Merced County Grand Jury
2005-2006
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
Additional Recommendations
19
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Trustees publicly acknowledges to the citizens of the Delhi district that the actions of the five participating members violated the Brown Act.
R2:
The Merced County District Attorney meet with the Delhi Unified School District Board of Trustees regarding the purpose the Brown Act as it pertains to the conduct of Board meetings and Roberts Rules of Order procedures.
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
R10-11:
Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center Mandated Inspection
R13-21:
Merced County Main Jail
R22-23:
Dos Palos Police Dept
R25-26:
Atwater Police Dept, Merced Co Public Defenders Office,
R32-33:
Merced College Office of Instruction #05-06-09 34
R37-38:
Los Banos Cemetery District
R43-49:
Merced Co Human Services Agency #05-06-15
R52-53:
Delhi Unified School Board of Trustees #05-06-18
R59-60:
Merced Police Department
R65-66:
Delhi Unified School District
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
F2004:
There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
None COMMENDATIONS: We commend Chief Banks for his smooth running operation and thank him for allowing us to tour his department. MERCED COUNTY CORONER’S OFFICE LATE DEATH CERTIFICATES GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #04-05-03 FOLLOW-UP INTRODUCTION: The 2004-2005 Grand Jury received a complaint alleging excessive time was spent finalizing death certificates and that over 100 pending cases covering a two-year period were found. The complainant alleged that the inquiries did not receive professional response. Because of the number of outstanding death certificates and the seriousness of the complaint, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury felt it important to follow-up on the complaint. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury visited with the employees of the Coroner’s Office. FINDINGS: It was noted during the review of the Coroner’s Office that the items noted by the prior years Grand Jury committee had not been addressed. The record keeping system currently utilized is one that has been in place for numerous years in which a manual entry of cases pending death certificates is denoted and status of such with a circular peel-off label. Although there appears to be adequate technology evidenced at the site to maintain an up-to-date streamlined data entry system, it has not been addressed and/or utilized. Information is taken from the Coroner’s Office to another office across town to be entered instead of entering the information at the Coroner’s Office. There is an average of approximately 80 cases per month that pass through the coroner’s office which employees four (4) full-time deputy coroners. Fifteen certificates are currently pending for the 2005 year. The Grand Jury toured the facility and noted that a new decomposition room had been built in 2004 to aid the pathologists in their examinations. The cost to the County of Merced for this new addition was approximately $260,000.00. Although this room was built to benefit the coroner’s office, it was discovered that it was not working at the time of the visitation by the Grand Jury, nor had it worked since completion of construction in 2004. There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
R2:
A private room should be used to meet the families eliminating the table and chairs that are in open view. With the advent of technological advances and basic computer programs, the utilization of such within this office would greatly improve the operation of this office’s record- keeping and systematic review of outstanding certificate and reports. The general appearance of the interior and exterior of the facility should be adequately maintained. It is recommended that a regularly scheduled meeting be held by the Sheriff with the staff at the facility to monitor operations and productivity. The overall appearance of the building inside and out on the first visit was in disrepair, with grass and out of control weeds and cobwebs on the outside of the building. The second visit in April, the outside was appearing to look better. An up to date information system needs to be purchased if budget permits. More interest needs to be taken in the general appearance of the exterior and interior of the office. MERCED COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT IRIS GARRETT JUVENILE JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL CENTER MANDATED INSPECTION INTRODUCTION: California Penal Code Section 919 mandates the Grand Jury the Yearly responsibility to visit the correctional facilities within Merced County. A tour of the Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center located at 2586 West Sandy Mush Road, Merced, was conducted on February 14, 2006. The Grand Jury toured the facility and examined each dorm, food service facility, classrooms and recreational facilities. Both male and female juveniles at the facility were interviewed. FINDINGS: The supervisor of the facility conducted the tour. The entire facility was very clean, well organized and in excellent condition. The Grand Jury examined each dorm of the facility. There is a central control station at each dorm wing where all activities of the juveniles are constantly monitored and controlled. The food service facility was inspected and found to be very clean and well managed. A nutritionist oversees the food that is to be prepared and served to the juvenile inmates. The primary meals are prepared at the John Latorraca Correctional Facility and transported to the Juvenile Hall. The food served is well balanced and very good. The juvenile inmates are also served snacks between meals, which is primarily fruit. The facility offers classroom instruction so inmates can continue their education along with some vocational training. The juvenile inmates’ daily routine is well structured and monitored closely. The facility has more than sufficient recreational opportunities for the juvenile inmates. The staffing level at the facility appears to be very good with no staff shortages. Also located n the facility is a courtroom. This expedites the judicial process as well as eliminates any transportation between the facility and court and reduces the costs of the transportation and security for the County. Both male and female juveniles were interviewed. The only constant complaint was they didn’t receive enough food. There were no other complaints made about the staff of the facility. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff at the Merced County Juvenile Hall facility is to be commended for the excellent work they have done. The facility is very secure and well managed. The juvenile inmates are closely monitored and controlled through the day. The facility should look into the amount of food served to the inmates or make available more food for those inmates who want more. They are young, active and still growing and would require more food than the average adult. 12
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
F2004:
There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
None COMMENDATIONS: We commend Chief Banks for his smooth running operation and thank him for allowing us to tour his department. MERCED COUNTY CORONER’S OFFICE LATE DEATH CERTIFICATES GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #04-05-03 FOLLOW-UP INTRODUCTION: The 2004-2005 Grand Jury received a complaint alleging excessive time was spent finalizing death certificates and that over 100 pending cases covering a two-year period were found. The complainant alleged that the inquiries did not receive professional response. Because of the number of outstanding death certificates and the seriousness of the complaint, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury felt it important to follow-up on the complaint. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury visited with the employees of the Coroner’s Office. FINDINGS: It was noted during the review of the Coroner’s Office that the items noted by the prior years Grand Jury committee had not been addressed. The record keeping system currently utilized is one that has been in place for numerous years in which a manual entry of cases pending death certificates is denoted and status of such with a circular peel-off label. Although there appears to be adequate technology evidenced at the site to maintain an up-to-date streamlined data entry system, it has not been addressed and/or utilized. Information is taken from the Coroner’s Office to another office across town to be entered instead of entering the information at the Coroner’s Office. There is an average of approximately 80 cases per month that pass through the coroner’s office which employees four (4) full-time deputy coroners. Fifteen certificates are currently pending for the 2005 year. The Grand Jury toured the facility and noted that a new decomposition room had been built in 2004 to aid the pathologists in their examinations. The cost to the County of Merced for this new addition was approximately $260,000.00. Although this room was built to benefit the coroner’s office, it was discovered that it was not working at the time of the visitation by the Grand Jury, nor had it worked since completion of construction in 2004. There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
R2:
