report was made.
Page 19
F4: The committee was informed that notification of findings relative to a complaint are shared with and/or made available to the complainant.
Page 19
F5: The committee established that the Atwater Police Department has an ongoing staff development training program in place to address the needs of the department in their professional and interpersonal growth skills.
Page 19
F6: The committee believes that circumstances surrounding the complaint were enhanced by difficulties in language barriers, acknowledgement of receipt of written communication, and an understanding of the complaint process.
Page 19
F7: The committee noted that the Atwater Police Department is aware of the continuing needs of the community and strives to accommodate their needs.
Page 19
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: The City of Atwater has an approximate population of 27,500. The department currently has 19 sworn officers, four detectives and four school resource officers who provide service to the community. There are bilingual services provided to the community as needed. Currently two sworn officer positions are vacant.
Page 38
F2: The Atwater Police Department has employed an additional traffic officer whose position is funded through annual grants.
Page 38
F3: There is an active community volunteer program within the department.
Page 38
F4: Although the department has an established complaint procedure and guidelines, it does not have a handout explaining this procedure to the citizenry.
Page 38
F5: Thoroughness of investigation is documented in departmental reports.
Page 38
Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Atwater Police Department should develop a handout addressing the complaint process and procedures, which should be made available in English and other languages as needed.
Page 38
R2: Vacancies on the police force should be filled as quickly as possible. 38
Page 38
Findings & Recommendations 10 findings
F1: Merced County recruits from the same job pool as every other county in this valley. Without competitive wages, potential employees either do not take the job or leave in a short time for more money. The same circumstance applies to private sector as well as government employees. The six counties Merced uses to compare its salaries are chosen because of their close proximity to the County. They are Fresno, Kings, Kern, Madera, Stanislaus and San Joaquin. This is referred to as the seven-county survey. This survey is also used in determining staff salaries.
Page 36
F2: Retirement benefits are received by all county employees after they have been vested, (employed by the County for ten years). A Supervisor would need to serve two and a half terms in order to be vested.
Page 36
F3: The current facilities, the John Latorraca Correctional Facility (Sandy Mush) and the Merced County Main Jail, are woefully inadequate to deal with the county’s needs.
Page 36
F4: The County does little in the area of adult or juvenile criminal rehabilitation.
Page 36
F5: People with mental health issues are housed in the same facilities as other inmates.
Page 36
F6: Infrastructure is the biggest obstacle to growth in this County. Infrastructure includes roads, public safety, schools, hospitals, air, water, and sewage.
Page 36
F7: An inadequately trained work force is another obstacle to growth. Current agencies in the County attempting to remedy this include the Work Force Investment Board (also known as Work Net) and the Human Services Agency.
Page 36
F8: The County is relying on the reuse of Castle Aviation and Development Center to build industry. Merced County Department of Commerce, Aviation, and Economic Development, located at Castle, is charged with that challenge. 36
Page 36
F9: The County has adopted the County-wide Agricultural Preservation Strategy (CAPS). This program will create a funding source through mitigation fees that developers will be paying, matched with money from the State and Federal governments, as well as private organizations like the Packard Foundation. These funds will be used as an incentive for people who live in and near the areas being developed to cash out part of the value of their land through this conservation easement.
Page 37
F10: Merced County adopted the Williamson Act, which enables local government to enter into contract with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value.
Page 37
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: CHW needs to work on its’ customer service in ER, marketing and the appearance of the present facilities.
Page 27
F2: Physicians need to understand the county’s financial position and work for a better tomorrow.
Page 27
F3: Greater community involvement.
Page 27
F4: The County needs to help educate IHCP (MAP) clients better so they might utilize clinics instead of the ER in non emergency cases.
Page 27
Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: CHW needs to work on its’ customer service in ER, marketing and the appearance of the present facilities.
Page 23
R2: Physicians need to understand the county’s financial position and work for a better tomorrow.
Page 23
R3: Greater community involvement.
Page 23
R4: The County needs to help educate IHCP (MAP) clients better so they might utilize clinics instead of the ER in non emergency cases.
Page 23
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: Verbal counseling and complaint on file for five years
Page 39
F4: Termination • The complainant receives a letter from the chief of police after the investigation is completed. If the proposed consequences entail a lengthy suspension or termination, the officer may request a Skelly Hearing in accordance with State Personnel Board Rule 52.3. 39
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: There was no breach of confidentiality.
