Nevada County Grand Jury
1997-1998
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (17)
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The annual cash flow through the treasury is approximately $250 million dollars. This includes funds for many entities other than the County of Nevada, i.e. schools and other special districts.
F2:
The treasury acts as the bank for most all of Nevada County public agencies. Acting in this capacity the treasury will receive receipts and pay out expenditures daily. The residual cash that stays in the treasury makes up its investment portfolio. This portfolio will vary from $55 million to $70 million during any one month.
F3:
The portfolio is invested at the discretion of the TTC consistent with the authorization and prohibitions contained in the state Government Code.
F4:
The portfolio averaged approximately $60 million per month during the 1997 calendar year and earned approximately $3 million for the year at an average rate of return of 5.67 percent.
F5:
The TTC does not use the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund. The treasurer's return on investment out-performed this fund during the 1997 calendar year.
F6:
It is the goal of the TTC to keep 96 percent of the treasury funds invested. This would include funds that are in the interest bearing operating account. The goal has been exceeded during the 1996 and 1997 calendar years.
F7:
During the two peak periods of tax payments, December and April, the office will make as many as three bank deposits a day. During this same time the TTC will add three to four part-time workers to assist the office. The average time for any receipts to deposit and invest is approximately two working days.
F8:
The Board of Supervisors by Resolution 96469 established the Nevada County Treasury Oversight Committee as required by Government Code Section 27131. The Treasury Oversight Committee was established in the aftermath of the failure of Orange County's investment pool and bankruptcy filing in 1994.
F9:
In December 1997, the TTC presented an updated investment policy to the Board of Supervisors. This policy is designed to protect the taxpayers' funds from any speculation on the part of the TTC. CONCLUSIONS
F1994:
9. In December 1997, the TTC presented an updated investment policy to the Board of Supervisors. This policy is designed to protect the taxpayers' funds from any speculation on the part of the TTC. CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The Nevada City Hall was built in 1937 as a WPA project. It is an art deco building located in the downtown historical district.
F2:
The building houses the office of the city manager, the city clerk and staff, the chief of police, nine sworn officers and six reserves, the fire marshal, city fire prevention officer and two engine units of the fire department.
F3:
Nevada City is planning to construct a new firehouse and when completed one of the engine units will move to that location.
F4:
The city manager occupies a space at a front window in an area delineated by file cabinets which affords no privacy. Due to space congestion the city clerk shares a desk with staff.
F5:
The city manager and city clerk must reserve a time to use the only conference room in order to conduct private meetings with staff or citizens. The conference room is the office of the part-time city planner.
F6:
The chief of police shares an office with the sergeant. There is inadequate space within the police department's area for officers' privacy to change uniforms, which is made more difficult as there now are male and female officers. There is no space to privately discuss internal police matters or to interview citizens, witnesses or suspects.
F7:
Nevada City is a small city with a small population and business base. The city's small revenue base restricts the amount of funds available to city management to maintain or enhance public facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The city should explore means of financing efforts to improve the city hall facilities. Options should include possible federal-state-private grant sources and sale or lease of unused real estate assets.
F8:
A large portion of the basement of the city hall is used for storage. The stored materials include police records and city records dating back to the turn of the century. The storage subjects records to possible deterioration by moisture accumulation in the basement. The city clerk estimated that up to 20 percent of the work day is lost in research of subjects in this congested area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The basement storage should be reorganized.
F9:
Nevada City prepared plans in 1992 to remodel and expand the city hall. The estimated remodeling cost was $854,000. The city had approximately $100,000 in reserves. The city council was unable to arrive at a satisfactory financing method.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A review and update of the existing 1992 remodel plans and a forecast of future requirements should be made. The revised plans could be used to obtain estimates of cost. A phased remodel of this building should be considered, thereby eliminating the necessity of raising large amount of funds at one time.
F10:
The city has several properties, including the old Nevada City Airport, that are currently unused and therefore not producing revenue. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The city should explore means of financing efforts to improve the city hall facilities. Options should include possible federal-state-private grant sources and sale or lease of unused real estate assets.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Director of general services is responsible for the maintenance of all county facilities.
F2:
There are deficiencies with the emergency lighting system in the Rood Building.
F3:
The emergency lighting problems were identified by the Facilities-Systems Advisors Report submitted to the Board of Supervisors March 1997 by a citizen's group.
F4:
There are no written facility maintenance and inspection procedures for the Rood Building. Maintenance inspection procedures for county facilities are scheduled to be prepared later this year (1998) with help from an outside organization.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that facilities management develop and implement maintenance and safety procedures that will adhere to state and federal guidelines.
F5:
Personnel who find maintenance or safety deficiencies report them to their supervisors who forward them to facility management.
F6:
Limited funds and personnel are allocated to the maintenance of county facilities. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the facilities management yearly budget should be adequately funded for maintenance and materials to correct the above problems.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Based on testimony of department employees, the assessor has been absent from the office more than 50 percent of the time over the past two years, exclusive of medical absences. The assessor believes he was in the office 75 percent to 80 percent of the time and working 100 percent of the time. The Grand Jury found no regulation or law which requires a minimum number of hours to be worked by an elected official. There are no written records to document the actual number of hours that the assessor is present in the office. The assessor's salary is established at $62,838 per year in the latest authorized personnel resolution.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The time actually spent in the office by full-time elected officials is a serious matter, and the Grand Jury takes the position that excessive absenteeism is a violation of the public's expectation. Elected officials should keep some form of documentation to identify actual time worked in the office. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board Of Supervisors reassess the salaries of all elected officials before passing the next annual Authorized Personnel Resolution.
F2:
In October 1996, the top two supervisory people in the department were married. This is nepotism as defined by the Personnel Code Section 3.1(i), because these two management employees are at the top of the direct management line when the elected assessor is not in the office. Their position titles are assistant assessor and chief appraiser, respectively. The department organization chart shows the assistant assessor and the chief appraiser at equal levels, and administering separate parts of the office staff. Both the assessor's procedures manual and the assistant assessor's job description make the assistant assessor responsible for supervision of all employees in the department in the assessor's absence.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the CAO apply county Personnel Code provisions regarding nepotism as clearly and unambiguously as they were intended to be. The nepotism section of the personnel code should be revised by the Board of Supervisors to make it clear that arbitrary interpretations are not intended or acceptable. The Grand Jury does not believe it is the married couple who are derelict in this instance, but rather senior managers who made the decision to keep them in their same positions.