A private room should be used to meet the families eliminating the table and chairs that are in open view. With the advent of technological advances and basic computer programs, the utilization of such within this office would greatly improve the operation of this office’s record- keeping and systematic review of outstanding certificate and reports. The general appearance of the interior and exterior of the facility should be adequately maintained. It is recommended that a regularly scheduled meeting be held by the Sheriff with the staff at the facility to monitor operations and productivity. The overall appearance of the building inside and out on the first visit was in disrepair, with grass and out of control weeds and cobwebs on the outside of the building. The second visit in April, the outside was appearing to look better. An up to date information system needs to be purchased if budget permits. More interest needs to be taken in the general appearance of the exterior and interior of the office. MERCED COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT IRIS GARRETT JUVENILE JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL CENTER MANDATED INSPECTION INTRODUCTION: California Penal Code Section 919 mandates the Grand Jury the Yearly responsibility to visit the correctional facilities within Merced County. A tour of the Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center located at 2586 West Sandy Mush Road, Merced, was conducted on February 14, 2006. The Grand Jury toured the facility and examined each dorm, food service facility, classrooms and recreational facilities. Both male and female juveniles at the facility were interviewed. FINDINGS: The supervisor of the facility conducted the tour. The entire facility was very clean, well organized and in excellent condition. The Grand Jury examined each dorm of the facility. There is a central control station at each dorm wing where all activities of the juveniles are constantly monitored and controlled. The food service facility was inspected and found to be very clean and well managed. A nutritionist oversees the food that is to be prepared and served to the juvenile inmates. The primary meals are prepared at the John Latorraca Correctional Facility and transported to the Juvenile Hall. The food served is well balanced and very good. The juvenile inmates are also served snacks between meals, which is primarily fruit. The facility offers classroom instruction so inmates can continue their education along with some vocational training. The juvenile inmates’ daily routine is well structured and monitored closely. The facility has more than sufficient recreational opportunities for the juvenile inmates. The staffing level at the facility appears to be very good with no staff shortages. Also located n the facility is a courtroom. This expedites the judicial process as well as eliminates any transportation between the facility and court and reduces the costs of the transportation and security for the County. Both male and female juveniles were interviewed. The only constant complaint was they didn’t receive enough food. There were no other complaints made about the staff of the facility. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff at the Merced County Juvenile Hall facility is to be commended for the excellent work they have done. The facility is very secure and well managed. The juvenile inmates are closely monitored and controlled through the day. The facility should look into the amount of food served to the inmates or make available more food for those inmates who want more. They are young, active and still growing and would require more food than the average adult. 12
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
Additional Recommendations
19
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Trustees publicly acknowledges to the citizens of the Delhi district that the actions of the five participating members violated the Brown Act.
R2:
The Merced County District Attorney meet with the Delhi Unified School District Board of Trustees regarding the purpose the Brown Act as it pertains to the conduct of Board meetings and Roberts Rules of Order procedures.
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
R10-11:
Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center Mandated Inspection
R13-21:
Merced County Main Jail
R22-23:
Dos Palos Police Dept
R25-26:
Atwater Police Dept, Merced Co Public Defenders Office,
R32-33:
Merced College Office of Instruction #05-06-09 34
R37-38:
Los Banos Cemetery District
R43-49:
Merced Co Human Services Agency #05-06-15
R52-53:
Delhi Unified School Board of Trustees #05-06-18
R59-60:
Merced Police Department
R65-66:
Delhi Unified School District
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
F2004:
There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
None COMMENDATIONS: We commend Chief Banks for his smooth running operation and thank him for allowing us to tour his department. MERCED COUNTY CORONER’S OFFICE LATE DEATH CERTIFICATES GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #04-05-03 FOLLOW-UP INTRODUCTION: The 2004-2005 Grand Jury received a complaint alleging excessive time was spent finalizing death certificates and that over 100 pending cases covering a two-year period were found. The complainant alleged that the inquiries did not receive professional response. Because of the number of outstanding death certificates and the seriousness of the complaint, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury felt it important to follow-up on the complaint. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury visited with the employees of the Coroner’s Office. FINDINGS: It was noted during the review of the Coroner’s Office that the items noted by the prior years Grand Jury committee had not been addressed. The record keeping system currently utilized is one that has been in place for numerous years in which a manual entry of cases pending death certificates is denoted and status of such with a circular peel-off label. Although there appears to be adequate technology evidenced at the site to maintain an up-to-date streamlined data entry system, it has not been addressed and/or utilized. Information is taken from the Coroner’s Office to another office across town to be entered instead of entering the information at the Coroner’s Office. There is an average of approximately 80 cases per month that pass through the coroner’s office which employees four (4) full-time deputy coroners. Fifteen certificates are currently pending for the 2005 year. The Grand Jury toured the facility and noted that a new decomposition room had been built in 2004 to aid the pathologists in their examinations. The cost to the County of Merced for this new addition was approximately $260,000.00. Although this room was built to benefit the coroner’s office, it was discovered that it was not working at the time of the visitation by the Grand Jury, nor had it worked since completion of construction in 2004. There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
R2:
A private room should be used to meet the families eliminating the table and chairs that are in open view. With the advent of technological advances and basic computer programs, the utilization of such within this office would greatly improve the operation of this office’s record- keeping and systematic review of outstanding certificate and reports. The general appearance of the interior and exterior of the facility should be adequately maintained. It is recommended that a regularly scheduled meeting be held by the Sheriff with the staff at the facility to monitor operations and productivity. The overall appearance of the building inside and out on the first visit was in disrepair, with grass and out of control weeds and cobwebs on the outside of the building. The second visit in April, the outside was appearing to look better. An up to date information system needs to be purchased if budget permits. More interest needs to be taken in the general appearance of the exterior and interior of the office. MERCED COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT IRIS GARRETT JUVENILE JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL CENTER MANDATED INSPECTION INTRODUCTION: California Penal Code Section 919 mandates the Grand Jury the Yearly responsibility to visit the correctional facilities within Merced County. A tour of the Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center located at 2586 West Sandy Mush Road, Merced, was conducted on February 14, 2006. The Grand Jury toured the facility and examined each dorm, food service facility, classrooms and recreational facilities. Both male and female juveniles at the facility were interviewed. FINDINGS: The supervisor of the facility conducted the tour. The entire facility was very clean, well organized and in excellent condition. The Grand Jury examined each dorm of the facility. There is a central control station at each dorm wing where all activities of the juveniles are constantly monitored and controlled. The food service facility was inspected and found to be very clean and well managed. A nutritionist oversees the food that is to be prepared and served to the juvenile inmates. The primary meals are prepared at the John Latorraca Correctional Facility and transported to the Juvenile Hall. The food served is well balanced and very good. The juvenile inmates are also served snacks between meals, which is primarily fruit. The facility offers classroom instruction so inmates can continue their education along with some vocational training. The juvenile inmates’ daily routine is well structured and monitored closely. The facility has more than sufficient recreational opportunities for the juvenile inmates. The staffing level at the facility appears to be very good with no staff shortages. Also located n the facility is a courtroom. This expedites the judicial process as well as eliminates any transportation between the facility and court and reduces the costs of the transportation and security for the County. Both male and female juveniles were interviewed. The only constant complaint was they didn’t receive enough food. There were no other complaints made about the staff of the facility. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff at the Merced County Juvenile Hall facility is to be commended for the excellent work they have done. The facility is very secure and well managed. The juvenile inmates are closely monitored and controlled through the day. The facility should look into the amount of food served to the inmates or make available more food for those inmates who want more. They are young, active and still growing and would require more food than the average adult. 12