Page 31
F2: The requested documentation was not received.
Page 31
F3: Phone calls were not returned in a timely manner
Page 31
Findings & Recommendations 11 findings
F1: Livingston Police Department (LPD) employs 26 people. Eighteen are sworn officers. The population of Livingston is approximately 14,500.
Page 41
F2: LPD had a total of 22 complaints in the 2004 calendar year. There are a total of five complaints to date in 2005.
Page 41
F3: A complaint is taken by a commander during the day and a sergeant at night. The administrative sergeant will go to complainant’s home to take the complaint if they are afraid to come into the police station.
Page 41
F4: The complaint form is clear. The complainant must sign a False Complaint Admonition, which is printed in ten different languages.
Page 41
F5: If a complaint is made against someone at the sergeant rank or higher, it is investigated by another agency (e.g., Atwater Police Department, Merced Police Department, etc.).
Page 41
F6: The commander reviews the complaint and determines if it becomes a Supervisor Inquiry (SI) or an Internal Affair (IA). He then decides who will investigate the complaint. Most complaints are assigned to the administrative sergeant. All complaints are investigated by a sergeant or above.
Page 41
F7: Each step of the process is documented, including transcripts of each interview.
Page 41
F8: Once the investigation is completed, the investigator will offer his conclusions to the commander, who will then review the entire file and make a suggestion to the chief of police. The chief then determines the proper steps to take.
Page 41
F9: In the event the complaint is determined to be valid the one or more of the following could occur: a. Verbal counseling and complaint placed in the ‘Watch File’ (for SI’s) 41 b. Reduction in Pay c. Reduction in Rank d. Termination
Page 41
F10: The complainant receives a letter from the chief of police after the investigation is completed. By law, the chief is not allowed to state the final determination or consequence.
Page 42
F11: By state law, (State Personnel Board Rule 52.3) the officer may request a Skelly Hearing if they disagree with the final result of the investigation or its consequence.
Page 42
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: The property was zoned as a multi-family dwelling, but it was the two separate edifices rather than the single building to which the complainant referred.
Page 32
F2: The Los Banos Police Department followed correct operating procedures regarding the above mentioned California Penal Codes. 32
Page 32
F3: The Los Banos Police Department did not violate the Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Page 33
F4: The complaint did not have merit. COMMENDATIONS: The Merced County Grand Jury commends the officers of the Los Banos Police Department for their time, assistance and cooperation during this investigation. The Merced County Grand Jury commends Chief Knapp and Commander Fitchie for supplying the Grand Jury with any and all documents needed in a timely manner. 33
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F5: Verbal counseling and information kept in complaint file
Page 43
F8: Termination 43 • The complainant receives a letter from the chief of police after the investigation is completed. By law, (State Personnel Board Rule 52.3) the officer may request a Skelly Hearing if they disagree with the final result of the investigation or its consequences.
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: The Committee found that the complaint had merit. As of January 17, 2005, the complainant still had not received the final death certificate.
Page 21
F2: Cases pending final death certificates are identified with an orange circle label. Upon issuance of the final amended death certificate, the peel-off label is removed
Page 21
F3: The Coroner’s Office has over 100 pending cases covering a two year period. The oldest case has been outstanding for over two years. The pathologist report had been received, yet the case was still without the final cause of death.
Page 21
F4: Evidence of systematic review and follow up were not apparent in the files. It was difficult to determine the last time a file had been reviewed and/or what action had been taken.
Page 21
F5: There was an inordinate amount of responsibility assigned to a sole employee.
Page 21
F6: The review of the official records and their record keeping practice demonstrated a drastic need for improvement. It is a contributing factor to a much greater problem. Utilization of a manual system versus up-to-date technology delayed a chronological updating of pending and final reports.
Page 21
F7: It was also noted that the cost of the contracted pathologist had increased substantially over the years.
Page 21
Findings & Recommendations 19 findings
F1: The County has a Zero-Tolerance Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Policy for every county employee and elected official; however, any decisions made can be overridden by the Board of Supervisors.
Page 29
F2: New employees review an 18-minute orientation video on Sexual Harassment. They are required to acknowledge that they have received and read a written copy of the policy.
Page 29
F3: A complainant has up to 300 days from the alleged violation to file a complaint with the EEOC.
Page 29
F4: A complainant has up to 365 days from the alleged violation to file a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). 29
Page 29
F5: Although it is recommended that an employee file through the supervisor and continue through the chain of command, the complainant can file directly with the EEOC or the DFEH.
