Mono County Grand Jury
2012-2013
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that the Jail and Juvenile Hall are clean and well-maintained. Both operations have budgetary limitations but are working well within those limitations. Given the physical limitations and understaffing of the Jail, it seems to be very well run. The prisoners seem to be treated humanely. The Sheriff and Sergeant were professional, helpful and were rightfully proud of their operation. • Recommendations: none
F2:
The Grand Jury found that AB 109 has not yet seriously impacted the functions of the Jail. Staff, however, predict that the number of full-time prisoners will increase to 15 by the end of this year. There is a concern about mixing career criminals with those who have merely 37 slipped up and the Grand Jury found that this problem will only become more extreme as the Jail houses more long-term inmates. • Recommendation: the County should be planning ahead to determine a viable solution to housing long-term inmates as a result of AB 109.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that the Voluntary Work Assignment program is valuable to both inmates and the community, yet the amount of time that inmates can volunteer in this program is limited due to current staffing levels. • Recommendation: the Voluntary Work Assignments program (community service) is excellent and serves a useful purpose to society and gives inmates a sense of purpose. The outdoor work is healthy, both mentally and physically. With additional staff, the program could be expanded to 7 days a week and the Grand Jury recommends that additional staff be hired for this purpose.
F4:
The Grand Jury found that there are only two cook staff members and when one is sick or on vacation, the other staff person must work additional and/or consecutive days to insure that the inmates are fed. • Recommendation: a third cook, possibly as a part-time position if feasible, should be hired to allow the 2 current cooks regular time-off and to fill-in during emergencies.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that during non-business hours, the Jail and Dispatch operations have limited staff which could pose a concern for both inmates and Jail employees. The Grand Jury found that minimum Jail staffing of two persons on a shift at one time seems low, especially when one of the staff is the 911 operator and Dispatcher. • Recommendation: the Grand Jury recommends that a minimum staffing standard should be established and adhered to as a matter of safety for both inmates and Jail employees. Additional staff should be hired.
F6:
the Grand Jury learned that the 911 Dispatch system and the prison electronic controls systems are reaching the end of their life expectancy. The Board of Supervisors is aware of the need to replace these systems; however, replacement funding has not yet been implemented.
F7:
The Grand Jury found that the lack of physical and mental recreation and classroom learning opportunities for the inmates needs to be mitigated, especially with the recent addition of long-term prisoners. The Jail, as it now stands, does not have available space for classrooms and the exterior exercise yard is small and depressing. The 3-5 hours of outside exercise per week is insufficient. • Recommendation: the Grand Jury therefore recommends funding for a classroom for inmates and outside additional space for outdoor programs, and plus an expansion of the existing Jail (or, ideally, a new facility). 38
F8:
The Grand Jury found that the CASA program is highly effective in Inyo County in working with juveniles, and that building upon this program in Mono County could be beneficial. • Recommendation: the Grand Jury recommends the establishment of a Establish a County-wide Juvenile Services Advisory Board. The Grand Jury also recommends funding and encouraging Encourage and fund the CASA program by offering training and volunteer recruitment.
F9:
The Grand Jury found that there is no statewide database for probationers or juveniles, which means that there is no inter-county exchange of information. In fact, this prevents the Department from communicating with the Court itself. • Recommendation: none
F10:
The Grand Jury found that there are approximately 130 drug offenders on probation, yet there are no resources such as half-way houses available in Mono County. The Grand Jury found that the Probation Department was under-staffed which limits the amount of contact dedicated to each probationer. • Recommendation: the Grand Jury recommends hiring two to three additional Probation Officers as each Probation Officer currently has a large caseload (80- 130 cases). Additional staff would insure that more home visitations occur. • Recommendation: the Grand Jury recommends that the County seek funding for a half-way house, similar to the one once located in Mammoth Lakes.
