Modoc County 2003-2004 - California Grand Jury Reports

F1: Dependent, with advisory boards, elected or appointed, governed by a larger entity, for example the Board of Supervisors; and

F2: Independent, governed by their own elected or appointed bodies. For the most part, special districts have not had audits done for several years due to a lack of funds. Government Code Section 26909 requires special districts to have an audit annually, but, under certain conditions, the district can substitute a biennial audit covering a two year period, or the Board of Supervisors may substitute a financial review if the Board of Supervisors is the governing board of the district and the revenues do not exceed $100,000, and the districts revenues/expenditures are transacted through the county financial systems and other special conditions are met. Jurors found there have been certain county funds that were not run through the county accounting system and therefore were not included in the county audit.

F3: All county funds/financial transactions should be detailed in the county auditor/recorder's records.

F4: The county should have an unqualified audit of all funds that are administered or expended by the County.

F5: Finances of special districts must be audited annually, biennially or a financial review must be done annually in accordance with Government Code Section 26909.

F6: Board of Supervisors must meet their obligations to special districts as required by Government Code Section 26909.

F7: County auditor/recorder must request copies of annual audits from those special districts that are required by code to provide them. Respondents: Board of Supervisors County Counsel County Auditor/Recorder Special District/Non-Profit/General Government Areas of Study Hot Springs Valley Irrigation District (HSVID) Modoc County Special Districts Modoc County Administration District Attorney Conflict of Interest Contracts of Modoc Medical Clinic Doctors Nepotism in County Government Hot Springs Valley Irrigation District (HSVID) Issues: The Grand Jury reviewed the legally required response from HSVID to the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury

F8: Elections procedures are being followed satisfactorily.

F9: Conflict of dual elective office issues has been resolved by the resignation of the involved board member.

F10: The State Water Resources Control Board cease-and-desist orders are covering district and downstream water rights issues. Procedures: Since satisfactory answers for the following questions were not received in response to the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury Report, the FY 2003-04 Grand Jury submitted the following questions:

F11: Has the recommended and required audit been completed?

F12: Requested HSVID provide Code support to its contention Board members are not required to file Form 700. In addition, the Grand Jury requested HSVID furnish copies of recent cease-and-desist orders from the State Water Resources Control Board. The Grand Jury also informed HSVID that the special district is subject to conflict of interest code requirements according to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Findings:

F13: HSVID acknowledges its responsibility for but has not yet attained the required audit.

F14: Forms 700 for each current HSVID Board member have been completed and filed with the County Clerk.

F15: HSVID acknowledges its responsibility for having a conflict of interest code, and for meeting state requirements in this regard. As of this writing, the code has not been filed with the county.

F16: The Grand Jury informed the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Office of the above lack of compliance and informed them of proposed legislation, S B 1272, which, if enacted could place enforcement of current code in state hands instead of at the county level.

F17: The Grand Jury met with the auditor to determine the cost of bringing the County into compliance regarding its obligations to audit dependent special districts, and the requirement for independent districts to file copies of their audits with the county. Findings:

F18: The Grand Jury found and brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors violations of Government Code Section 26909 regarding the audit of some special districts.

F19: The Grand Jury found that the County Administrative Office was unaware of, or had not communicated, the above requirements to the Board of Supervisors or the special districts.

F20: Special district volunteers have received little advice or help from the county as responses to Grand Jury questions indicate that most special districts are unaware of audit, conflict of interest and other legal issues pertaining to special districts.

F21: Most special districts in the county are made up of volunteers who perform many vital county functions with little or no compensation.

F22: The Board of Supervisors provide for aid to special districts, both dependent and independent, in achieving compliance with existing codes.

F23: The Board of Supervisors provide adequate legal counsel to review the status of special districts and county responsibility to those districts on a regular basis and to advise county staff and special district volunteers.

F24: The Board of Supervisors meet it s obligations regarding audits of special districts.