F3:
A review of the nepotism issue was conducted by the assessor and the CAO at the time of the marriage. They concluded that nepotism did not exist if the assessor was on the job. They also concluded that during those times that the assessor was absent, the county would be in violation of the Personnel Code Section 3.1(i). An arrangement was worked out for the times when the assessor was not in the office. The CAO would then be available for handling employee personnel issues. The arrangement was not in writing. There is no evidence that the CAO met with any employees, prior to his decision to stand in for the assessor, to determine if there was a morale problem in the department or if departmental operations were disrupted. There is also no evidence that the CAO was ever contacted by any department employees subsequent to his being available, even though there are at this time employee-management problems in the department according to some of those employees interviewed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the CAO apply county Personnel Code provisions regarding nepotism as clearly and unambiguously as they were intended to be. The nepotism section of the personnel code should be revised by the Board of Supervisors to make it clear that arbitrary interpretations are not intended or acceptable. The Grand Jury does not believe it is the married couple who are derelict in this instance, but rather senior managers who made the decision to keep them in their same positions.
F4:
The Grand Jury was provided with two conflicting versions of the Assessor's Office procedures manual. The procedures manual obtained from the assessor showed the assistant assessor taking over the office in the assessor's absence, but the sentence was red-lined. The assessor's manual was dated during the term of the assessor's predecessor. The procedures manual obtained from the assistant assessor showed the assistant assessor in charge of the office in the assessor's absence and the sentence was not red-lined. The assistant assessor's manual was dated during the term of the present assessor. The procedures manual has been in the process of revision for seven years without being completed.
F5:
The county Personnel Code Section 1.2, states in part: "The purpose of this Code is to implement the adoption and maintenance of an equitable and uniform system of personnel administration for the county service, and to achieve the following objectives. (a) To establish, develop and maintain a program of personnel administration based on merit principles and modern methods governing the appointment, tenure, promotion, transfer, termination and discipline of its officers and employees, in order to make a career in the County service attractive and encourage each employee to give his/her best service to the County. (b) To promote high morale among County employees by providing good working conditions, consideration for their general welfare, encouragement for self development, opportunity for advancement and a basis for understanding the terms and conditions of County employment." (Underlining by the Grand Jury)
F6:
The morale of most employees interviewed is low. Top level managers in the department also admit that morale is low. Some employees interviewed showed a fear that what they said to the Grand Jury would get back to their management and that there would be retaliation. Some employees attributed the low morale to the nepotism issue and others to the excessive absences of the assessor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury found that employees of the county are dedicated and deserve to be treated with respect. The Grand Jury recommends that the director of personnel review the policies, rules, and work practices, as they are applied in the Assessor's Office, and make appropriate changes. A schedule for the review should be submitted to the Grand Jury with the response to this report.
F7:
Four of the seven employees interviewed stated they were not informed that an arrangement was worked out between the assessor and CAO to address the nepotism issue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Any change in organizational authority should be communicated to all affected personnel in writing. To function in an organization, employees must be able to understand the authority under which they work.
F8:
The county Personnel Code Section 3.1(c), states in part "The Director shall direct the enforcement of personnel policies established by the Board..." While the director of personnel did review the nepotism issue in the department, there is no evidence she directed the enforcement of personnel policies as established by the personnel code, or followed up on the implementation of the decision made by the CAO to make himself available in the assessor's absence, even though she was informed of the decision.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Board of Supervisors should make it clear to all department heads, elected or appointed, that the director of personnel has the primary responsibility and authority in personnel matters. The director of personnel should take charge of all employee-management issues at the earliest possible time to ensure that all employee rights are upheld, and the means to do so should be made available by the Board of Supervisors.
F9:
The assessor sold his residence in Nevada County in June 1996. He purchased a condominium in Placer County in October 1996. The assessor lives in a motor home that is normally parked at a site in Placer County, but is sometimes parked at a site in Yuba County. He receives his mail at a Nevada County post office box, and lists his mailing address as 950 Maidu Avenue (the County Administration Center) on his Fair Political Practices Commission Statement of Economic Interests form. The state Government Code Section 1770(e) states that a county officials who ceases being an inhabitant of the county he represents creates a vacancy in the office. The assessor's term ends on December 31, 1998, and he has chosen to not run again. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should investigate the present residence of the assessor and take appropriate action as required by Government Code Section 1770 (e).
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Family Support Division is managed by the chief deputy district attorney and has an open case load of approximately 8,000 at any one time.
F2:
The division is part of a three-county computer consortium created to manage cases efficiently. Nevada, Marin, and San Mateo counties share the cost on a percent of total case load.
F3:
The division retains a percentage of funds collected if the payee was every on public support until the debt is satisfied. These retained funds are then returned to the original agency. These could include refunds to programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, General Assistance, or any other governmental agency which may have a claim.
F4:
The division is governed by state and federal statutes.
F5:
The division collects and distributes approximately $4,700,000 per year, which is used for family support and recovery of government funds.
F6:
The three complaints received were identified as (one) being a data entry error and (two) the result of following the complex regulations of the government. The division has no latitude to change these regulations. CONCLUSIONS
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The Collections Division was created by the Board of Supervisors in 1981 and assigned to the General Services Department. The Collections Division was created because the County Treasurer at that time declined to collect certain debts owed the county. (For the remainder of this report the Collections Division will be referred to as "the Division.")
F2:
The primary purpose of the Division is to collect debts owed to the county that county departments have been unable to collect in the normal course of business.
F3:
The Division is where the transient occupancy tax and weights and measures fees are paid.
F4:
It is standard practice in the Division to combine all funds: taxes, fees and bad debts. These are all referred to as collections in measuring their overall efficiency.
