Nevada County Grand Jury
1996-1997
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Juvenile Assessment Center was built in 1955 and modified in 1979. It has beds to house 19 juvenile wards. Recent BOC requirements has reduced this capacity to 18 maximum wards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Should the sales tax measure fail, the Board of Supervisors must be prepared to develop alternative methods for funding a new and enlarged facility.
F2:
The facility is in compliance with BOC criteria. The Probation Department has complied with the safety recommendations of the prior Grand Jury reports and has made other modifications to the facility to increase the safety of the wards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A preliminary design for a new facility with a cost estimate must be finalized immediately.
F3:
The facility is constantly at or near capacity. On any given day there are as many as six to ten sentenced juvenile wards awaiting space in the facility. When full capacity is reached additional options are: transfer to Crystal Creek Boys Ranch, temporary release, early release and electronic monitoring.
F4:
The Board of Supervisors has proposed a sales tax increase on the November 1998 ballot to finance the construction of a new facility. No definitive plans exist for the design of a new facility. The Board of Supervisors has selected a site for review that would be used for a new facility. CONCLUSIONS
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The courthouse and holding facility was clean and well maintained. The system of moving inmates from the county Wayne Brown Correctional Facility to the courthouse holding facility was adequate.
F2:
The courthouse holding facility meets the California Board of Corrections minimum standards for security, staffing, safety and separation of adults, juveniles, males and females.
F3:
Security issues have been well known for at least three years by courthouse personnel, the county senior management, the Sheriff's Department and the Board of Supervisors. They have been addressed in past Grand Jury reports. They are:
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors establish a policy for county management to apply immediate action priority in resolving security issues when identified.
F4:
On April 14, 1997, the chairman of the Board of Supervisors responded to the 1996-97 Civil Grand Jury Interim Report dated February 14, 1997, regarding courthouse security as follows: "In regard to the matter of improving Courthouse security, specifically the movement of inmates through the facility, the County Administrator, the Sheriff and Court Administrator have met several times to identify options that may be available to improve the level of security. These options with an estimated cost and plan to design and construct the improvements that may be necessary will be presented to the Board in the next 30 days." As a result of this Board of Supervisors' directive, a Courthouse Security Committee was formed. The committee was composed of the County Administrative Office, court executive officer and Sheriff's Department. However it was unclear who the assigned chairperson was.
F5:
The 1997-98 Grand Jury investigation found the Courthouse Security Committee has met only occasionally and no report that met the directive of the Board of Supervisors had been prepared fully seven months past the required deadline. One memo to the county administrative officer dated December 5, 1997, states: "I know that there is a task force appointment, but being a member, we haven't met in many months." The Grand Jury asked two committee members who the chairman of the security committee was. The members' response was they were uncertain but thought it was the county administrative officer. A second question asked why security issues take so long to resolve. The response was, "the budget." A review of the county audit of June 30, 1997, revealed a Courthouse Temporary Construction Fund balance of $392,167. The County Counsel stated to the Grand Jury that these funds could be used for courthouse security improvements.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors establish a policy of assigning specific responsibility and putting required response dates to directives on appropriate future agenda.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors begin holding county management accountable and responsible for any failure to act as directed.
F7:
The Courthouse Security Committee issued a status report on January 16,1998, eight months after the April 1997 deadline of the Board of Supervisors' directive of April 1997. This report did not show estimated costs or a plan to construct improvements as required.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors establish a policy of assigning specific responsibility and putting required response dates to directives on appropriate future agenda.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors begin holding county management accountable and responsible for any failure to act as directed.
F8:
On March 17, 1998, the director of general services presented a courthouse security report, fully 10 months past the directed deadline, to the Board of Supervisors. The report contained inconsistencies in cost estimates and did not include the Sheriff's Department in distribution. The Grand Jury has determined that no meetings of the Courthouse Security Committee were held to draft the report. The report was apparently based on the director of general services understanding of the required changes to security. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors establish a policy of assigning specific responsibility and putting required response dates to directives on appropriate future agenda.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors begin holding county management accountable and responsible for any failure to act as directed.
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that Larsen stated in filing for election that he was a teacher in Nevada County. This would have by law precluded him from running for office as trustee of the County Board of Education in light of the state Education Code Section 1006, as described in the Nevada County Candidate's Handbook, .
F2:
The statement of the (Section 1006) law was included in the Election Candidate Handbook given to all candidates by the county clerk's election staff. Further, a copy of all candidates' filings and statements of employment was made available to the public prior to the election.