Page 30
F6: There are five federally-trained human resource analysts who investigate complaints within the County, or the County can choose to contract with an outside investigating party.
Page 30
F7: The Director of the EEOC may choose to investigate a complaint, or may excuse himself from the investigation if a conflict of interest arises.
Page 30
F8: After conducting an investigation, the findings are reported to County Counsel and the County Executive Officer who determine whether the complaint is substantiated.
Page 30
F9: In 2004, there were 18 complaints filed. Twelve of the complaints were against supervisors and/or managers. Of the 18 complaints, nine were closed and nine are still pending investigation.
Page 30
F10: Of the nine closed cases, six were substantiated, thee were not substantiated.
Page 30
F11: Two of the nine closed cases were investigated and substantiated by county investigators. One was issued a written reprimand the other was given a three-day suspension. Both of the substantiated complaints were against regular county employees, not management.
Page 30
F12: Six of the nine closed cases were not substantiated by the county and/or hired investigators.
Page 30
F13: Seven of the nine unsubstantiated, closed cases were against a member of management, Board of Supervisors, or County Counsel.
Page 30
F14: One of the unsubstantiated complaints was determined to have some merit due to the lack of professionalism displayed by the supervisor toward the employee. As a result, the Board of Supervisors ordered “Team Building” training to be attended by both parties.
Page 30
F15: The Board of Supervisors indicated that they are not bound by the Code of Ethics and Policies Regarding Workplace Conduct that applies to all county employees.
Page 30
F16: AB 1825 requires that all supervisors receive harassment, discrimination, and retaliation training by January 1, 2006. Retraining is required every two years. New supervisors must receive the training within six months of employment.
Page 30
F17: The county administered this training to all of its supervisory employees on April 13 & April 28, 2005. This training was conducted by an outside legal firm.
Page 30
F18: The county will have four or five employees trained by an outside legal firm to administer in-house training as needed.
Page 30
F19: The current complaint & investigatory practice does not allow for an unbiased, objective process because the EEOC investigators are county employees themselves and they ultimately report to some of the very people against whom the complaints originate.
Page 30
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: The Merced County Human Services Agency operated within legal guidelines.
Page 28
F2: The policies and procedures manual had not been updated for approximately 10 years.
Page 28
Findings & Recommendations 12 findings
F1: The complex is a state of the art facility. It is projected to be fully operational in October 2005.
Page 13
F2: The Department hired Brian Cooley as the new chief. An assistant chief position was created. The position of Division Director was vacant and had not been filled.
Page 13
F3: The new facility will house 120 juvenile offenders and the county is committee to having them serve the full sentence. 13
Page 13
F4: A total of 74 full-time staff are anticipated when the facility becomes fully operational. There is one full-time correctional officer for every ten juveniles during the day and evening shifts. There is one correctional officer on duty for every 30 juveniles during the graveyard shift, 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Page 14
F5: There are three buildings that consist of approximately 40,000 square feet. One building house administrative functions. The other two house juvenile inmates. The main entrance has a metal detector and booking area. There is a control center manned 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with bulletproof glass.
Page 14
F6: There are four wings with 10 cells per wing in each building. The cells are furnished with two beds, a sink and toilet. Each wing has a separate classroom. The Merced County Office of Education provides a vice-principal, teachers, and curriculum for the students. Teachers rotate among the classrooms to provide specific subject area instruction.
Page 14
F7: The facility also includes a medical examination room and a nurses station where pharmaceuticals can be dispensed.
Page 14
F8: There is a “state of the art” courtroom complete with computers and closed circuit TVs, clerks’ officers, and judge’s chambers. The average number of cases presided over each day ranges from 45 to 50. Hearings are conducted on a daily basis.
Page 14
F9: Juveniles are detained while awaiting sentencing, which takes approximately 14 days.
Page 14
F10: At any given time, there are approximately 37 juveniles waiting to serve their sentences. This is a vast improvement over last year when there were 100 cases at any given time. Juveniles are segregated by their gang affiliation, gender, and the seriousness of their transgressions.
Page 14
F11: A quarter mile track serves as the main recreation areas. There are also covered basketball courts to allow for exercise during inclement weather.
Page 14
F12: The Division Manager has completed a new procedural manual for the facility staff.