F25: The Board of Supervisors review the policies of all special districts not specifically exempted by resolution 95-08 to ensure that those special districts are in compliance with Government Code Section 87300 regarding conflict of interest. Respondents: Board of Supervisors County Counsel County Auditor County Administration Issues: Grand Jury review of several county programs -- Public Guardian, Special Districts, Tobacco Settlement Funds and lack of compliance with various codes -- reveals problems in county administration. These issues reach the top of county government-the County Administrative Office (CAO) and the Board of Supervisors (BOS). The Grand Jury finds that the CAO s unaware of, or indifferent to, certain code and procedural requirements of county governance. Findings: Granting the fact that Modoc County is a small rural governmental entity with limited funding, we offer these findings:

F26: It appears the BOS is overly reliant on the CAO regarding issues that rightfully should be the BOS responsibility.

F27: There are issues that should go before the BOS without having to receive prior submittal approval from the CAO. Some budgetary and financial issues come before the BOS. Other equally important issues such as code compliance, performance evaluations for department heads, and public service issues do not.

F28: The BOS is receiving some of these issues only when they are at crisis level. To wit: the current imbroglio regarding the overpayment of some several hundred thousand dollars for surface maintenance to a contractor.

F29: The Grand Jury found that the BOS has not conducted annual performance reviews of the County Administrative Services Director.

F30: The CAO serves at the pleasure and under the direction of the Modoc County Board of Supervisors. Without closer direction by the B OS and clearer delineation of authority and responsibility, this office is operating too independently for the good of the county and the public served.

F31: The BOS should require that the Board Chairperson be consulted by the CAO before proposed agenda items are rejected.

F32: The Board of Supervisors should conduct an annual performance review of the County Administrative Services Director.

F33: An annual performance review should be conducted by the CAO on all department heads under CAO supervision and these reviews should be analyzed by the BOS with the County Administrative Services Director in closed session. If an employee reviewed disagrees significantly with the evaluation, that employee should be heard by the BOS in closed session. Respondents: Board of Supervisors Administrative Services Director District Attorney Conflict-of-Interest Issues: The Grand Jury received a letter from the California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office in response to a request made by the FY2002-03 Grand Jury to review the evidence it had collected on an investigation. That jury had no available legal counsel because of a written declaration of conflict of interest from the District Attorney, a declaration of conflict of interest from the Judge, and County Counsel could not provide advice other than for civil issues. Procedures: The Grand Jury reviewed the investigation by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury. The 2003-04 Grand Jury wrote a letter asking the District Attorney to explain his actions. Findings:

F34: The Attorney General's Office declined to review the evidence collected by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury, citing an opinion from the District Attorney.

F35: The 2003-04 Grand Jury's review indicated that the 2002/03 Grand Jury's investigations gathered evidence of possible criminal issues.

F36: The 2003-04 Grand Jury finds that the District Attorney, after declaring conflict-of-interest, submitted an opinion regarding the ongoing 2002-0 3 Grand Jury investigation to the Attorney General that may have interfered with access to counsel by the 2003-04 Grand Jury.

F37: Negligence by the Department of Public Works regarding the enforcement of its condemnation and building habitability policy/procedures.

F38: The Road Department's inappropriate changing of county road designations. Procedures: On January 8, 2004 the Jury met with the Director and Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. The jurors were made aware of the laws that apply to condemnation as well as the procedure for enforcing living conditions when a building is being occupied under what is believed to be less than desirable conditions. Jury members also reviewed the statutes relating to the alleged violations. On April 19, 2004 the Jury met with the Modoc County Road Commissioner/ Director of Public Works, and the Deputy Road Commissioner to discuss the second complaint regarding road signs. A thorough explanation was presented regarding the mandates involving the distribution and maintenance of county road signs. The jurors also reviewed the applicable statutes governing this procedure. Findings:

F39: There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.

F40: There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.

F41: Qualifications of Public Guardian.

F42: Inventories of conservatee assets.

F43: Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.

F44: Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:

F45: Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.

F46: Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.

F47: After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.

F48: Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.

F49: The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.

F50: The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.

F51: HSVID acknowledges its responsibility for but has not yet attained the required audit.

F52: Forms 700 for each current HSVID Board member have been completed and filed with the County Clerk.

F53: HSVID acknowledges its responsibility for having a conflict of interest code, and for meeting state requirements in this regard. As of this writing, the code has not been filed with the county.