F3:
The election process requires that the candidates and public exercise due diligence in bringing concerns of ineligibility to the election officials' attention prior to the election. The Grand Jury found no one challenged candidate Larsen's eligibility for filing in the months prior to the election, and the complainant did not bring the question of ineligibility to the attention of proper authorities until six months after the election.
F4:
The Grand Jury was unable to determine who raised the first questions about eligibility. It appears to have occurred on or about June 1, 1997, in a letter to Bolinger from a "concerned citizen."
F5:
The Grand Jury found that Larsen submitted his resignation for personal reasons. However, the resignation occurred after the complaint from a "concerned citizen" was made known to McAteer. McAteer was advised by school counsel the election of Larsen was not valid as he was a teacher at Bear River High School at time of filing. McAteer then communicated "the problem" to Larsen.
F6:
The volume of paperwork associated with candidates' filings prior to an election can make it difficult, if not impossible, for the county clerk's election staff to review all materials associated with the candidates' eligibility.
F7:
The County Clerk's Office had already provided instructions as a result of this controversy to staff (concerning candidates for school trustee elections) to exercise extra care in reviewing candidate submittals beyond that required by California law (prior to the Grand Jury's investigation).
F8:
Trustees to the Nevada County Board of Education are elected from selected geographical districts in which they must reside. Adjustments were made to these district lines when the number of trustees was reduced from seven to five using district population as the criteria. The proposal to reduce the number of trustees was discussed in public meetings in 1994. The proposal was identified as "Measure A" on the November 1996 ballot and was passed by a majority of the voters.
F9:
The Grand Jury found the relationship between the county Board of Education and the county superintendent's office had been politicized during the down sizing of the county board from seven to five members. The Grand Jury believes steps were taken to eliminate certain members of the board who were antagonists of McAteer. Prior to the down sizing the three members of the board who consistently opposed McAteer were in the trustee areas that were redrawn. During the investigation it was revealed by McAteer that the County Board of Education was "ripe with strife." The Grand Jury believes the redesign of the trustee area boundaries to reduce the size of the board was an effort to eliminate the "strife." This would not and, in fact, did not affect the fairness of the ballot measure itself.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that County Superintendent of Schools McAteer was previously a teacher at Bear River High School and personally knew Larsen. McAteer supported the election of Larsen as a trustee to the county Board of Education.
F11:
The vacancy that resulted from the Larsen resignation was filled by the remaining members of the Board of Education, who made the appointment as set forth by Education Code Sections 5326 and 5328. CONCLUSIONS
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Nevada County Board of Education notify the public of all board openings to be filled by elections or appointments. Such notification should specifically include minimum qualifications that are consistent with state education and elections codes. This would be a good practice for all school districts in the county.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
Over the last two years, nine full-time and six temporary people were hired as replacements into a division with an authorization of 17 full-time employees. Of the 17, three are management or supervisory. Therefore, the turnover consisted of more than the total employee staff of the division over the two-year period. As of November 17,1997, seven of the twelve current non-supervisory employees on board were hired after October 20, 1996. According to personnel records, none of the people who left IS employment in the past two years ever filed a formal grievance.
F2:
Employees interviewed were either unaware of, or had no confidence in, the formal grievance process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The director of personnel should undertake to communicate to each county employee the formal grievance process within 60 days.
F3:
Several of the female employees interviewed felt there was evidence of gender bias. A review of the past five-year history conducted by the Personnel Department showed no obvious preference of males over females with regard to promotion. In exit interviews conducted by personnel, female employees were in general agreement that subtle forms of discrimination were occurring. Of the nine full-time employees hired in the past two years, only one was female. Much of the anxiety described by female employees is covered in a memo from the director of personnel to the CAO, dated September 3, 1997, and titled "Staff Turnover." The Grand Jury found in interviews of employees that both male and female employees felt condescending and insulting remarks constituting verbal abuse were often directed at them by supervisors. 4. "Concerns With Management" meetings were initiated early in 1997 lasted through about 10 or 12 sessions and terminated. No representative of the Personnel Department was at any of the meetings although the director of personnel was aware the meetings were being held. Personnel was not invited to the meetings because the director of general services considered the meetings an internal matter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
While no gender bias was discovered by the Grand Jury, any inappropriate comments regarding an employee's work by management should never be condoned. If this should happen in the future, the matter should be quickly investigated and the appropriate discipline imposed.