F5:
The Division when created was staffed with three employees. However, the Division presently has two employees, a collections clerk and a revenue and collections officer. The Division was without a revenue and collections officer from August until November 1997. During this period the Division was staffed only by the collection clerk. Prior to August 1997 the revenue and collections officer worked limited part time because of health problems.
F6:
The present system of combining debt collection, fees and taxes into one large collection fund overstates the effectiveness of a "collection system."
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors separate the current responsibilities in the Collections Division. Move the transient occupancy tax and weights and measure fees to the Tax
F7:
The Division carries over as uncollected debt approximately $5 million each year in more than 5,000 accounts. Many of these accounts have been inactive for many years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors institute a policy whereby department heads must take certain steps in a timely manner to alleviate the effects of prolonged absences of key personnel. The Grand Jury recommends that all proposed write-offs be given to the outside collection agency. The disposition of this action should be included in the required communications to the auditor- controller and the county administrative officer.
F8:
The Division has written off a total of $1,561,726 over the last five fiscal years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors be informed of all write-offs on a quarterly basis.
F9:
The Division did not implement the low cost recommendations from four previous annual audits to improve accountability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that all recommendations of the outside auditors be implemented immediately.
F10:
The Grand Jury requested standard financial reports, some of which were provided, while some did not even exist. Many of the reports provided had errors in them and had to be corrected before being of any use.
F11:
The Division did not follow the Board of Supervisors Resolution 82-69 enacted on March 22, 1982, paragraphs 8a and 8b, which requires that the Division establish records that conform with generally accepted accounting and fiscal practices.
F12:
The Division has a contract with an outside collection agency to which it can refer the debts it is unable to collect. This agency has seldom been used. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors institute a policy whereby department heads must take certain steps in a timely manner to alleviate the effects of prolonged absences of key personnel. The Grand Jury recommends that all proposed write-offs be given to the outside collection agency. The disposition of this action should be included in the required communications to the auditor- controller and the county administrative officer.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
California Business and Professions Code Sections 6300 through 6365 require a free law library for each county. The purpose is to provide legal material for professionals and the public. Funding is provided from fees on cases filed in the county. All county judges are members of the library Board of Trustees and the chairperson of the Board of Supervisors acts as an ex-officio member. Pertinent sections of the code define budget oversight, preparation and dissemination of financial reports, publishing of meeting minutes, public announcements of meetings and preparation of an annual report to the Board of Supervisors and the county auditor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Nevada County Law Library Board of Trustees take whatever action is necessary to ensure continued compliance with the requirements of the Business and Professions Code Sections 6300 through 6365.
F2:
The Board of Supervisors sets the portion of filing fees that are allocated to the law library. In Nevada County these allocations are: $16 each filing for civil and for family law, $15 for each answer or response to a civil or family law petition, $10 in matters pertaining to probate, $16 for a small claims appeal and $11 for municipal court filings. During the 1996-1997 fiscal year there were 1,984 filings of various kinds, with 17 percent of those waived due to declaration of poverty. According to the statistics provided to the Grand Jury for the fiscal year, 1996-1997, fee collections totaled $25,054 resulting in an average of $13.60 per filing. The fees allocated for the law library are less than those allocated by other counties. The Board of Trustees petitioned for a fee increase in 1996, but the petition was denied by the Board of Supervisors.
F3:
There are approximately 135 practicing attorneys in Nevada County. Use of the library is estimated at 65 percent by attorneys and 35 percent by the public. Nevada County residents in Truckee must come to Nevada City for law library research.
F4:
The current law library is located in cramped quarters, 945 square feet, on the second floor of the courthouse. A retired judicial secretary volunteers one day a week to maintain the California law part of the collection. The federal part of the collection is not maintained due to cost of the service and infrequent use. Access is uncontrolled and security does not exist. There is one copy machine available and receipts for use are on an honor system. The library is in process of being moved to an expanded space of 1,484 square feet on the first floor of the courthouse. A suggestion to move the law library to the Madelyn Helling Library building has been made by members of the Board of Supervisors. However, there are several reasons why this is unworkable and impractical. The self-help legal material such as Nolo Press, a respected and relatively inexpensive California authority on "do it yourself" law for public use, could be placed in the Helling library when funds are available.
F5:
There is little prior evidence of annual budget planning, providing for library service, security, publishing of meeting minutes, posting of meeting notices or preparing and presenting an annual report as required to the Board of Supervisors. The complainant had taken an active role in seeking the assistance of members of the Board of Trustees to provide improved management of the library. The complainant's efforts and the active participation by the current Board of Trustees had resulted in taking an accurate inventory of the collection, preparation of a past due report for fiscal year 1996-1997, posting of meeting times, publishing of minutes and cancellation of unneeded subscriptions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury concurs with the Board of Trustees' plan to request more active participation from the Nevada County Bar Association, explore use of pro bono library support and evaluate possible attorney user fees when expanded computer service is made available.
F6:
The Grand Jury found no evidence of any specific long-term planning for the future development of the law library. However, the trustees are discussing the installation of a specialized computer system for law research which is the same design that is currently used by the District Attorney's Office. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the trustees develop a technology plan that can support users of the library. This plan should be based on existing computer capability serving the district attorney and court personnel.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The Personnel Department was created in 1991 by a resolution of the Board of Supervisors. Before that time it was a part of the County Administrator's Office.
F2:
The county has a Personnel Code created by a series of resolutions of the Board of Supervisors.
F3:
The Director of Personnel is empowered by Personnel Code Section 3.1(c), to direct the enforcement of personnel policies established by the Board of Supervisors. Section 3.1(e) empowers the director of personnel to require that all department heads keep records and use procedures in accordance with the dictates of the Personnel Department.