F54: The Grand Jury informed the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Office of the above lack of compliance and informed them of proposed legislation, S B 1272, which, if enacted could place enforcement of current code in state hands instead of at the county level.

F55: The Grand Jury met with the auditor to determine the cost of bringing the County into compliance regarding its obligations to audit dependent special districts, and the requirement for independent districts to file copies of their audits with the county. Findings:

F56: The Grand Jury found and brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors violations of Government Code Section 26909 regarding the audit of some special districts.

F57: The Grand Jury found that the County Administrative Office was unaware of, or had not communicated, the above requirements to the Board of Supervisors or the special districts.

F58: Special district volunteers have received little advice or help from the county as responses to Grand Jury questions indicate that most special districts are unaware of audit, conflict of interest and other legal issues pertaining to special districts.

F59: Most special districts in the county are made up of volunteers who perform many vital county functions with little or no compensation.

F60: The Board of Supervisors provide for aid to special districts, both dependent and independent, in achieving compliance with existing codes.

F61: The Board of Supervisors provide adequate legal counsel to review the status of special districts and county responsibility to those districts on a regular basis and to advise county staff and special district volunteers.

F62: The Board of Supervisors meet it s obligations regarding audits of special districts.

F63: The Board of Supervisors review the policies of all special districts not specifically exempted by resolution 95-08 to ensure that those special districts are in compliance with Government Code Section 87300 regarding conflict of interest. Respondents: Board of Supervisors County Counsel County Auditor County Administration Issues: Grand Jury review of several county programs -- Public Guardian, Special Districts, Tobacco Settlement Funds and lack of compliance with various codes -- reveals problems in county administration. These issues reach the top of county government-the County Administrative Office (CAO) and the Board of Supervisors (BOS). The Grand Jury finds that the CAO s unaware of, or indifferent to, certain code and procedural requirements of county governance. Findings: Granting the fact that Modoc County is a small rural governmental entity with limited funding, we offer these findings:

F64: It appears the BOS is overly reliant on the CAO regarding issues that rightfully should be the BOS responsibility.

F65: There are issues that should go before the BOS without having to receive prior submittal approval from the CAO. Some budgetary and financial issues come before the BOS. Other equally important issues such as code compliance, performance evaluations for department heads, and public service issues do not.

F66: The BOS is receiving some of these issues only when they are at crisis level. To wit: the current imbroglio regarding the overpayment of some several hundred thousand dollars for surface maintenance to a contractor.

F67: The Grand Jury found that the BOS has not conducted annual performance reviews of the County Administrative Services Director.

F68: The CAO serves at the pleasure and under the direction of the Modoc County Board of Supervisors. Without closer direction by the B OS and clearer delineation of authority and responsibility, this office is operating too independently for the good of the county and the public served.

F69: The BOS should require that the Board Chairperson be consulted by the CAO before proposed agenda items are rejected.

F70: The Board of Supervisors should conduct an annual performance review of the County Administrative Services Director.

F71: An annual performance review should be conducted by the CAO on all department heads under CAO supervision and these reviews should be analyzed by the BOS with the County Administrative Services Director in closed session. If an employee reviewed disagrees significantly with the evaluation, that employee should be heard by the BOS in closed session. Respondents: Board of Supervisors Administrative Services Director District Attorney Conflict-of-Interest Issues: The Grand Jury received a letter from the California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office in response to a request made by the FY2002-03 Grand Jury to review the evidence it had collected on an investigation. That jury had no available legal counsel because of a written declaration of conflict of interest from the District Attorney, a declaration of conflict of interest from the Judge, and County Counsel could not provide advice other than for civil issues. Procedures: The Grand Jury reviewed the investigation by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury. The 2003-04 Grand Jury wrote a letter asking the District Attorney to explain his actions. Findings:

F72: The Attorney General's Office declined to review the evidence collected by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury, citing an opinion from the District Attorney.

F73: The 2003-04 Grand Jury's review indicated that the 2002/03 Grand Jury's investigations gathered evidence of possible criminal issues.

F74: The 2003-04 Grand Jury finds that the District Attorney, after declaring conflict-of-interest, submitted an opinion regarding the ongoing 2002-0 3 Grand Jury investigation to the Attorney General that may have interfered with access to counsel by the 2003-04 Grand Jury.