F4:
The "Concerns With Management" meetings are a clear indication of general dissatisfaction of management by the division staff. Implicit in the Personnel Code is that it is the director of personnel's obligation to attend management meetings where obvious or perceived serious departmental personnel matters are at issue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
A more comprehensive program should be instituted at the initiative of the Board of Supervisors to instruct county managers on how to properly deal with employees. The director of personnel has the authority under the existing Personnel Code to develop and enforce such a program, and should be supported by the Board of Supervisors and the CAO in doing so.
F5:
Most individuals who left IS did get jobs with higher pay. The three ex-employees interviewed were unanimous in agreement that the primary cause for leaving was not money but, rather, problems with management. They generally are working out of the county now and have long commutes. The Personnel Department memo of September 3, cited above, and management level interviews by the Grand Jury, support the finding that pay was not the primary cause of turnover in staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Since the Grand Jury is in agreement with the director of personnel that employee pay is competitive, management must find more creative ways to reward their employees and keep them satisfied in their jobs. Improving the environment in which they work is a good starting place. The IS and general services management should request of the director of personnel methods to do so, and the director of personnel should monitor the effectiveness of the program established. The Grand Jury recommends that IS and general services management develop means by which the division can supply service at an acceptable level to all county departments, or consideration should be given by the Board of Supervisors to disbanding the division and contracting out the function.
F6:
An analysis by the director of personnel of the turnover problem was summarized in another memo to the CAO dated August 21, 1997, titled "Staff Turnover in Information Systems." This memo addresses the issue as to whether the pay for computer service technicians offered by Nevada County is competitive. Quoting from that memo: "The Computer Service Techs seems (sic) to generate applicants from a variety of sources (private and public sector). Our salary seems competitive and we tend to attract qualified individuals. The funds to provide a targeted, expansive marketing strategy in our advertisements would help, of course. I would encourage (the division manager) in the next recruitment, to beef up the specs to identify the job skills he needs - but even then I don't think salary will be an issue." When the position of computer service technician 1 was advertised in August of 1996, 54 applications were received. Another announcement for CST III produced 11 applicants, and an announcement for programmer analyst III produced 14 applicants.
F7:
Three county department clients described their interaction with IS. Two of the three departments have hired their own programmers to supply most of their needs and as such are virtually independent of IS. The third department does utilize some services of IS, but finds the service to be inadequate. One client believes the cost of IS services to be high when compared to services available from the private sector and contracts out for some services.
F8:
The director of general services decided to send the manager of IS to two one-day management classes in September 1997. Personnel has no knowledge of whether or not this happened. The manager has attended one of the classes but no record of his attendance was found in the manager's personnel file.
F9:
Some of the current staff still find fault with the management of the division, while at the same time describing conditions as better because many of those employees who were dissatisfied have left, diminishing the amount of management-employee unrest. Most current employees have either less than one year of employment or more than ten years employment.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
One on one interaction at the work site between the manager and each of his employees should be undertaken in order to form a bond of understanding between the members of staff and management. Regular scheduled meetings where management-employee problems are discussed should be held at least monthly between the department director and the division manager.
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the director of personnel monitor the situation in IS for a period of time to ensure that the management-employee situation improves, and report progress formally to the CAO on a quarterly basis.
F10:
The Grand Jury could find no evidence in personnel files of any technical training program for the division staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that proper training of staff and managers should be a part of the division's annual budget.
F11:
All of the annual evaluations of current and ex-employees of the division studied by the Grand Jury rated them either "outstanding" or "very satisfactory."
F12:
The Personnel Department was critical that the minimum qualifications on job announcements were too low, but sent out the announcements anyway
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
All job descriptions in the division should be checked by the Personnel Department to ensure they contain the necessary standards for each position. The standards listed on all job announcements should meet with the approval of the director of personnel prior to publication.
F13:
The Personnel Code states in part "The Director shall direct the enforcement of personnel policies established by the Board..." (speaking of the director of personnel). The director of personnel acted in a support role in the IS problems. General services management restricted help from personnel, believing the issue to not be within personnel's purview. The director of general services believes that personnel should only be involved when requested by management, except for sexual harassment and formal grievances.
F14:
The division lost its technical services supervisor in February 1996, and supervising programmer analyst in October 1996. The supervising programmer analyst position has been deleted from staffing, and the manager of the division has been filling the position of technical services supervisor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
All supervisory positions in IS should be filled immediately.
F15:
Exit interviews of ex-employees were uniformly critical of IS management. CONCLUSIONS
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.