F4:
In at least two instances found by the Grand Jury, the director of personnel acted in a support role in matters affecting employees, rather than directing the outcome. In both instances, the director met with the department heads and the CAO to find solutions to the problems. A memo from the director to the CAO concerning one of the two issues did not state the position of the director on the issue and contained inaccurate statistics on the hiring practices of the division in question that tended to show a lack of gender discrimination when the actual statistics may have shown the opposite. The Personnel Department has since corrected the mistake in documents turned over to the Grand Jury, but the CAO had not been informed of the change.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the director of personnel take the lead in matters pertaining to personnel issues, and that all department heads and other management personnel be instructed by the CAO that the director of personnel has the authority to enforce the Personnel Code.
F5:
Some county managers see the role of the director of personnel as important only in the hiring of new employees and gender bias issues. All other management-employee problems are typically considered internal matters by the department managers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the director of personnel take the lead in matters pertaining to personnel issues, and that all department heads and other management personnel be instructed by the CAO that the director of personnel has the authority to enforce the Personnel Code.
F6:
The Personnel Code mandates the director of personnel establish recruiting procedures and techniques that would secure qualified employees. Many job announcements are released with insufficient minimum standards for the positions announced. Many standards are couched in "nice to have" language rather than being mandatory requirements. ^{22}
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that all job descriptions be updated and job announcements define the minimum standards required for the position. All job description updates should be signed and dated by the director of personnel. The director of personnel should seek expertise in creating job descriptions as needed.
F7:
The list of current job descriptions in the county government runs to several hundred. Many of these descriptions are not adequate for the positions they describe, and some are so old they do not place the particular job in the correct department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that all job descriptions be updated and job announcements define the minimum standards required for the position. All job description updates should be signed and dated by the director of personnel. The director of personnel should seek expertise in creating job descriptions as needed.
F8:
The Personnel Code mandates that personnel files be set up to document each employee's employment history. Most files accessed by the Grand Jury contained nothing more than annual performance evaluations and attendant step increases or promotions. The files contained almost no training documentation, letters of commendation or other data. The Personnel Department has the authority under the Personnel Code Section 15, to set standards for performance evaluations and to have access to the evaluations. Employees are rated annually by their supervisors and the evaluations are reviewed by the department head, the employee and the director of personnel. All annual evaluations are kept in official personnel files by the Personnel Department. The employees can receive a rating of "unacceptable," "improvement needed," "satisfactory," "very satisfactory" or "outstanding." Out of over 200 performance evaluations examined by the Grand Jury, all but one employee were evaluated either "outstanding" or "very satisfactory."
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Personnel Department take a more active role in securing employee information for personnel files, including notifying the various managers that many current employee evaluations are not realistic.
F9:
Because of inordinate turnover in the Information Systems Division of the county government, the Personnel Department developed a special exit interview survey form that was mailed to those who left county employment. The form was designed to identify employment related problems. The results of the exit interviews revealed concerns regarding poor management and lack of response to employee problems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the director of personnel continue the laudable efforts to improve the quality of the county work force as indicated by the recent surveys on why county employees quit their jobs. The Grand Jury further recommends that the director enlarge the scope of effort to include personnel matters, as described in this report, for current employees.
F10:
The director of personnel has a staff of four. The ratio of personnel staff to total county work force in Nevada County is one to 183, the lowest of any similar California county studied by the Grand Jury, indicating that the staff should be increased. The average ratio in the other eight counties studied was one to 141. To meet the average ratio of the total counties studied, Nevada County would have to increase its staff by two employees. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors supply the Personnel Department with necessary staffing.
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
The library system consists of the main branch, which is the Madelyn Helling Library in Nevada City, the Grass Valley Library, the Truckee Library and the Doris Foley Library for Historical Research in Nevada City.
F2:
A May 1997 annual budget report stated that circulation had increased 10 percent in the previous year. Staff was reduced by 17 percent to 10.75 full-time equivalent positions, resulting in a service hours reduction of 24 percent. At that time, May 1997, the hours of service per week were 36 hours in Grass Valley, 24 hours in Truckee, 30 hours in Nevada City and nine hours at the Foley library. By the start of the fiscal year in July 1997 the total cutback on hours of service for all the branches was 20 hours per week.
F3:
In the 1996-97 fiscal year the library system used approximately 73 volunteers who work about 11,400 hours a year at no cost to the county. The volunteers saved the county a minimum of $90,000 in labor costs.
F4:
County Librarian Francisco Pinneli was hired in February 1997. Prior to that, an employee in the County Administrative Office was interim manager of the library system. Pinneli's hiring came at a time when large cuts in professional staff were occurring. Four full-time librarians resigned due to fiscal issues. An additional $31,000 had to be added to the budget to pay for the county librarian position. The total annual budget for the library is less than $500,000.
F5:
Revenue of $20,800 was added to the budget through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU of 1996) involving the City of Grass Valley, the Office of the County Superintendent of Schools and the County of Nevada. The purpose of the MOU is to expand hours, improve facilities at the Grass Valley Library, increase children's materials and establish computer labs. This two-year MOU expires on June 30, 1998.
F6:
There were 33,500 library card carrying registered borrowers in 1993-94, with 47,000 (a 40 percent increase) two years later. Yet an attendance count of the number of people going to the libraries suffered a 24 percent decrease and requests to reference librarians has dropped 11 percent. Circulation grew by 6 percent during those same two years. These data suggest there are fewer patrons of the library system despite a larger pool of potential users. This could be the result of a reduction in library hours, which decreased substantially during the years 1996-1997.
F7:
The county Board of Supervisors appointed the Blue Ribbon Library Council when Pinneli was hired in February 1997. Its challenge was to develop long-term funding strategies for the library system. Its
F8:
The plight of the library system has had limited publicity, therefore solutions and support have been sparse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the county librarian work with existing organizations and individuals, including staff and volunteers, to aid them in becoming more visible as enthusiastic advocates for the library.
F9:
Expanding hours, restoring children's programs and adding Internet accessible computers cannot occur without additional revenue.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors give Library Services more financial support.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends the county librarian work with superintendents of Nevada County schools to provide library resources to the schools.
F10:
The May 1997 report stated, "A library does not provide full service to its constituents without librarians and resources. Collection development and reference/research assistance suffers. The ability to reach out to children and foster a desire to read and explore is diminished..." The report calls for greater community involvement to create a vision of what it wants a library to be and to determine how to support that vision. "Ultimately the issue is not about libraries as depositories of books and computers, but about preserving the quality of life in Nevada County," the report concluded.