F75: Negligence by the Department of Public Works regarding the enforcement of its condemnation and building habitability policy/procedures.

F76: The Road Department's inappropriate changing of county road designations. Procedures: On January 8, 2004 the Jury met with the Director and Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. The jurors were made aware of the laws that apply to condemnation as well as the procedure for enforcing living conditions when a building is being occupied under what is believed to be less than desirable conditions. Jury members also reviewed the statutes relating to the alleged violations. On April 19, 2004 the Jury met with the Modoc County Road Commissioner/ Director of Public Works, and the Deputy Road Commissioner to discuss the second complaint regarding road signs. A thorough explanation was presented regarding the mandates involving the distribution and maintenance of county road signs. The jurors also reviewed the applicable statutes governing this procedure. Findings:

F77: There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.

F78: There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.

F79: Qualifications of Public Guardian.

F80: Inventories of conservatee assets.

F81: Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.

F82: Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:

F83: Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.

F84: Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.

F85: After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.

F86: Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.

F87: The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.

F88: The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.

F89: The Grand Jury found and brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors violations of Government Code Section 26909 regarding the audit of some special districts.

F90: The Grand Jury found that the County Administrative Office was unaware of, or had not communicated, the above requirements to the Board of Supervisors or the special districts.

F91: Special district volunteers have received little advice or help from the county as responses to Grand Jury questions indicate that most special districts are unaware of audit, conflict of interest and other legal issues pertaining to special districts.

F92: Most special districts in the county are made up of volunteers who perform many vital county functions with little or no compensation.

F93: The Board of Supervisors provide for aid to special districts, both dependent and independent, in achieving compliance with existing codes.

F94: The Board of Supervisors provide adequate legal counsel to review the status of special districts and county responsibility to those districts on a regular basis and to advise county staff and special district volunteers.

F95: The Board of Supervisors meet it s obligations regarding audits of special districts.

F96: The Board of Supervisors review the policies of all special districts not specifically exempted by resolution 95-08 to ensure that those special districts are in compliance with Government Code Section 87300 regarding conflict of interest. Respondents: Board of Supervisors County Counsel County Auditor County Administration Issues: Grand Jury review of several county programs -- Public Guardian, Special Districts, Tobacco Settlement Funds and lack of compliance with various codes -- reveals problems in county administration. These issues reach the top of county government-the County Administrative Office (CAO) and the Board of Supervisors (BOS). The Grand Jury finds that the CAO s unaware of, or indifferent to, certain code and procedural requirements of county governance. Findings: Granting the fact that Modoc County is a small rural governmental entity with limited funding, we offer these findings:

F97: It appears the BOS is overly reliant on the CAO regarding issues that rightfully should be the BOS responsibility.

F98: There are issues that should go before the BOS without having to receive prior submittal approval from the CAO. Some budgetary and financial issues come before the BOS. Other equally important issues such as code compliance, performance evaluations for department heads, and public service issues do not.

F99: The BOS is receiving some of these issues only when they are at crisis level. To wit: the current imbroglio regarding the overpayment of some several hundred thousand dollars for surface maintenance to a contractor.

F100: The Grand Jury found that the BOS has not conducted annual performance reviews of the County Administrative Services Director.

F101: The CAO serves at the pleasure and under the direction of the Modoc County Board of Supervisors. Without closer direction by the B OS and clearer delineation of authority and responsibility, this office is operating too independently for the good of the county and the public served.

F102: The BOS should require that the Board Chairperson be consulted by the CAO before proposed agenda items are rejected.

F103: The Board of Supervisors should conduct an annual performance review of the County Administrative Services Director.

F104: An annual performance review should be conducted by the CAO on all department heads under CAO supervision and these reviews should be analyzed by the BOS with the County Administrative Services Director in closed session. If an employee reviewed disagrees significantly with the evaluation, that employee should be heard by the BOS in closed session. Respondents: Board of Supervisors Administrative Services Director District Attorney Conflict-of-Interest Issues: The Grand Jury received a letter from the California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office in response to a request made by the FY2002-03 Grand Jury to review the evidence it had collected on an investigation. That jury had no available legal counsel because of a written declaration of conflict of interest from the District Attorney, a declaration of conflict of interest from the Judge, and County Counsel could not provide advice other than for civil issues. Procedures: The Grand Jury reviewed the investigation by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury. The 2003-04 Grand Jury wrote a letter asking the District Attorney to explain his actions. Findings:

F105: The Attorney General's Office declined to review the evidence collected by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury, citing an opinion from the District Attorney.