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
F2004:
There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff and staff continue meeting with Correctional Officers in order for him to stay informed of the current situation and concerns of the facility. The Merced County Board of Supervisors should be required to tour the facility annually. During the tour on 2/14/06 with the Grand Jury, two supervisors mentioned that this tour was a “waste of time”. The overcrowding at this facility remains at a crisis level. Funding should be immediately obtained to hire additional staff as well as meet the operational expenses. Alternative funding should also be pursued which should include both Federal and State governments. This is a critical safety issue as well as a liability issue for the County. Over the past six (6) years different Grand Jury panels have visited this facility and all have come to the same conclusion. Staffing at this facility is at a crisis level! Adequate staffing will eliminate many of the current problems at the facility. This would also help the safety issue of Correctional Officers with the ratio of officers to inmates. On February 11, 2006, inmates filed a grievance with the facility Commander, citing overcrowding at the facility. Further the grievance cited frustration as this overcrowding created tension, fights and disciplinary problems. Note: As of May 26, 2006 the jail was still in “lockdown” status due to several altercations in the jail yard. The previous California Board of Corrections report was also critical of staff shortages. With the current growth of Merced County, both the Sheriff and the Merced County Board of Supervisors need to immediately start resolving this problem since it will only get worse by the month. Alternative housing options should be explored. The expansion of the current facility and/or an additional facility should be pursued. With the time it takes for funding, the bids for contracts, environmental impact reports and construction of an additional facility, we could be looking at several years before any relief is in sight. The public has become more aware of problems in both jails. There has been an overall lack of attention for these concerns in the past, by the County Board of Supervisors. If they don’t act now in an efficient and effective manner, it will be far more costly for the County in the future. COMMENDATIONS: Commendations are in order to the staff of the John Latorraca Correctional Facility for the very professional manner in which the tour was handled. Commendations are also in order to the Correctional Officers for the continued commitment for working under such stressful conditions. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
R2:
The Merced County District Attorney meet with the Delhi Unified School District Board of Trustees regarding the purpose the Brown Act as it pertains to the conduct of Board meetings and Roberts Rules of Order procedures.
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
F2004:
There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
None COMMENDATIONS: We commend Chief Banks for his smooth running operation and thank him for allowing us to tour his department. MERCED COUNTY CORONER’S OFFICE LATE DEATH CERTIFICATES GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #04-05-03 FOLLOW-UP INTRODUCTION: The 2004-2005 Grand Jury received a complaint alleging excessive time was spent finalizing death certificates and that over 100 pending cases covering a two-year period were found. The complainant alleged that the inquiries did not receive professional response. Because of the number of outstanding death certificates and the seriousness of the complaint, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury felt it important to follow-up on the complaint. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury visited with the employees of the Coroner’s Office. FINDINGS: It was noted during the review of the Coroner’s Office that the items noted by the prior years Grand Jury committee had not been addressed. The record keeping system currently utilized is one that has been in place for numerous years in which a manual entry of cases pending death certificates is denoted and status of such with a circular peel-off label. Although there appears to be adequate technology evidenced at the site to maintain an up-to-date streamlined data entry system, it has not been addressed and/or utilized. Information is taken from the Coroner’s Office to another office across town to be entered instead of entering the information at the Coroner’s Office. There is an average of approximately 80 cases per month that pass through the coroner’s office which employees four (4) full-time deputy coroners. Fifteen certificates are currently pending for the 2005 year. The Grand Jury toured the facility and noted that a new decomposition room had been built in 2004 to aid the pathologists in their examinations. The cost to the County of Merced for this new addition was approximately $260,000.00. Although this room was built to benefit the coroner’s office, it was discovered that it was not working at the time of the visitation by the Grand Jury, nor had it worked since completion of construction in 2004. There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
R2:
A private room should be used to meet the families eliminating the table and chairs that are in open view. With the advent of technological advances and basic computer programs, the utilization of such within this office would greatly improve the operation of this office’s record- keeping and systematic review of outstanding certificate and reports. The general appearance of the interior and exterior of the facility should be adequately maintained. It is recommended that a regularly scheduled meeting be held by the Sheriff with the staff at the facility to monitor operations and productivity. The overall appearance of the building inside and out on the first visit was in disrepair, with grass and out of control weeds and cobwebs on the outside of the building. The second visit in April, the outside was appearing to look better. An up to date information system needs to be purchased if budget permits. More interest needs to be taken in the general appearance of the exterior and interior of the office. MERCED COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT IRIS GARRETT JUVENILE JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL CENTER MANDATED INSPECTION INTRODUCTION: California Penal Code Section 919 mandates the Grand Jury the Yearly responsibility to visit the correctional facilities within Merced County. A tour of the Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center located at 2586 West Sandy Mush Road, Merced, was conducted on February 14, 2006. The Grand Jury toured the facility and examined each dorm, food service facility, classrooms and recreational facilities. Both male and female juveniles at the facility were interviewed. FINDINGS: The supervisor of the facility conducted the tour. The entire facility was very clean, well organized and in excellent condition. The Grand Jury examined each dorm of the facility. There is a central control station at each dorm wing where all activities of the juveniles are constantly monitored and controlled. The food service facility was inspected and found to be very clean and well managed. A nutritionist oversees the food that is to be prepared and served to the juvenile inmates. The primary meals are prepared at the John Latorraca Correctional Facility and transported to the Juvenile Hall. The food served is well balanced and very good. The juvenile inmates are also served snacks between meals, which is primarily fruit. The facility offers classroom instruction so inmates can continue their education along with some vocational training. The juvenile inmates’ daily routine is well structured and monitored closely. The facility has more than sufficient recreational opportunities for the juvenile inmates. The staffing level at the facility appears to be very good with no staff shortages. Also located n the facility is a courtroom. This expedites the judicial process as well as eliminates any transportation between the facility and court and reduces the costs of the transportation and security for the County. Both male and female juveniles were interviewed. The only constant complaint was they didn’t receive enough food. There were no other complaints made about the staff of the facility. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff at the Merced County Juvenile Hall facility is to be commended for the excellent work they have done. The facility is very secure and well managed. The juvenile inmates are closely monitored and controlled through the day. The facility should look into the amount of food served to the inmates or make available more food for those inmates who want more. They are young, active and still growing and would require more food than the average adult. 12
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
Additional Recommendations
19
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Trustees publicly acknowledges to the citizens of the Delhi district that the actions of the five participating members violated the Brown Act.