F11:
There are approximately 87,500 residents in Nevada County, which had a library budget of $489,225 in 1996-97. Per capita, it costs $5.59 for an entire year to have their three main libraries open, staffed with 10 paid personnel and supplied with information services. That is less than the price of admission to one theatrical performance in Nevada County. These data about Nevada County management of a county resource does not compare favorably with similar rural counties as noted in the statistics which follow in Finding No. 14.
F12:
The location of the Grass Valley Library attracts users of all kinds. The Madelyn Helling Library is isolated and is not conducive to pedestrian use.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that all future decisions about the role and placement of a library facility be evaluated as to the population that will be served and the method by which the library will be accessed, particularly if transportation and parking is an issue.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends the placing of library services with more convenient hours in or near shopping areas or pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods which could encourage greater family use of local libraries.
F13:
The Grand Jury developed a survey of several similarly sized counties with comparable demographic and economic profiles in northern California (See Finding No. 15). It showed that other libraries have used a variety of methods in an attempt to keep their libraries alive. The most successful appear to be those that have leadership which is proactive in winning public and political support.
F14:
The table shown compares rural counties' level of library funding and service provided as found in the survey. NEVADA COUNTY GRAND JURY LIBRARY SURVEY COMPARABLE COUNTIES APRIL, 1998 Butte Calaveras El Dorado Mendocino Shasta Nevada Population 199,100 34,750 142,000 85,000 162,700 87,500 Library budget $1,236,000 $362,708 $1,553,000 $693,768 $777,337 $489,255 Per capita budget $10.44 $6.21 $10.94 $8.16 $4.80 $5.59 & budget for staff 47% 62% 64% 73% 57% 77% % budget materials 8% 11% 15% 5% 9% 4% % budget loans/fac. 1.30% 3% 0.07% 3% 4% 5.80% % budget other uses 40.70% 27% 20% unavailable 30% 10.20% Number of branches 5 6 6 5 3 4 Hours open per week 130 164 216 133.5 68 84 Children's program yes yes yes yes yes yes Active borrowers 38,909 11,800 70,000 46,020 35,563 47,193 Borrowers as % pop. 34% 19.50% 49.30% 54.10% 22% 54% New borrowers 1997 3,000 unavailable 1,800 unavailable 7,945 2,808 Volumes in collection 200,229 70,000 285,000 154,689 170,255 111,946 Items loaned in 1997 485,758 84,277 577,417 315,471 246,126 327,771 New books in 1997 7,745 21,857 17,000 4,890 7,780 6,041 Internet stations 9 unavailable 4 4 5 3 FT staff hours/week 720 200 840 360 440 430 PT staff hours/week 90 unavailable 260 176 109 unknown Vol. Staff hours/week 84.2 360 160 260 300 219 % budget pvt. Source 0.50% 0.00% < 10% unavailable 6.70% unknown These data show that Nevada County has the second-lowest per capita funding among the six counties surveyed. It also shows that Nevada County spends the highest percentage of its funds (77 percent) on staff yet ranks second from dead last in number of hours open to the public. The funds to staff ratio is the result of extremely limited funds combined with attempts to maintain as much public service as possible. It also has the lowest percentage (4 percent) of materials acquisitions as reflected in the second lowest number of new books added in 1997. The survey shows that Nevada County libraries are not serving the public well, even though a surprisingly high number of people (54 percent of the population) are reported as active borrowers who carry library cards.
F15:
Excerpts of written responses to some of the survey questions are given here. SURVEY QUESTIONS: Do you provide off-site services, such as computer access by modem, bookmobile, services through public or private schools, telephone information referral desk, or other? Describe. --BUTTE: We have a volunteer-staffed bookmobile that goes out five days a month. --EL DORADO: We are raising money for a bookmobile through private fund raising and hope to purchase and operate the new bookmobile by 2000. One of our branches is a joint-use facility operated by the Oak Ridge High School in El Dorado Hills. We do not plan to renew the contract with the high school. --MENDOCINO: Computer access by modems are available. Bookmobile goes 23 stops in the county. What alternative sources of funding have you used, and what mechanisms were used to get those dollars? --EL DORADO: El Dorado County created benefit assessment zones for library services under County Service Area law in 1993 and 1995. All five zones have gone to an election and have been passed. What strategies have you used to keep up with changes in technology in order to attract and retain users? --EL DORADO: We were among the first participants in the State Library sponsored InfoPeople project, receiving free dial-up Internet access and computers at three of our branches in 1994. We offer introductory Internet classes to the public at least once a month. We charge two dollars for each public Internet hour, which includes up to 10 pages of printing. Our strategy is to jump in with both feet and to do as much as possible with the resources we have. Describe your library system's relationship with powers that be in county government and with the board of supervisors. --MENDOCINO: Excellent relations with county department heads. Considered a special district by the Board of Supervisors and they support the library within the tax formula (percent of assessed valuation). The board believes in the library mission. How important is library location? Choose one: little importance, somewhat important, important, very important. --BUTTE: It is important. The library needs to be visible, near places where people also want to go, and relatively easy to reach. --EL DORADO: The main library in Placerville is located in a government center which is also near two major shopping centers and to restaurants. It is not close to residential areas, and patrons cannot walk or bike to it. The South Lake Tahoe Library is next to a campground in a recreation area, but off of a major thoroughfare and near to shopping and restaurants. The Cameron Park Library is located near schools and residential area, not businesses. It is very important to be near shopping centers. Being close to schools causes problems with unattended children, which is the same for residential areas. Put a library in central downtown only if there is shopping nearby. --MENDOCINO: Opinions are shifting whether downtown construction on prime and expensive property is feasible and practical any longer. School proximity makes circulation look good (lots of thin children's books circulating) but often the adults are kept away by the hormone driven children and teenagers who have decided that the public library is their school library. Often, schools are not in the center of town and you like to catch people who are combining activities or trips (same point is true about parks). Shopping centers have always worked well for branch libraries. If you had another 10 percent in revenue, what would you do with it? --BUTTE: Use most of it to add staff and the rest for library materials. -- CALAVERAS: Buy books. --EL DORADO: We would operate our bookmobile, and use it to work toward developing new branch services. Does your library contain a public meeting room area, and how often is it used? --BUTTE: Yes. It is used quite heavily, mostly by other governmental agencies and nonprofit groups. We don't allow for profit groups. --CALAVERAS: We have two, a conference room and a community room. They are used daily, sometimes hourly. --EL DORADO: We have meeting rooms in Placerville, South Lake Tahoe and Cameron Park libraries. They are used by community groups for a charge of $20 for two hours, and by county departments and by the library for programs. What strategies have been used in your library system to rally public support for the library? Describe their effectiveness. --BUTTE: 1-- Publication of our plight at times. 