F106: The 2003-04 Grand Jury's review indicated that the 2002/03 Grand Jury's investigations gathered evidence of possible criminal issues.

F107: The 2003-04 Grand Jury finds that the District Attorney, after declaring conflict-of-interest, submitted an opinion regarding the ongoing 2002-0 3 Grand Jury investigation to the Attorney General that may have interfered with access to counsel by the 2003-04 Grand Jury.

F108: Negligence by the Department of Public Works regarding the enforcement of its condemnation and building habitability policy/procedures.

F109: The Road Department's inappropriate changing of county road designations. Procedures: On January 8, 2004 the Jury met with the Director and Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. The jurors were made aware of the laws that apply to condemnation as well as the procedure for enforcing living conditions when a building is being occupied under what is believed to be less than desirable conditions. Jury members also reviewed the statutes relating to the alleged violations. On April 19, 2004 the Jury met with the Modoc County Road Commissioner/ Director of Public Works, and the Deputy Road Commissioner to discuss the second complaint regarding road signs. A thorough explanation was presented regarding the mandates involving the distribution and maintenance of county road signs. The jurors also reviewed the applicable statutes governing this procedure. Findings:

F110: There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.

F111: There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.

F112: Qualifications of Public Guardian.

F113: Inventories of conservatee assets.

F114: Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.

F115: Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:

F116: Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.

F117: Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.

F118: After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.

F119: Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.

F120: The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.

F121: The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.

F122: It appears the BOS is overly reliant on the CAO regarding issues that rightfully should be the BOS responsibility.

F123: There are issues that should go before the BOS without having to receive prior submittal approval from the CAO. Some budgetary and financial issues come before the BOS. Other equally important issues such as code compliance, performance evaluations for department heads, and public service issues do not.

F124: The BOS is receiving some of these issues only when they are at crisis level. To wit: the current imbroglio regarding the overpayment of some several hundred thousand dollars for surface maintenance to a contractor.

F125: The Grand Jury found that the BOS has not conducted annual performance reviews of the County Administrative Services Director.

F126: The CAO serves at the pleasure and under the direction of the Modoc County Board of Supervisors. Without closer direction by the B OS and clearer delineation of authority and responsibility, this office is operating too independently for the good of the county and the public served.

F127: The BOS should require that the Board Chairperson be consulted by the CAO before proposed agenda items are rejected.

F128: The Board of Supervisors should conduct an annual performance review of the County Administrative Services Director.

F129: An annual performance review should be conducted by the CAO on all department heads under CAO supervision and these reviews should be analyzed by the BOS with the County Administrative Services Director in closed session. If an employee reviewed disagrees significantly with the evaluation, that employee should be heard by the BOS in closed session. Respondents: Board of Supervisors Administrative Services Director District Attorney Conflict-of-Interest Issues: The Grand Jury received a letter from the California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office in response to a request made by the FY2002-03 Grand Jury to review the evidence it had collected on an investigation. That jury had no available legal counsel because of a written declaration of conflict of interest from the District Attorney, a declaration of conflict of interest from the Judge, and County Counsel could not provide advice other than for civil issues. Procedures: The Grand Jury reviewed the investigation by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury. The 2003-04 Grand Jury wrote a letter asking the District Attorney to explain his actions. Findings:

F130: The Attorney General's Office declined to review the evidence collected by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury, citing an opinion from the District Attorney.

F131: The 2003-04 Grand Jury's review indicated that the 2002/03 Grand Jury's investigations gathered evidence of possible criminal issues.

F132: The 2003-04 Grand Jury finds that the District Attorney, after declaring conflict-of-interest, submitted an opinion regarding the ongoing 2002-0 3 Grand Jury investigation to the Attorney General that may have interfered with access to counsel by the 2003-04 Grand Jury.