R2:
The Merced County District Attorney meet with the Delhi Unified School District Board of Trustees regarding the purpose the Brown Act as it pertains to the conduct of Board meetings and Roberts Rules of Order procedures.
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
R10-11:
Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center Mandated Inspection
R13-21:
Merced County Main Jail
R22-23:
Dos Palos Police Dept
R25-26:
Atwater Police Dept, Merced Co Public Defenders Office,
R32-33:
Merced College Office of Instruction #05-06-09 34
R37-38:
Los Banos Cemetery District
R43-49:
Merced Co Human Services Agency #05-06-15
R52-53:
Delhi Unified School Board of Trustees #05-06-18
R59-60:
Merced Police Department
R65-66:
Delhi Unified School District
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
F2004:
There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
None COMMENDATIONS: We commend Chief Banks for his smooth running operation and thank him for allowing us to tour his department. MERCED COUNTY CORONER’S OFFICE LATE DEATH CERTIFICATES GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #04-05-03 FOLLOW-UP INTRODUCTION: The 2004-2005 Grand Jury received a complaint alleging excessive time was spent finalizing death certificates and that over 100 pending cases covering a two-year period were found. The complainant alleged that the inquiries did not receive professional response. Because of the number of outstanding death certificates and the seriousness of the complaint, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury felt it important to follow-up on the complaint. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury visited with the employees of the Coroner’s Office. FINDINGS: It was noted during the review of the Coroner’s Office that the items noted by the prior years Grand Jury committee had not been addressed. The record keeping system currently utilized is one that has been in place for numerous years in which a manual entry of cases pending death certificates is denoted and status of such with a circular peel-off label. Although there appears to be adequate technology evidenced at the site to maintain an up-to-date streamlined data entry system, it has not been addressed and/or utilized. Information is taken from the Coroner’s Office to another office across town to be entered instead of entering the information at the Coroner’s Office. There is an average of approximately 80 cases per month that pass through the coroner’s office which employees four (4) full-time deputy coroners. Fifteen certificates are currently pending for the 2005 year. The Grand Jury toured the facility and noted that a new decomposition room had been built in 2004 to aid the pathologists in their examinations. The cost to the County of Merced for this new addition was approximately $260,000.00. Although this room was built to benefit the coroner’s office, it was discovered that it was not working at the time of the visitation by the Grand Jury, nor had it worked since completion of construction in 2004. There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
R2:
A private room should be used to meet the families eliminating the table and chairs that are in open view. With the advent of technological advances and basic computer programs, the utilization of such within this office would greatly improve the operation of this office’s record- keeping and systematic review of outstanding certificate and reports. The general appearance of the interior and exterior of the facility should be adequately maintained. It is recommended that a regularly scheduled meeting be held by the Sheriff with the staff at the facility to monitor operations and productivity. The overall appearance of the building inside and out on the first visit was in disrepair, with grass and out of control weeds and cobwebs on the outside of the building. The second visit in April, the outside was appearing to look better. An up to date information system needs to be purchased if budget permits. More interest needs to be taken in the general appearance of the exterior and interior of the office. MERCED COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT IRIS GARRETT JUVENILE JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL CENTER MANDATED INSPECTION INTRODUCTION: California Penal Code Section 919 mandates the Grand Jury the Yearly responsibility to visit the correctional facilities within Merced County. A tour of the Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center located at 2586 West Sandy Mush Road, Merced, was conducted on February 14, 2006. The Grand Jury toured the facility and examined each dorm, food service facility, classrooms and recreational facilities. Both male and female juveniles at the facility were interviewed. FINDINGS: The supervisor of the facility conducted the tour. The entire facility was very clean, well organized and in excellent condition. The Grand Jury examined each dorm of the facility. There is a central control station at each dorm wing where all activities of the juveniles are constantly monitored and controlled. The food service facility was inspected and found to be very clean and well managed. A nutritionist oversees the food that is to be prepared and served to the juvenile inmates. The primary meals are prepared at the John Latorraca Correctional Facility and transported to the Juvenile Hall. The food served is well balanced and very good. The juvenile inmates are also served snacks between meals, which is primarily fruit. The facility offers classroom instruction so inmates can continue their education along with some vocational training. The juvenile inmates’ daily routine is well structured and monitored closely. The facility has more than sufficient recreational opportunities for the juvenile inmates. The staffing level at the facility appears to be very good with no staff shortages. Also located n the facility is a courtroom. This expedites the judicial process as well as eliminates any transportation between the facility and court and reduces the costs of the transportation and security for the County. Both male and female juveniles were interviewed. The only constant complaint was they didn’t receive enough food. There were no other complaints made about the staff of the facility. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff at the Merced County Juvenile Hall facility is to be commended for the excellent work they have done. The facility is very secure and well managed. The juvenile inmates are closely monitored and controlled through the day. The facility should look into the amount of food served to the inmates or make available more food for those inmates who want more. They are young, active and still growing and would require more food than the average adult. 12
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
F2004:
There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
None COMMENDATIONS: We commend Chief Banks for his smooth running operation and thank him for allowing us to tour his department. MERCED COUNTY CORONER’S OFFICE LATE DEATH CERTIFICATES GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #04-05-03 FOLLOW-UP INTRODUCTION: The 2004-2005 Grand Jury received a complaint alleging excessive time was spent finalizing death certificates and that over 100 pending cases covering a two-year period were found. The complainant alleged that the inquiries did not receive professional response. Because of the number of outstanding death certificates and the seriousness of the complaint, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury felt it important to follow-up on the complaint. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury visited with the employees of the Coroner’s Office. FINDINGS: It was noted during the review of the Coroner’s Office that the items noted by the prior years Grand Jury committee had not been addressed. The record keeping system currently utilized is one that has been in place for numerous years in which a manual entry of cases pending death certificates is denoted and status of such with a circular peel-off label. Although there appears to be adequate technology evidenced at the site to maintain an up-to-date streamlined data entry system, it has not been addressed and/or utilized. Information is taken from the Coroner’s Office to another office across town to be entered instead of entering the information at the Coroner’s Office. There is an average of approximately 80 cases per month that pass through the coroner’s office which employees four (4) full-time deputy coroners. Fifteen certificates are currently pending for the 2005 year. The Grand Jury toured the facility and noted that a new decomposition room had been built in 2004 to aid the pathologists in their examinations. The cost to the County of Merced for this new addition was approximately $260,000.00. Although this room was built to benefit the coroner’s office, it was discovered that it was not working at the time of the visitation by the Grand Jury, nor had it worked since completion of construction in 2004. There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