2-- Excellent service. We wouldn't be open if it wasn't for our public support. --CALAVERAS: We don't seek support, as much as it seeks us. Since 1995, we have built a new 15,000 square-foot main library, a branch in Murphys and a branch in Arnold. West Point has moved to a larger facility. Angels Camp was offered half of the new county Office of Education Building. Valley Springs partners with the elementary school and shares their facility, yet Valley Springs residents are forming a group to build a new facility too. --EL DORADO: We have fund-raisers, and special events to try to keep ourselves in the public consciousness. It helps to have a very specific need (like a bookmobile) to mobilize attention, rather than just "we need books, or we need staff, or even we need hours." How have you determined what the public wants or needs from the library system? --BUTTE: We haven't done any formal assessment. -- CALAVERAS: They tell us. We listen to their desires and try to comply. The county administration tries to increase our open hours. -- EL DORADO: Since so many of our residents have moved here from somewhere else, they often know what a library has to offer elsewhere, and tell us that they want it here. Attendance at our programs, and use of our services tell us what we are doing right. Careful attention to the materials and titles people are asking for, and quick response to those requests make us look efficient. Additional comments: A good staff is everything. Ours is dedicated, committed, focused, cheerful and public-oriented. They have a can-do attitude, are team-oriented, and are willing to stretch themselves. We use volunteers heavily for routine work and could not live without them. But they do not replace the staff. --MENDOCINO: Library director did a planning process using the American Library Association. Eight public forums (held) with over 200 people participated and voted on types of services by priority order. CONCLUSIONS
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
OES is a division of the General Services Department. The director of general services also serves as the director of OES. There are two other county employees assigned to OES. All three employees carry out their OES responsibilities on a part-time basis.
F2:
Most emergency calls are processed through the county 911 system, which is operated by the Sheriff's Department. The system is staffed on a 24-hour, seven-day week basis. Few calls go directly to the director of emergency services. There are times when the director of emergency services is not available. When this occurs the 911 personnel use a call list to locate the next person responsible in the OES chain of command.
F3:
The Grand Jury found that responsibility for OES in California is placed with the sheriff departments in 23 of California's 58 counties and nine place the responsibility with the county fire departments. Sixteen are placed with county administrative offices and the 10 remaining are placed in planning, health or other miscellaneous organizations. Nevada County is the only county with the OES in the General Services Department.
F4:
The Grand Jury determined that prior to the 1996-1997 flood there was very little organization or training of staff. This condition existed for almost two years following an undeclared emergency in January 1995 that resulted in hazardous waste flooding the containment ponds at the county landfill and significant road damage. The January 1997 emergency created by severe weather conditions resulted in the county opening the OES center for the first time. OES and other supporting agencies came under criticism for their management of this emergency. As a result of this experience, the OES management convened a meeting of the participating agencies to develop a "lessons learned" document. The key points were the need for: a larger OES area separated from usual county business activities • additional equipment e.g. computers, restricted phones and radio communications ٠ an organized phone alert list ٠ a formal process for notification of participants ٠ clearly defined duties of county personnel assigned to OES ٠ formal training in state designed OES seminars • a designated public information officer ٠
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the OES director plan, schedule and conduct annual field exercises that simulate a local emergency with participating organizations.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the director of OES recognize that longer range planning is required. It is not acceptable to wait until a new emergency occurs to determine if the plan is adequate and that all participating organizations understand their specific role.
F5:
The director of emergency services has developed a written emergency action plan that follows state recommended contents and organization. The final plan was completed during the Grand Jury's investigation in December 1997 and was approved by the Board of Supervisors at that time. A complementary copy was sent to the California State OES for comments. The plan was accepted as written.
F6:
Nevada County OES has developed a room for emergency operations, where personnel can conduct their activities without being hindered by other county business. CONCLUSIONS
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The California Board of Corrections rated the facility capacity as 230 full-time beds including five beds in the medical section. There are also nine beds in the disciplinary section where an inmate can be held for a maximum of 30 successive days.
F2:
The population currently averages 150 inmates during the week with a small increase (approximately 20) over weekends.
F3:
The county Sheriff's Department has a Home Detention Program, wherein appropriately classified inmates wear an electronic device which allows the Sheriff's Department to monitor their location.
F4:
Minimum-security prisoners may volunteer to work outside the facility during the day for government agencies and non-profit organizations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Partially disagree. Inmates working in the kitchen as volunteers to receive sentence credit are not considered facility staff.
F5:
The facility appeared clean and operationally efficient. It includes a kitchen where inmates make up most of the staff. There are: a dental facility, recreation areas for maximum-, medium- and minimum- risk inmates, a law and lending library, laundry facilities, booking and visiting areas.
F6:
The facility has two roll-up "sally port" doors which secure the area for vehicles used to transport inmates to court and other destinations. During all inspections it was noted the "sally port" doors were inoperable, which the Grand Jury found has been the case since April 1997. One is locked in an open position using "C clamps" and the second is locked in a down position. The Sheriff's Department reported that "leaving the doors open with the clamps has created a severe security problem for arresting officers and correctional staff."