F11:
The Grand Jury found that the front door to the Juvenile Hall/Probation facility is not sufficiently secured. The Grand Jury also found that the facility lobby is open and there is no physical barrier to prevent irate individuals from accessing staff and/or the facility. • Recommendation: the Grand Jury recommends providing security in the existing Juvenile Hall/Probation building by constructing a counter/partition in the lobby area and strengthening the exterior door locking mechanism. 39
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
the status of Measure C funds is tracked and monitored by the Kern Community College District (KCCD) and Kern County. The fund balance as of 6/30/12 was over $8,000,000, with $4,000,000 remaining bonds to be issued. The account is audited annually by an external auditor.
F2:
the summary spreadsheet and detailed spreadsheet track Measure C expenditures over the years very clearly. Due to the length of time since initial construction, the main facility will need structural maintenance in the future. Currently this is not tracked separately from construction.
F3:
three studies have been completed since the passage of the bond measure in 2000, addressing facilities and programming needs. The Director of the Eastern Sierra College Center (ESCC), working with the KCCD Chief Financial Officer and the Facilities Committee determine facilities priorities appropriate for Measure C funding.
F4:
the ESCC Director works very closely with the Executive Director of the Mammoth Lakes Foundation (MLF) to gain community input and financial support for the Mammoth Campus of the ESCC.
F5:
enrollment growth projections dropped dramatically after passage of the bond, and as a result the current facility is now underutilized. Some of the classrooms are being “repurposed” and improved, and as appropriate, some Measure C funding may be used.
F6:
Facilities’ planning is current and takes into account the drop in enrollment projections over the past twelve years.
F7:
the first ESCC “2011 Report to the Community” does not contain information concerning Measure C and what has been constructed as a result of the bond measure.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Health Department facilities were used to print programs for a high school athletic program. This use of Health Department facilities was an approved expense of the Tobacco Avoidance Program. This use was approved by the Director of the Tobacco Avoidance Program. All benefits of these actions accrued to the benefit of other public agencies: the Tobacco Avoidance Program which paid the cost and the high school sports program, and not to any individual.
F2:
The use of the vehicle in question was consistent with the vehicle policies of the Bridgeport Fire District.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Finding: Health Department facilities were used to print programs for a high school athletic program. This use of Health Department facilities was an approved expense of the Tobacco Avoidance Program. This use was approved by the Director of the Tobacco Avoidance Program. All benefits of these actions accrued to the benefit of other public agencies: the Tobacco Avoidance Program which paid the cost and the high school sports program, and not to any individual. • Recommendation: no change in policies or regulations.
R2:
Finding: The use of the vehicle in question was consistent with the vehicle policies of the Bridgeport Fire District. • Recommendations: no change in policies or regulations. 19
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
the original complainant did not file a written harassment/discrimination complaint, nor is there any record of a report of a complaint.
F2:
Mono County has written personnel and PC policies on the internet which have been in effect and available for many years; although some of the posted documents have been superseded.
F3:
In 2011, Mono County reviewed and updated its personnel policies (“Mono County Personnel System” and “Mono County Policy Regarding Benefits of Management-Level Officers and Employees). These packets are given to employees, and an 23 acknowledgement form is signed and filed in the employee’s personnel folder. It is not clear that every employee receives this packet, as only permanent employee training files contain the acknowledgement form, and one was missing from the six permanent employees which were randomly selected.
F4:
the IT Department’s Computer Use policy is complete and has been updated, and each employee authorized for computer use is given a copy of this policy. The employee signs an acknowledgement form to be filed in the employee’s personnel folder. The random check of those files showed that this is the most consistently filed document in those files, with fourteen of eighteen having this in their personnel records. Some long- term employees had two on file.
F5:
the IT Department’s log on screen acknowledgement notifies the employee of computer use policy each time that the employee logs on to the network; a most effective policy reminder.
F6:
the IT Department has a system in place to effectively monitor network use on a large scale, and is also able to monitor individual use as required or requested by management.