F133: Negligence by the Department of Public Works regarding the enforcement of its condemnation and building habitability policy/procedures.

F134: The Road Department's inappropriate changing of county road designations. Procedures: On January 8, 2004 the Jury met with the Director and Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. The jurors were made aware of the laws that apply to condemnation as well as the procedure for enforcing living conditions when a building is being occupied under what is believed to be less than desirable conditions. Jury members also reviewed the statutes relating to the alleged violations. On April 19, 2004 the Jury met with the Modoc County Road Commissioner/ Director of Public Works, and the Deputy Road Commissioner to discuss the second complaint regarding road signs. A thorough explanation was presented regarding the mandates involving the distribution and maintenance of county road signs. The jurors also reviewed the applicable statutes governing this procedure. Findings:

F135: There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.

F136: There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.

F137: Qualifications of Public Guardian.

F138: Inventories of conservatee assets.

F139: Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.

F140: Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:

F141: Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.

F142: Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.

F143: After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.

F144: Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.

F145: The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.

F146: The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.

F147: The Attorney General's Office declined to review the evidence collected by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury, citing an opinion from the District Attorney.

F148: The 2003-04 Grand Jury's review indicated that the 2002/03 Grand Jury's investigations gathered evidence of possible criminal issues.

F149: The 2003-04 Grand Jury finds that the District Attorney, after declaring conflict-of-interest, submitted an opinion regarding the ongoing 2002-0 3 Grand Jury investigation to the Attorney General that may have interfered with access to counsel by the 2003-04 Grand Jury.

F150: Negligence by the Department of Public Works regarding the enforcement of its condemnation and building habitability policy/procedures.

F151: The Road Department's inappropriate changing of county road designations. Procedures: On January 8, 2004 the Jury met with the Director and Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. The jurors were made aware of the laws that apply to condemnation as well as the procedure for enforcing living conditions when a building is being occupied under what is believed to be less than desirable conditions. Jury members also reviewed the statutes relating to the alleged violations. On April 19, 2004 the Jury met with the Modoc County Road Commissioner/ Director of Public Works, and the Deputy Road Commissioner to discuss the second complaint regarding road signs. A thorough explanation was presented regarding the mandates involving the distribution and maintenance of county road signs. The jurors also reviewed the applicable statutes governing this procedure. Findings:

F152: There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.

F153: There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.

F154: Qualifications of Public Guardian.

F155: Inventories of conservatee assets.

F156: Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.

F157: Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:

F158: Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.

F159: Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.

F160: After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.

F161: Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.

F162: The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.

F163: The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.

F164: Negligence by the Department of Public Works regarding the enforcement of its condemnation and building habitability policy/procedures.

F165: The Road Department's inappropriate changing of county road designations. Procedures: On January 8, 2004 the Jury met with the Director and Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. The jurors were made aware of the laws that apply to condemnation as well as the procedure for enforcing living conditions when a building is being occupied under what is believed to be less than desirable conditions. Jury members also reviewed the statutes relating to the alleged violations. On April 19, 2004 the Jury met with the Modoc County Road Commissioner/ Director of Public Works, and the Deputy Road Commissioner to discuss the second complaint regarding road signs. A thorough explanation was presented regarding the mandates involving the distribution and maintenance of county road signs. The jurors also reviewed the applicable statutes governing this procedure. Findings:

F166: There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.

F167: There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.

F168: Qualifications of Public Guardian.

F169: Inventories of conservatee assets.

F170: Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.

F171: Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:

F172: Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.

F173: Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.

F174: After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.

F175: Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.

F176: The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.

F177: The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.

F178: There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.

F179: There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.

F180: Qualifications of Public Guardian.

F181: Inventories of conservatee assets.

F182: Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.

F183: Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:

F184: Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.

F185: Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.

F186: After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.

F187: Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.

F188: The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.

F189: The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.

F190: Qualifications of Public Guardian.

F191: Inventories of conservatee assets.

F192: Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.

F193: Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:

F194: Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.

F195: Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.

F196: After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.

F197: Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.

F198: The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.

F199: The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.

F200: Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.

F201: Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.

F202: After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.

F203: Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.

F204: The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.

F205: The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.