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Sheriff's Department must take responsibility for problems with detention facilities, and ensure that appropriate and timely corrective action is taken.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should ensure that county policy has a requirement that all departments inform the board of security issues where county employees or the public are at risk.
R7:
Agree. A funding source was identified in May 1997, but the sally port doors were not repaired until March 1998.
F7:
Regarding the "sally port" doors the following time line was noted by the Grand Jury during their research: Sometime during the period April 1, 1997, to April 10, 1997, the "sally port" doors became inoperable. The Grand Jury was unable to find a Sheriff's Department log entry indicating the precise date when the doors became inoperable. April 15, 1997: An intra-department communication from the facility captain to the sheriff, ٠ described broken doors as a "severe security hazard." April 22, 1997: Letter from the sheriff to the County Administrative Office described the broken doors as "a major security problem" and "a severe security problem for the arresting officers and the correctional staff." April 25, 1997: E-mail from the County Administrative Office to the assistant sheriff stated, "We agree that this is a security issue and should be addressed." May 8, 1997: E-mail from the County Administrative Office to General Services-Purchasing with copy to the Sheriff's Department, giving approval to repair or replace the doors "when you have identified a funding source." Note: The Grand Jury found the Criminal Justice Temporary Facilities Construction Fund had a balance of $86,000 as of May 8, 1997. The county counsel verified that these funds could have been used as the funding source. The Grand Jury was unable to find documentary evidence that any further action was taken ٠ for the seven-month period from May 8, 1997, to December 15, 1997. There was evidence of dialogue between General Services and the Jail Operations, but there was no conclusive action. December 15, 1997, the Grand Jury interviewed the county administrative officer and the then chairman of the Board of Supervisors regarding the inoperative doors. The chairman of the Board of Supervisors stated this was the first time he was aware of this problem. As a result of this interview the chairman of the Board of Supervisors took immediate action to see that these doors were repaired.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Sheriff's Department must take responsibility for problems with detention facilities, and ensure that appropriate and timely corrective action is taken.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should ensure that county policy has a requirement that all departments inform the board of security issues where county employees or the public are at risk.
R7:
Agree. A funding source was identified in May 1997, but the sally port doors were not repaired until March 1998.
F8:
At the March 3, 1998, meeting of the Board of Supervisors the "sally port" doors were discussed. The chief administrative officer stated "that while the issue was known in April 1997, it was not presented as an urgent item." Although the sheriff's letter of April 22, 1997, did not specifically describe the broken doors issue as "urgent," it did indicate that such caused a "major" and "severe security problem." The Grand Jury finds that major and severe security problems affecting the safety of officers and correctional staff are urgent items which should be identified as such to the Board of Supervisors and remedied immediately. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Sheriff's Department must take responsibility for problems with detention facilities, and ensure that appropriate and timely corrective action is taken.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should ensure that county policy has a requirement that all departments inform the board of security issues where county employees or the public are at risk.
R7:
Agree. A funding source was identified in May 1997, but the sally port doors were not repaired until March 1998.
F20:
over weekends. 3. The county Sheriff's Department has a Home Detention Program, wherein appropriately classified inmates wear an electronic device which allows the Sheriff's Department to monitor their location. 4. Minimum-security prisoners may volunteer to work outside the facility during the day for government agencies and non-profit organizations. 5. The facility appeared clean and operationally efficient. It includes a kitchen where inmates make up most of the staff. There are: a dental facility, recreation areas for maximum-, medium- and minimum- risk inmates, a law and lending library, laundry facilities, booking and visiting areas. 6. The facility has two roll-up "sally port" doors which secure the area for vehicles used to transport inmates to court and other destinations. During all inspections it was noted the "sally port" doors were inoperable, which the Grand Jury found has been the case since April 1997. One is locked in an open position using "C clamps" and the second is locked in a down position. The Sheriff's Department reported that "leaving the doors open with the clamps has created a severe security problem for arresting officers and correctional staff." 7. Regarding the "sally port" doors the following time line was noted by the Grand Jury during their research: Sometime during the period April 1, 1997, to April 10, 1997, the "sally port" doors became inoperable. The Grand Jury was unable to find a Sheriff's Department log entry indicating the precise date when the doors became inoperable. April 15, 1997: An intra-department communication from the facility captain to the sheriff, ٠ described broken doors as a "severe security hazard." April 22, 1997: Letter from the sheriff to the County Administrative Office described the broken doors as "a major security problem" and "a severe security problem for the arresting officers and the correctional staff." April 25, 1997: E-mail from the County Administrative Office to the assistant sheriff stated, "We agree that this is a security issue and should be addressed." May 8, 1997: E-mail from the County Administrative Office to General Services-Purchasing with copy to the Sheriff's Department, giving approval to repair or replace the doors "when you have identified a funding source." Note: The Grand Jury found the Criminal Justice Temporary Facilities Construction Fund had a balance of $86,000 as of May 8, 1997. The county counsel verified that these funds could have been used as the funding source. The Grand Jury was unable to find documentary evidence that any further action was taken ٠ for the seven-month period from May 8, 1997, to December 15, 1997. There was evidence of dialogue between General Services and the Jail Operations, but there was no conclusive action. December 15, 1997, the Grand Jury interviewed the county administrative officer and the then chairman of the Board of Supervisors regarding the inoperative doors. The chairman of the Board of Supervisors stated this was the first time he was aware of this problem. As a result of this interview the chairman of the Board of Supervisors took immediate action to see that these doors were repaired. 8. At the March 3, 1998, meeting of the Board of Supervisors the "sally port" doors were discussed. The chief administrative officer stated "that while the issue was known in April 1997, it was not presented as an urgent item." Although the sheriff's letter of April 22, 1997, did not specifically describe the broken doors issue as "urgent," it did indicate that such caused a "major" and "severe security problem." The Grand Jury finds that major and severe security problems affecting the safety of officers and correctional staff are urgent items which should be identified as such to the Board of Supervisors and remedied immediately. CONCLUSIONS 1. With the exception of the doors, noted above, the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility appears to be well maintained and operated efficiently. 2. The Sheriff's Department took appropriate and timely action in notifying the chief administrative officer of the problem. However the Sheriff's Department failed to follow up on the initial communication with assertive action to assure that the problem was corrected. 3. The office of the county administrator failed to inform the sheriff that funds were available to repair the doors from the Criminal Justice Temporary Facilities Construction Fund. The sheriff should have known of the existence and availability of these funds. 4. The Grand Jury has significant concern that the Board of Supervisors does not always receive accurate information in reports to the board as noted in the meeting of March 3, 1998.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
Agree. Recommendations:
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
All of the elementary school districts except one in the county are experiencing declining enrollment. This results in a direct impact on their annual budgets since the state bases funding on average daily attendance. School boards and their superintendents are reviewing teaching staff requirements. Some of the districts have limited sharing of teaching staff. Districts at this time do not wish to combine administratively, as this removes the sense of local neighborhood control of schools. Elementary school districts work closely with their parent communities and this is reflected in the active parent volunteer support.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends sharing administrative and central office functions to reduce each district's cost of operation.