R2:
A private room should be used to meet the families eliminating the table and chairs that are in open view. With the advent of technological advances and basic computer programs, the utilization of such within this office would greatly improve the operation of this office’s record- keeping and systematic review of outstanding certificate and reports. The general appearance of the interior and exterior of the facility should be adequately maintained. It is recommended that a regularly scheduled meeting be held by the Sheriff with the staff at the facility to monitor operations and productivity. The overall appearance of the building inside and out on the first visit was in disrepair, with grass and out of control weeds and cobwebs on the outside of the building. The second visit in April, the outside was appearing to look better. An up to date information system needs to be purchased if budget permits. More interest needs to be taken in the general appearance of the exterior and interior of the office. MERCED COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT IRIS GARRETT JUVENILE JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL CENTER MANDATED INSPECTION INTRODUCTION: California Penal Code Section 919 mandates the Grand Jury the Yearly responsibility to visit the correctional facilities within Merced County. A tour of the Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center located at 2586 West Sandy Mush Road, Merced, was conducted on February 14, 2006. The Grand Jury toured the facility and examined each dorm, food service facility, classrooms and recreational facilities. Both male and female juveniles at the facility were interviewed. FINDINGS: The supervisor of the facility conducted the tour. The entire facility was very clean, well organized and in excellent condition. The Grand Jury examined each dorm of the facility. There is a central control station at each dorm wing where all activities of the juveniles are constantly monitored and controlled. The food service facility was inspected and found to be very clean and well managed. A nutritionist oversees the food that is to be prepared and served to the juvenile inmates. The primary meals are prepared at the John Latorraca Correctional Facility and transported to the Juvenile Hall. The food served is well balanced and very good. The juvenile inmates are also served snacks between meals, which is primarily fruit. The facility offers classroom instruction so inmates can continue their education along with some vocational training. The juvenile inmates’ daily routine is well structured and monitored closely. The facility has more than sufficient recreational opportunities for the juvenile inmates. The staffing level at the facility appears to be very good with no staff shortages. Also located n the facility is a courtroom. This expedites the judicial process as well as eliminates any transportation between the facility and court and reduces the costs of the transportation and security for the County. Both male and female juveniles were interviewed. The only constant complaint was they didn’t receive enough food. There were no other complaints made about the staff of the facility. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff at the Merced County Juvenile Hall facility is to be commended for the excellent work they have done. The facility is very secure and well managed. The juvenile inmates are closely monitored and controlled through the day. The facility should look into the amount of food served to the inmates or make available more food for those inmates who want more. They are young, active and still growing and would require more food than the average adult. 12
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
F2004:
There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
None COMMENDATIONS: We commend Chief Banks for his smooth running operation and thank him for allowing us to tour his department. MERCED COUNTY CORONER’S OFFICE LATE DEATH CERTIFICATES GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #04-05-03 FOLLOW-UP INTRODUCTION: The 2004-2005 Grand Jury received a complaint alleging excessive time was spent finalizing death certificates and that over 100 pending cases covering a two-year period were found. The complainant alleged that the inquiries did not receive professional response. Because of the number of outstanding death certificates and the seriousness of the complaint, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury felt it important to follow-up on the complaint. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury visited with the employees of the Coroner’s Office. FINDINGS: It was noted during the review of the Coroner’s Office that the items noted by the prior years Grand Jury committee had not been addressed. The record keeping system currently utilized is one that has been in place for numerous years in which a manual entry of cases pending death certificates is denoted and status of such with a circular peel-off label. Although there appears to be adequate technology evidenced at the site to maintain an up-to-date streamlined data entry system, it has not been addressed and/or utilized. Information is taken from the Coroner’s Office to another office across town to be entered instead of entering the information at the Coroner’s Office. There is an average of approximately 80 cases per month that pass through the coroner’s office which employees four (4) full-time deputy coroners. Fifteen certificates are currently pending for the 2005 year. The Grand Jury toured the facility and noted that a new decomposition room had been built in 2004 to aid the pathologists in their examinations. The cost to the County of Merced for this new addition was approximately $260,000.00. Although this room was built to benefit the coroner’s office, it was discovered that it was not working at the time of the visitation by the Grand Jury, nor had it worked since completion of construction in 2004. There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
R2:
A private room should be used to meet the families eliminating the table and chairs that are in open view. With the advent of technological advances and basic computer programs, the utilization of such within this office would greatly improve the operation of this office’s record- keeping and systematic review of outstanding certificate and reports. The general appearance of the interior and exterior of the facility should be adequately maintained. It is recommended that a regularly scheduled meeting be held by the Sheriff with the staff at the facility to monitor operations and productivity. The overall appearance of the building inside and out on the first visit was in disrepair, with grass and out of control weeds and cobwebs on the outside of the building. The second visit in April, the outside was appearing to look better. An up to date information system needs to be purchased if budget permits. More interest needs to be taken in the general appearance of the exterior and interior of the office. MERCED COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT IRIS GARRETT JUVENILE JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL CENTER MANDATED INSPECTION INTRODUCTION: California Penal Code Section 919 mandates the Grand Jury the Yearly responsibility to visit the correctional facilities within Merced County. A tour of the Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center located at 2586 West Sandy Mush Road, Merced, was conducted on February 14, 2006. The Grand Jury toured the facility and examined each dorm, food service facility, classrooms and recreational facilities. Both male and female juveniles at the facility were interviewed. FINDINGS: The supervisor of the facility conducted the tour. The entire facility was