F7:
the orientation training binder is complete and detailed, including harassment, ethics, expected conduct, and other important County policies. A power point presentation incorporates the information found in the binder, and the Personnel Technician is very knowledgeable about and involved with the contents and training procedures.
F8:
documentation of orientation training attendance is informal and appears incomplete. Of the eighteen employees randomly chosen, only three were on the orientation training list. Two of the three did not have a notation that they had attended orientation training, and the third had a question mark (?) in that column.
F9:
of the eighteen employees randomly chosen, the employee personnel file spreadsheet showed that the most effective record of training was the IT acknowledgement form (fourteen out of eighteen employees); some long-term employees had two of these forms. Next most consistent was the “Disaster Services” acknowledgement for a majority of employees. All but one permanent employee file held the acknowledgement form for the “Personnel Rules” packet, and the MOU packet for employees covered by a union contract.
F10:
of the eighteen employees randomly chosen, the electronic training database showed that six employees had no training noted. Two of these were new-hires of less than one year, but others were longer term employees. The majority were not permanent employees, and the database went back to 2007 or earlier, incorporating earlier training records.
F11:
documentation of employee training is incomplete and fragmented. While appropriate training may be taking place, the current record keeping does not clearly demonstrate which employees have or have not completed required training on County policies and procedures.
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
“Crowley Lake Road Shop Roof project” (contract process complaint)
R2:
“Re: asbestos and lead paint hazard” (under OSHA investigation, therefore not accepted)
R3:
“Regarding Mono County CAO et al. Re: use of county vehicles to attend political event”
R4:
“Regarding Mono county CFO and CAO Re: use of county IT system for email forwarding”
R5:
CAO office investigation request (various subjects, including harassment of women) The multiple complaints lacked specificity, were open to interpretation, and concerned several management employees who had either already left or were in the process of leaving Mono County. Therefore, the focus of the investigation was broadened to a more central question of Mono County policies: did written policies exist, did employees get training in the areas of complaint (vehicles, computers, political activity, harassment), and was training documented? 20 The Method: The investigative committee identified four steps necessary to investigate Mono County policies, training and documentation, and two additional steps to investigate if a harassment complaint had been reported.
R6:
Interview personnel staff concerning grievance (complaint) process, documentation, and verify that the harassment complaint was filed, documented and in the appropriate personnel folder. The Investigation: A preliminary review of each complaint involved Mono county policy questions. The complainant alleged in most cases that activities were “illegal” or in violation of Mono County policies. The last complaint revealed that the complainant was a “contract” (At-Will) employee, and that the work contract had five months to run. It was evident that the complainant had a general opinion of what the policies should contain, though it was not clear that the complainant had knowledge of the policies themselves. While specific allegations were made in the complaints, it was not clear that the situations as described were in violation of any of the policies, as many were open to interpretation. A detailed reading of each complaint raised questions pertaining to the County’s policies: were there written policies? If so, were employees trained? If so, were there records of the training? Also, it was not clear that the complainant had ever formally reported violations, particularly the last one pertaining to potential harassment and/or discrimination, to a supervisor or other management personnel. Because many of the employees noted in the complaint had left, or were in the process of leaving, the Grand Jury was hesitant to accept and investigate each complaint, and decided instead to broaden this case by looking to potential gaps in training on County policies. However, the complaint involving potential harassment was investigated further. The Grand Jury sent a letter asking if the complainant had formally reported any of the complaints internally, either verbally or in written form. Several months passed without a response, and a second letter was sent on 18 April, 2013, specifically referring to the potential harassment complaint. No reply had been received by the date of this report. In addition, the Acting CAO was asked to review the complaint files to see if a formal complaint had been filed, and no complaint was found. Mono County policies for vehicles, computers, political activities, and harassment were first secured from the Internet. Some appeared dated, but the content was adequate. The Information Technology (IT) policy had an acknowledgement form for employee signature. One was a Board Resolution from the 1990’s. A meeting with County Counsel (Acting CAO) on January 18, 2013 provided the