F2:
There are more charter schools in Nevada County relative to population than in any other county in the state. California law places very few controls on the operation of charter schools. Concerns about fiscal oversight and lack of standards for student assessment, have been expressed by several local board members and professional staff. The charter school officials did not agree with the concerns on oversight and attendance. The legislation authorizing charter schools is being reviewed by state school officials and the Legislature during 1998. Input from leaders of the Nevada County charter schools has been requested by the Legislature. In a letter to the California Network of Educational Charters on October 31, 1997, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin expressed her concern for charter schools' fiscal oversight and average daily attendance accounting.
F3:
Each school district conducts its own grant research and develops the required documentation in the competition for extra funds. The county superintendent of schools has attempted to improve school environment as well as promote communication between schools and the public. Examples of his accomplishments are: a countywide school newsletter directed to all superintendents and teachers school information broadcasts by school personnel on a local radio station contributions of computers and funds to the county library • establishment of the "3R" school for middle school students who have social and learning problems
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that Nevada County schools work together to develop a grant research and writing staff that would be available for all school districts in the county.
F5:
The Nevada Joint Union High School (NJUHS) counselors provide comparison statistics on the performance of incoming freshmen to the elementary districts from which the students came. This provides a means for the elementary school district to compare performance with other school districts.
F6:
Most of the local school district board of education members participate in a countywide association in which school district superintendents prepare informational seminars to acquaint members with board duties. They also participate in the California School Board Association seminars on school governance which have been identified as being of significant benefit, particularly for new board members.
F7:
The state requires that all prospective employees and volunteers of school districts be fingerprinted before they start employment; this costs school districts approximately $70 per applicant. It can take six weeks for each clearance.
F8:
The Grand Jury found that a conflict had existed throughout the 1997-98 school year between the county superintendent of schools and the superintendent of the NJUHS. It was found that the handling of a sports program problem involving parents of a student and the county superintendent did not include participation of the NJUHS officials. This was in part responsible for the protracted conflict. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that boards of education be alert to personnel conflict within the school districts' administration and assert more direction and authority if such issues arise.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The sheriff is responsible for the substation and managing the holding facility in compliance with state Penal Code requirements and BOC guidelines.
F2:
The staffing at the substation has not been in compliance with California Penal Code Section 4021, which requires the separation of genders between correctional officers and detainees during booking, body searches and jail management.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the sheriff operate all holding facilities in the county in compliance with the California Penal Code and all requirements of the BOC.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the sheriff advise the Board of Supervisors annually of the risks associated with failure to comply with Penal Code and BOC regulations.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Truckee facility be closed if not in complete compliance with the California Penal Code and all BOC regulations.
F3:
The BOC inspection dated March 14, 1997, found the substation noncompliant with BOC staffing requirements. Prior BOC documents showed the substation had been noncompliant regarding the management of female detainees since 1991.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the sheriff operate all holding facilities in the county in compliance with the California Penal Code and all requirements of the BOC.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the sheriff advise the Board of Supervisors annually of the risks associated with failure to comply with Penal Code and BOC regulations.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Truckee facility be closed if not in complete compliance with the California Penal Code and all BOC regulations.
F4:
In August 1997, it was reported that a facility correction officer was reported for allegedly inappropriate conduct with female detainees. He was immediately placed on administrative leave and subsequently terminated. On September 23, 1997, he was arrested and charged with 12 counts involving six complainants.
F5:
On September 23, 1997, a BOC field representative, in a letter to an assistant sheriff, made the following
F6:
During their November 5, 1997, visit the Grand Jury requested a daily log and BOC documentation indicating that the facility had been in compliance since September 1997; neither was provided.
F7:
The holding facility's operational hours were reduced effective December 24, 1997, because no female staff members were available and the holding facility was in noncompliance with BOC guidelines. The directive to reduce hours was from the administrative sergeant to all personnel. The directive stated that all detainees were to be transported to the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility in Nevada City when the jail is closed. These procedures were subsequently confirmed by a memo from the captain effective January 28,
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the sheriff operate all holding facilities in the county in compliance with the California Penal Code and all requirements of the BOC.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the sheriff advise the Board of Supervisors annually of the risks associated with failure to comply with Penal Code and BOC regulations.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Truckee facility be closed if not in complete compliance with the California Penal Code and all BOC regulations.
F8:
The Grand Jury found confusion in the chain of command in the management of the jail facility at the substation.
F9:
The Grand Jury reviewed the substation's policies and procedures manuals and found there were neither revision numbers nor dates on the contents. Therefore the Grand Jury was unable to determine if these manuals had been revised to reflect current policies and requirements.
F10:
A review of BOC proposed physical improvements to the facility was held during the Grand Jury's April 9, 1998, visit. The status of these proposed improvements is still unknown. CONCLUSIONS
F1998:
The captain in charge on April 6, 1998, issued a memo for processing and transporting of female detainees at the facility to the four correctional officers. A copy of Penal Code 4021 was attached and all personnel acknowledged that they had read the memo.
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
Quick View
Full Details →
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.
Quick View
Full Details →
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.