very clean, well organized and in excellent condition. The Grand Jury examined each dorm of the facility. There is a central control station at each dorm wing where all activities of the juveniles are constantly monitored and controlled. The food service facility was inspected and found to be very clean and well managed. A nutritionist oversees the food that is to be prepared and served to the juvenile inmates. The primary meals are prepared at the John Latorraca Correctional Facility and transported to the Juvenile Hall. The food served is well balanced and very good. The juvenile inmates are also served snacks between meals, which is primarily fruit. The facility offers classroom instruction so inmates can continue their education along with some vocational training. The juvenile inmates’ daily routine is well structured and monitored closely. The facility has more than sufficient recreational opportunities for the juvenile inmates. The staffing level at the facility appears to be very good with no staff shortages. Also located n the facility is a courtroom. This expedites the judicial process as well as eliminates any transportation between the facility and court and reduces the costs of the transportation and security for the County. Both male and female juveniles were interviewed. The only constant complaint was they didn’t receive enough food. There were no other complaints made about the staff of the facility. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff at the Merced County Juvenile Hall facility is to be commended for the excellent work they have done. The facility is very secure and well managed. The juvenile inmates are closely monitored and controlled through the day. The facility should look into the amount of food served to the inmates or make available more food for those inmates who want more. They are young, active and still growing and would require more food than the average adult. 12
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
F2004:
There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
None COMMENDATIONS: We commend Chief Banks for his smooth running operation and thank him for allowing us to tour his department. MERCED COUNTY CORONER’S OFFICE LATE DEATH CERTIFICATES GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #04-05-03 FOLLOW-UP INTRODUCTION: The 2004-2005 Grand Jury received a complaint alleging excessive time was spent finalizing death certificates and that over 100 pending cases covering a two-year period were found. The complainant alleged that the inquiries did not receive professional response. Because of the number of outstanding death certificates and the seriousness of the complaint, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury felt it important to follow-up on the complaint. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury visited with the employees of the Coroner’s Office. FINDINGS: It was noted during the review of the Coroner’s Office that the items noted by the prior years Grand Jury committee had not been addressed. The record keeping system currently utilized is one that has been in place for numerous years in which a manual entry of cases pending death certificates is denoted and status of such with a circular peel-off label. Although there appears to be adequate technology evidenced at the site to maintain an up-to-date streamlined data entry system, it has not been addressed and/or utilized. Information is taken from the Coroner’s Office to another office across town to be entered instead of entering the information at the Coroner’s Office. There is an average of approximately 80 cases per month that pass through the coroner’s office which employees four (4) full-time deputy coroners. Fifteen certificates are currently pending for the 2005 year. The Grand Jury toured the facility and noted that a new decomposition room had been built in 2004 to aid the pathologists in their examinations. The cost to the County of Merced for this new addition was approximately $260,000.00. Although this room was built to benefit the coroner’s office, it was discovered that it was not working at the time of the visitation by the Grand Jury, nor had it worked since completion of construction in 2004. There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
R2:
A private room should be used to meet the families eliminating the table and chairs that are in open view. With the advent of technological advances and basic computer programs, the utilization of such within this office would greatly improve the operation of this office’s record- keeping and systematic review of outstanding certificate and reports. The general appearance of the interior and exterior of the facility should be adequately maintained. It is recommended that a regularly scheduled meeting be held by the Sheriff with the staff at the facility to monitor operations and productivity. The overall appearance of the building inside and out on the first visit was in disrepair, with grass and out of control weeds and cobwebs on the outside of the building. The second visit in April, the outside was appearing to look better. An up to date information system needs to be purchased if budget permits. More interest needs to be taken in the general appearance of the exterior and interior of the office. MERCED COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT IRIS GARRETT JUVENILE JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL CENTER MANDATED INSPECTION INTRODUCTION: California Penal Code Section 919 mandates the Grand Jury the Yearly responsibility to visit the correctional facilities within Merced County. A tour of the Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center located at 2586 West Sandy Mush Road, Merced, was conducted on February 14, 2006. The Grand Jury toured the facility and examined each dorm, food service facility, classrooms and recreational facilities. Both male and female juveniles at the facility were interviewed. FINDINGS: The supervisor of the facility conducted the tour. The entire facility was very clean, well organized and in excellent condition. The Grand Jury examined each dorm of the facility. There is a central control station at each dorm wing where all activities of the juveniles are constantly monitored and controlled. The food service facility was inspected and found to be very clean and well managed. A nutritionist oversees the food that is to be prepared and served to the juvenile inmates. The primary meals are prepared at the John Latorraca Correctional Facility and transported to the Juvenile Hall. The food served is well balanced and very good. The juvenile inmates are also served snacks between meals, which is primarily fruit. The facility offers classroom instruction so inmates can continue their education along with some vocational training. The juvenile inmates’ daily routine is well structured and monitored closely. The facility has more than sufficient recreational opportunities for the juvenile inmates. The staffing level at the facility appears to be very good with no staff shortages. Also located n the facility is a courtroom. This expedites the judicial process as well as eliminates any transportation between the facility and court and reduces the costs of the transportation and security for the County. Both male and female juveniles were interviewed. The only constant complaint was they didn’t receive enough food. There were no other complaints made about the staff of the facility. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff at the Merced County Juvenile Hall facility is to be commended for the excellent work they have done. The facility is very secure and well managed. The juvenile inmates are closely monitored and controlled through the day. The facility should look into the amount of food served to the inmates or make available more food for those inmates who want more. They are young, active and still growing and would require more food than the average adult. 12
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
Additional Recommendations
19
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Trustees publicly acknowledges to the citizens of the Delhi district that the actions of the five participating members violated the Brown Act.
R2:
The Merced County District Attorney meet with the Delhi Unified School District Board of Trustees regarding the purpose the Brown Act as it pertains to the conduct of Board meetings and Roberts Rules of Order procedures.