investigative 21 committee with further information concerning County policies. The policies had recently been updated and consolidated into two documents: “Mono County Personnel System” (adopted by resolution R11-68), dated October 4, 2011, and “Amendment to Policy Regarding Benefits of Management Level Officers and Employees” (R11-56), dated August 16, 2011. At the January 18, 2013 meeting, the Acting CAO/County Counsel stated that all employees get a one-day orientation and a copy of the personnel rules. They sign a receipt that they have received and read the policies. The Acting CAO/County Counsel gave the investigative committee a time sheet which indicated a space allotted for management employees (or those assigned county vehicles) to document vehicle use. The Finance department manages these records. The Acting CAO/County Counsel stated that the computer policy is reinforced each time an employee signs on to the network, as the screen describes appropriate e-mail use. The employee must acknowledge this policy before they are allowed to access the system. The Acting CAO/County Counsel stated that discrimination and anti-harassment policies require immediate reporting by employee to supervisor or other management personnel. When asked for a definition of “improper political activity”, the committee was told that this definition is found in the CA Government Code. This government code was reviewed, but no definition was found. The investigative committee contacted the IT department, which had an “Acting” director in place. The computer use policy is current, and each employee is given a copy of the policy, and must sign an acknowledgement form that they have received and read the policy. The acknowledgement form is then filed in the employee’s personnel file. Each time that the employee starts to log on to the County’s network, a message advises the employee of computer use responsibilities, random monitoring of computer use, and notes that by logging on and using the computer, the employee acknowledges that responsibility. This log on message has been in place since 2006 at the latest, and the investigative committee retained a copy of the message. The system use is monitored in a variety of ways, including network monitors, e-mail server monitors e-mail capacity levels, and anti-virus and e-mail filters give data on virus/malware issues at a user’s PC. Individual users are not monitored in real time, but if an unusual situation arises, or upon a manager’s request, IT will then take appropriate action to focus upon an individual. The investigative committee contacted the Acting CAO, and made an appointment to inspect personnel files at random in Bridgeport. A series of questions were sent to the Administrative Office Manager in preparation for the visit, and the answers helped prepare for the files review. After first meeting with the Office Manager and the Personnel Technician to clarify any remaining questions, and to learn about employee orientation training, three employee training records for each of six employee classifications* were pulled at random and reviewed. Training records in the individual employee file are those that are furnished by the employee, such as certificates, acknowledgements of training (e.g. IT policy, Employee MOU packet, “Personnel Rules”, etc.). A separate database is maintained by the Office Manager for training furnished by the County, with training and attendance based upon sign-in sheets manually entered into the database. The database has been in effect since 2009, and is required by the County’s Insurance provider, Trindel, a JPA consisting of many counties. 22 *Permanent full-time, Permanent part-time, Temporary full-time, Temporary part-time, “At-Will”, and “Electeds” The Office Manager later provided individual records for the randomly chosen employees. Six of the eighteen did not have any training recorded in the database; however, two of those were hired in February, 2013. Sheriff’s Department personnel training files are not maintained in the Administrative Office, and are found in the Sheriff’s Office. The Office Manager noted that this has been a long-standing practice. However, whenever the County offers the training, this is entered into the electronic training records database. The Personnel Technician explained how orientation training is provided to each employee. When the employee reports to work on the first day and signs required paperwork, a large and very complete Orientation Binder is given for review. The formal orientation training is given to one or more employees within the next 6 weeks when possible. Because of scheduling difficulties and differing work schedules, this may be at a longer interval. Temporary or short-term employees without benefits receive a shorter version of the training. This training is documented in an informal manner by the Personnel Technician, noting the employee name, hiring date, scheduled orientation training date, and whether the training is completed or not. Sheriff’s Office employees are included in this list. The investigative committee used a manual checklist/spreadsheet to note the training listed in the individual personnel files, and later reviewed a print-out of the orientation training records to add that to the spreadsheet. Once the individual electronic records were received, a second manual checklist/spreadsheet was used to note training received. The two spreadsheets were then compared.