Page 14
Findings & Recommendations 11 findings
F1: Before the tour of the facility began, we were given a quick presentation by Officer Blodgett regarding the Work Release Program. He presented a graph that demonstrated a savings to the County of almost $3 million from the efforts of 180 work-in-lieu participants.
Page 11
F2: Officer Griffith gave a quick oral overview of the Home Arrest Program and how the detained are tracked with a Global Positioning System (GPS) and the Internet. The Home Arrest Program saved the County $320,000 the first year.
Page 11
F3: The ratio of correctional officers to inmates is critically low. Currently, on any given shift, there are at least six, but no more than seven correctional officers on the grounds. The facility houses 514 inmates (full capacity) on a consistent basis. A large percentage of these inmates are charged with serious and violent felonies. The low staffing levels are at issue due to the danger both to the staff and the inmates.
Page 11
F4: There is a grave shortage of correctional officers, particularly females. There must be a female officer on duty at all times. Because of this shortage, female officers are regularly denied requests for time off, which is essential in this high-stress position. The mental health of all officers are affected. 11
Page 11
F5: There is excessive overtime due to the staff shortages.
Page 12
F6: The facility operates at maximum capacity throughout the year. Annually, hundreds of inmates are released prematurely to allow space for incoming inmates to be housed.
Page 12
F7: There is no library available for inmate use. The former library is currently under renovation to be converted into a dorm to house more prisoners.
Page 12
F8: The Sheriff does not consistently visit the facility to meet with all levels of personnel.
Page 12
F9: The staff are not adequately prepared or equipped to house inmates with varying degrees of mental illness.
Page 12
F10: The 2003-2004 Grand Jury recommendation to install bullet proof glass between the reception area and the receiving officer was not implemented.
Page 12
F11: There are no correctional officers in the kitchen while the inmates are preparing meals. The cook who oversees the process is not qualified to supervise inmates who have access to knives and other dangerous implements.
Page 12
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: The Main Jail was built in 1968. Renovations were completed in 1991 and 1994. The current capacity of the facility is 199 inmates.
Page 9
F2: Condensation on the walls of the facility, caused by the poor ventilation system, formed pools of water in the walkways. This poses a safety issue to both inmates and staff.
Page 9
F3: The staffing allocations remain inadequate. The correctional officers work an excessive amount of overtime due to the shortage of human resources. Overwork can have physiological and psychological consequences.
Page 9
F4: The recreation area had fencing designed to separate inmates as required. The fencing had been extended upward to prevent the inmates from climbing over and initiating contact with each other.
Page 9
F5: The medical and dental sections of the facility were adequate for care, but the beds in the exam room were torn and in need of repair.
Page 9
F6: The inmates are identified by gang affiliation through the use of colored uniforms. They are housed separately in order to prevent altercations. 9
Page 9
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: The Law and Justice Committee found that the complaint had merit. 16
Page 16
F2: The complainant called and complained to a Sergeant, but did not file a formal complaint under Section 1020 with the police department.
Page 17
F3: The Merced Police Department has no written uniform policy and procedures to address the removal of a child from a home.
Page 17
F4: Not all incidents had reports filed.
Page 17
F5: There was no court order awarding custody to either parent at the time of removal.
Page 17
F6: The officer’s actions in the removal of the child were not erroneous.
Page 17
Findings & Recommendations 11 findings
F1: The City of Merced has a population of 73,000. There are 81 sworn and 39 non-sworn officers. MPD offers some bi-lingual services in Hmong and Spanish. There are currently 5 sworn officers positions open.
Page 45
F2: .Section 1020 relates to the following:
Page 45
F3: The purpose of the procedure.
Page 45
F4: The procedures for filing.
Page 45
F5: The various types of dispositions: sustained, not sustained, unfounded, exonerated.
Page 45
F6: Documentation of each finding.
Page 45
F7: Corrective Actions taken and
Page 45
F8: The Merced City Police department has revised their complaint procedures to allow for an informal resolution prior to filing a formal complaint.
Page 45
F9: In 2004, there were 17 complaints, seven were generated by the public. This is a reduction from the previous year when 27 formal complaints were filed.
Page 45
F10: Complaint form 19 is provided in English only.
Page 45
F11: In order for a full investigation to be conducted, the complainant must submit an official complaint form. 45
Page 45
Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Complaint form 19 should be made available in additional languages to reflect the diversity of the community.
Page 45
R2: Citizens complaint procedure handout should be changed to clearly define the process. 46
Page 45