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
R10-11:
Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center Mandated Inspection
R13-21:
Merced County Main Jail
R22-23:
Dos Palos Police Dept
R25-26:
Atwater Police Dept, Merced Co Public Defenders Office,
R32-33:
Merced College Office of Instruction #05-06-09 34
R37-38:
Los Banos Cemetery District
R43-49:
Merced Co Human Services Agency #05-06-15
R52-53:
Delhi Unified School Board of Trustees #05-06-18
R59-60:
Merced Police Department
R65-66:
Delhi Unified School District
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
F2004:
There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
None COMMENDATIONS: We commend Chief Banks for his smooth running operation and thank him for allowing us to tour his department. MERCED COUNTY CORONER’S OFFICE LATE DEATH CERTIFICATES GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #04-05-03 FOLLOW-UP INTRODUCTION: The 2004-2005 Grand Jury received a complaint alleging excessive time was spent finalizing death certificates and that over 100 pending cases covering a two-year period were found. The complainant alleged that the inquiries did not receive professional response. Because of the number of outstanding death certificates and the seriousness of the complaint, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury felt it important to follow-up on the complaint. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury visited with the employees of the Coroner’s Office. FINDINGS: It was noted during the review of the Coroner’s Office that the items noted by the prior years Grand Jury committee had not been addressed. The record keeping system currently utilized is one that has been in place for numerous years in which a manual entry of cases pending death certificates is denoted and status of such with a circular peel-off label. Although there appears to be adequate technology evidenced at the site to maintain an up-to-date streamlined data entry system, it has not been addressed and/or utilized. Information is taken from the Coroner’s Office to another office across town to be entered instead of entering the information at the Coroner’s Office. There is an average of approximately 80 cases per month that pass through the coroner’s office which employees four (4) full-time deputy coroners. Fifteen certificates are currently pending for the 2005 year. The Grand Jury toured the facility and noted that a new decomposition room had been built in 2004 to aid the pathologists in their examinations. The cost to the County of Merced for this new addition was approximately $260,000.00. Although this room was built to benefit the coroner’s office, it was discovered that it was not working at the time of the visitation by the Grand Jury, nor had it worked since completion of construction in 2004. There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
R2:
A private room should be used to meet the families eliminating the table and chairs that are in open view. With the advent of technological advances and basic computer programs, the utilization of such within this office would greatly improve the operation of this office’s record- keeping and systematic review of outstanding certificate and reports. The general appearance of the interior and exterior of the facility should be adequately maintained. It is recommended that a regularly scheduled meeting be held by the Sheriff with the staff at the facility to monitor operations and productivity. The overall appearance of the building inside and out on the first visit was in disrepair, with grass and out of control weeds and cobwebs on the outside of the building. The second visit in April, the outside was appearing to look better. An up to date information system needs to be purchased if budget permits. More interest needs to be taken in the general appearance of the exterior and interior of the office. MERCED COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT IRIS GARRETT JUVENILE JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL CENTER MANDATED INSPECTION INTRODUCTION: California Penal Code Section 919 mandates the Grand Jury the Yearly responsibility to visit the correctional facilities within Merced County. A tour of the Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center located at 2586 West Sandy Mush Road, Merced, was conducted on February 14, 2006. The Grand Jury toured the facility and examined each dorm, food service facility, classrooms and recreational facilities. Both male and female juveniles at the facility were interviewed. FINDINGS: The supervisor of the facility conducted the tour. The entire facility was very clean, well organized and in excellent condition. The Grand Jury examined each dorm of the facility. There is a central control station at each dorm wing where all activities of the juveniles are constantly monitored and controlled. The food service facility was inspected and found to be very clean and well managed. A nutritionist oversees the food that is to be prepared and served to the juvenile inmates. The primary meals are prepared at the John Latorraca Correctional Facility and transported to the Juvenile Hall. The food served is well balanced and very good. The juvenile inmates are also served snacks between meals, which is primarily fruit. The facility offers classroom instruction so inmates can continue their education along with some vocational training. The juvenile inmates’ daily routine is well structured and monitored closely. The facility has more than sufficient recreational opportunities for the juvenile inmates. The staffing level at the facility appears to be very good with no staff shortages. Also located n the facility is a courtroom. This expedites the judicial process as well as eliminates any transportation between the facility and court and reduces the costs of the transportation and security for the County. Both male and female juveniles were interviewed. The only constant complaint was they didn’t receive enough food. There were no other complaints made about the staff of the facility. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff at the Merced County Juvenile Hall facility is to be commended for the excellent work they have done. The facility is very secure and well managed. The juvenile inmates are closely monitored and controlled through the day. The facility should look into the amount of food served to the inmates or make available more food for those inmates who want more. They are young, active and still growing and would require more food than the average adult. 12
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Hiring a 15 year old to work on the computers.
F2:
Terminating an employee for reporting “Child Porn” on the agency computers.
F3:
Misuse of State and Federal funds.
F4:
Misuse of credit card. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury first considered if the Agency was appropriately under the purview of the Grand Jury. We determined that since the Agency received Government funds, that they were properly under our jurisdiction.
F2004:
There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
None COMMENDATIONS: We commend Chief Banks for his smooth running operation and thank him for allowing us to tour his department. MERCED COUNTY CORONER’S OFFICE LATE DEATH CERTIFICATES GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #04-05-03 FOLLOW-UP INTRODUCTION: The 2004-2005 Grand Jury received a complaint alleging excessive time was spent finalizing death certificates and that over 100 pending cases covering a two-year period were found. The complainant alleged that the inquiries did not receive professional response. Because of the number of outstanding death certificates and the seriousness of the complaint, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury felt it important to follow-up on the complaint. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury visited with the employees of the Coroner’s Office. FINDINGS: It was noted during the review of the Coroner’s Office that the items noted by the prior years Grand Jury committee had not been addressed. The record keeping system currently utilized is one that has been in place for numerous years in which a manual entry of cases pending death certificates is denoted and status of such with a circular peel-off label. Although there appears to be adequate technology evidenced at the site to maintain an up-to-date streamlined data entry system, it has not been addressed and/or utilized. Information is taken from the Coroner’s Office to another office across town to be entered instead of entering the information at the Coroner’s Office. There is an average of approximately 80 cases per month that pass through the coroner’s office which employees four (4) full-time deputy coroners. Fifteen certificates are currently pending for the 2005 year. The Grand Jury toured the facility and noted that a new decomposition room had been built in 2004 to aid the pathologists in their examinations. The cost to the County of Merced for this new addition was approximately $260,000.00. Although this room was built to benefit the coroner’s office, it was discovered that it was not working at the time of the visitation by the Grand Jury, nor had it worked since completion of construction in 2004. There was no documentation of contact(s) made with the building contractor to address the correction of the problem. A follow-up visit by the Grand Jury was made to the Coroner’s Office on April 15, 2006 upon which they were informed that the decomposition room had been repaired three weeks prior. The repair to the room consisted of the installation of a $3,000.00 exhaust fan. The Coroner’s Office is in a position to meet the public concerning the death of family members or close friends. The meeting to discuss personal matters is often held at a 10 table that is positioned in an open area in central traffic. There is no privacy exhibited for the client. Although the Coroner’s Office is under the supervision of the Sheriff, it was noted by interviewing employees that a regular assessment of operations and facilities was not in evidence. An initial review of the Coroner’s Office interior and exterior exhibited a need of repair and maintenance for both building and grounds. Upon questioning the staff at the Coroner’s Office, there is definitely education lacking in the field and an on-site pathologist is absent.