R7:
Finding: the orientation training binder is complete and detailed, including harassment, ethics, expected conduct, and other important County policies. A power point presentation incorporates the information found in the binder, and the Personnel Technician is very knowledgeable about and involved with the contents and training procedures. • Recommendation: none
R8:
Finding: documentation of orientation training attendance is informal and appears incomplete. Of the eighteen employees randomly chosen, only three were on the orientation training list. Two of the three did not have a notation that they had attended orientation training, and the third had a question mark (?) in that column. • Recommendation: as a minimum, have each employee sign an acknowledgement form that they have reviewed the orientation book, and file this in the personnel file. An alternative might be to have the training sign-in sheet submitted to the Office Manager for entry into the electronic data base.
R9:
Finding: of the eighteen employees randomly chosen, the employee personnel file spreadsheet showed that the most effective record of training was the IT acknowledgement form (fourteen out of eighteen employees); some long-term employees had two of these forms. Next most consistent was the “Disaster Services” acknowledgement for a majority of employees. All but one permanent employee file held the acknowledgement form for the “Personnel Rules” packet, and the MOU packet for employees covered by a union contract. • Recommendation: continue and expand use of acknowledgement forms. 24
R10:
Finding: of the eighteen employees randomly chosen, the electronic training database showed that six employees had no training noted. Two of these were new-hires of less than one year, but others were longer term employees. The majority were not permanent employees, and the database went back to 2007 or earlier, incorporating earlier training records. • Recommendation: incorporate orientation training records into this database, as the orientation training is a complete and detailed overview of County policies and procedures and is required for each County employee.
R11:
Finding: documentation of employee training is incomplete and fragmented. While appropriate training may be taking place, the current record keeping does not clearly demonstrate which employees have or have not completed required training on County policies and procedures. • Recommendation: the Grand Jury recommends that all employee training be documented in a single searchable electronic file. The file should be audited annually to assure that all required policy and procedure training has been offered and completed. This file should cover new and existing employees, “At- Will“and temporary employees, and elected and appointed officials and should include initial training and required updates to training. The Mono County Grand Jury closed the investigation of this matter on May 20, 2013 25
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
a contract for Pre-Hospital Training did exist that covered the period of the allegations. The contractor was qualified to deliver the service and the matter of whether or not the Fire and Rescue Chief and the Contractor were friends is immaterial. The contract is legal and binding and the terms and conditions of that contract were fulfilled. The Jury further finds that the county has no obligation to enter into a competitive bidding process for this kind of professional service contract.
F2:
on the question of an inappropriate exemption, the County did not issue an exemption to the contractor. The contractor was directed to stop licensing himself with Cal- EMSA as a county affiliate to avoid any appearance of favoritism.
F3:
as far as the scope of services not meeting the needs of the 11 Fire Districts and not meeting their expectations with regard to cost, it is a subjective matter of opinion which has been mitigated fully by the county by placing control of the program into the hands of the 11 Fire Chiefs.
F4:
on the matter of using county equipment for contracted training, there is no prohibition of this practice.
F5:
on the question of on-the-clock versus off-the-clock training and compensation, the jury recognizes that a potential for inappropriate compensation does exit.
F6:
with regard to Liability Insurance, the contractor had the required coverage.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
the officers had probable cause to search occupants and vehicle, based upon the occupants’ observed actions and circumstances.
F2:
the officers followed guidelines outlined in MCSD Policy 300.
F3:
medical attention was requested and provided.
F4:
complainant resisted officer’s repeated directions to vacate the vehicle. After the complainant was removed from the vehicle, the search of the complainant and the care provided for the complainant were not captured on camera.
F5:
the amount of pepper spray used during the encounter was difficult to ascertain from viewing the visual tape.