R2:
A private room should be used to meet the families eliminating the table and chairs that are in open view. With the advent of technological advances and basic computer programs, the utilization of such within this office would greatly improve the operation of this office’s record- keeping and systematic review of outstanding certificate and reports. The general appearance of the interior and exterior of the facility should be adequately maintained. It is recommended that a regularly scheduled meeting be held by the Sheriff with the staff at the facility to monitor operations and productivity. The overall appearance of the building inside and out on the first visit was in disrepair, with grass and out of control weeds and cobwebs on the outside of the building. The second visit in April, the outside was appearing to look better. An up to date information system needs to be purchased if budget permits. More interest needs to be taken in the general appearance of the exterior and interior of the office. MERCED COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT IRIS GARRETT JUVENILE JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL CENTER MANDATED INSPECTION INTRODUCTION: California Penal Code Section 919 mandates the Grand Jury the Yearly responsibility to visit the correctional facilities within Merced County. A tour of the Iris Garrett Juvenile Justice Correctional Center located at 2586 West Sandy Mush Road, Merced, was conducted on February 14, 2006. The Grand Jury toured the facility and examined each dorm, food service facility, classrooms and recreational facilities. Both male and female juveniles at the facility were interviewed. FINDINGS: The supervisor of the facility conducted the tour. The entire facility was very clean, well organized and in excellent condition. The Grand Jury examined each dorm of the facility. There is a central control station at each dorm wing where all activities of the juveniles are constantly monitored and controlled. The food service facility was inspected and found to be very clean and well managed. A nutritionist oversees the food that is to be prepared and served to the juvenile inmates. The primary meals are prepared at the John Latorraca Correctional Facility and transported to the Juvenile Hall. The food served is well balanced and very good. The juvenile inmates are also served snacks between meals, which is primarily fruit. The facility offers classroom instruction so inmates can continue their education along with some vocational training. The juvenile inmates’ daily routine is well structured and monitored closely. The facility has more than sufficient recreational opportunities for the juvenile inmates. The staffing level at the facility appears to be very good with no staff shortages. Also located n the facility is a courtroom. This expedites the judicial process as well as eliminates any transportation between the facility and court and reduces the costs of the transportation and security for the County. Both male and female juveniles were interviewed. The only constant complaint was they didn’t receive enough food. There were no other complaints made about the staff of the facility. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff at the Merced County Juvenile Hall facility is to be commended for the excellent work they have done. The facility is very secure and well managed. The juvenile inmates are closely monitored and controlled through the day. The facility should look into the amount of food served to the inmates or make available more food for those inmates who want more. They are young, active and still growing and would require more food than the average adult. 12
R3:
Official minutes should include a chain of accountability and accuracy by including name and/or initials of person actually recording and typing records.
R4:
Public records, including website, should be revised to update information including agendas, meetings, and notification of meeting time and place.
R5:
Trustees follow the same format, using Brown Act and Roberts Rules guidelines, to categorize meetings, have consistent agenda formats, and accurate minutes, all approved in a timely manner.
R6:
Board and Superintendent meet to review and discuss relationship and/or duties as defined by law.
R7:
Actions taken at October 25, 2005 meeting (originally closed, then opened by request), be null & void
R8:
This matter is referred to the Merced County District Attorney for possible action.
R9:
During this investigation the complainant filed another complaint, this time naming the superintendent. Because of time constraints, it is advised the new complaint (Grand Jury # 05-06-25) be forwarded to the next grand jury (2006-2007) for further investigation. It is also recommended that this and subsequent reports and actions related to both complaints and/or allegations be included and referenced to each other for clarification and appropriate action. CITY OF ATWATER COUNCIL BENEFITS GRAND JURY COMPLAINT #05-06-19 COMPLAINT: The complaint concerns the recent action taken March of 2005 to allow Atwater City Council Members and their covered dependents to continue on the Health Plan at their own expense after they no longer serve on the Council. The complainant was concerned that the addition of aged non-employees would affect the pool of participants and thus create a liability for the City by increasing the cost. BACKGROUND: The City of Atwater participates in a State Wide Health Plan under the Public Employees Plan. The pool of covered lives consists of over 1.4 million participants. In March of 2005, the City Manager set forth a Resolution 2018-05 authorizing retention of benefits to City Council members. The background identified that this was already a practice of Atwater. The resolution was to formalize an existing practice. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: 4/12/06 Interview with complainant. The complainant had two concerns. The City had no authority to grant former Council member’s benefits of any kind into perpetuity after they leave office. That contributions to the employee medical plans will be increased based on the adverse affect of the age retirees on the insurance pool as a whole, thus becoming an increase to the city. He had no complaint regarding the procedure. His sole concern appeared to be the financial impact on the City. 4/12/06 Interview with Atwater City Manager and the Atwater Director of Finance. The City Manager indicated the practice had been in effect prior to his tenure. There was no resolution in place authorizing this practice. He offered resolution 2018-05 to the Atwater City Council on March 14, 2005 for approval. This action did not create a change in policy or practice but rather a transparency to the community of the practice. The committee reviewed: The Resolution 2018-05 I, indicated that there was no fiscal impact to the City based on this action and that the health benefits for the retiree would not be paid by the City of Atwater but rather 100% by the participant. California Government Code 365.16(a) allows the City Council to be provided with the same benefits currently provided to the employees. The Cal Pers Health Benefit Summary, 2006. The cost of monthly premiums to contracting agencies. ANALYSIS: In reviewing the California Government Code 36516(a) the committee determined that the Atwater City Council was within their rights to grant this benefit to the council at retirement because it did not exceed the benefits allowed to active employees. The only concern that the committee noted was that there was no five-year service requirement contained in the Resolution 2018-05. However, we clearly did not find any violation. The committee found that based on the size of the health participant pool (CAL PERS) and the fact that the former council members are responsible and required to pay 100% of the contribution, there is no financial impact to the City of Atwater.