Gran Jurado del Condado de Placer

1999-2000

18 informes

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: The Auburn City Council has the ultimate responsibility for governing all facets of airport management and operation, with the Airport Commission only in an advisory capacity. The City Council has been tentative in exercising this authority.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The City Council must assert its authority or amend the ordinance to specify otherwise. Failure to assert control allows opportunities for individuals to exercise personal agendas.
F2: A lack of clearly defined roles has led to misunderstandings and mistrust among the airport user groups, the Auburn Airport Commission, the City and airport management.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The City Council must clearly define management structure in the best interests of the City and the airport and then ensure that the defined structure is followed. This would include making it clear to whom the Airport Manager is responsible and to whom the Airport Commission is responsible.
F3: The Auburn Airport, while financially solvent, has long-term leases and other user fees lower than those of comparable airport facilities.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The Auburn City Council should direct staff to make a study of comparable airports such as the Lincoln airport to determine appropriate charges and fees. As leases expire and new contracts are negotiated, equitable rates should be instituted. In accordance with FAA regulations, reasonable fees should be established for all airport users including those with aircraft entering from businesses operating outside airport fences. Respondents Auburn City Council Auburn City Manager Auburn Airport Commission Auburn Airport Manager RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable Larry D. Gaddis Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: There is no written policy within the Auditor-Controller’s office regarding the removal of official records and files.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The Auditor-Controller’s office needs to establish and enforce a department-wide policy that prohibits the removal, for any reason whatsoever, of original records or filed materials from a supervised depository.
F2: There is no written countywide policy regarding the removal of official records and files.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors and County Executive Officer need to establish a countywide policy regarding the removal of original official records and files from all departments. Respondents Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Executive Officer Placer County Auditor-Controller RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable Larry D. Gaddis Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 7 hallazgos
F1: The Burton Creek facility is unsafe and inadequate. The County agrees it should be replaced, but expects this to happen no earlier than 2006 and possibly as late as 2011. The Grand Jury finds this schedule unacceptable.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should commit to replacing the facility within the next three years. (Note: the following recommendations require implementation if the facility will not be replaced in the next three years.)
F2: The present building, although two story and wood frame, is without a sprinkler system and an adequate fire alarm system. The County has said it will install an alarm system by September 2000 and a sprinkler system in the jail area during the 2001 construction season.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Install these safety systems throughout the structure. Ensure there are smoke and fire detectors in the attic area to reduce the chance of a fire flashing unnoticed from one end of the building to the other.
F3: The employees that work in the second story have a choice of two stairways in an emergency. One of these is quite narrow and steep. This is not a safe or quick method to exit in an emergency. The County has stated that an outside fire escape can be constructed for about $10,000.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Add a second story fire escape. Using the County's replacement date for the building of 2006 to 2011, this would cost only $1,000-$1,600 a year on average, and greatly increase the margin of safety.
F4: Inmates are brought through the public entrance of the Courtroom in close proximity to staff and the public, posing a safety hazard for everyone. The County has indicated a new corridor will be built during the 2001 construction season.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The Grand Jury commends the County for this plan and urges that it be made a firm commitment.
F5: The prisoner booking area needs to be reconfigured for safety of employees and for efficiency.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Reconfigure the booking area, perhaps as suggested in Exhibit 2.
F6: There is insufficient fireproof storage space for records.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: Obtain additional fireproof storage cabinets.
F7: The substation is leasing cargo storage containers at a cost of $1,000 per year per container. A container costs $2,000 to purchase outright. Some containers have been leased for more than two years.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: Buy some storage containers outright. Lease others to meet needs. Respondents Placer County Sheriff Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Executive Officer Placer County Facility Services Director RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable Larry D. Gaddis Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603 EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 3

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: The Grand Jury's review of relevant documentation indicated that the 1979-1980 disagreement over the property access easement was eliminated with the quitclaim of a “non-exclusive right of way” given back to the City by the original owner in 1984.
F2: The City was obligated under the provisions of the 1978 Eminent Domain action to abandon the temporary easement upon completion of the waste line construction, and did so in 1979.
F3: The Colfax City Council indicated a willingness to meet with all parties who live adjacent to and share Grandview Road. The City Council, however, has failed to effectively communicate this willingness to all of the affected parties.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The City should make its offer known officially to all Grandview Road residents to determine the acceptability of the City's proposal and obtain an agreement or enter into meaningful negotiations to resolve the mutual problem. Respondents Colfax City Council Colfax City Manager RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable Larry D. Gaddis Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603
Recomendaciones adicionales 2

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R1: Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond within ninety days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
R2: Elective Officer or Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of agencies who are required to respond must do so within sixty days, to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with an information copy provided to the Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the Placer County Superior Court system is, at this time: The Honorable Larry D. Gaddis Presiding Judge of the Superior Court County of Placer Old Auburn Historical Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, California 95603
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: The 1998-1999 financial audit found no significant problems apparent in the County’s fiscal management.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: None 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report 114
F2: County Administration recommends renewal of the contract with Macias, Gini & Co. for the 1999-2000 audit.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Grand Jury concurs. Respondents Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Chief Executive Officer Placer County Auditor-Controller RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable Larry D. Gaddis Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 8 hallazgos
F1: The 1999-2000 Grand Jury is impressed, as were past Grand Juries, with the professionalism and dedication of the Jail’s Commander and staff. It is equally impressed with their commitment to rehabilitation and prevention as well as discipline of the inmates. Jail personnel are professional and do an excellent job of providing basic custody services with available facilities and funds.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The Commander and his staff are to be commended for their efforts. Placer County officials should provide strong support for this three-part approach (rehabilitation, prevention and discipline) to reducing recidivism. This support should including funding, making space available, and remodeling of the facilities, where appropriate.
F2: There exists a serious need to expand the Main Jail and Minimum Security Jail to house additional inmates, provide program space, and provide additional staff space.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2A: The Board of Supervisors, County Executive Officer, Sheriff’s Department, Criminal Justice Policy Commission, and Facility Services Director should all work together to accomplish the expansion of the Main Jail and Minimum Security Jail.
R2B: The 2000-2001 Grand Jury should monitor the progress of the existing and proposed construction at the facility.
F3: The Sheriff’s staff, with assistance from the Criminal Justice Policy Committee, has obtained a MIOCR grant to implement a new program designed to address the needs of mentally ill offenders. The planned date for implementation of this program is July 2000.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The 2000-2001 Grand Jury should monitor the implementation of this essential program.
F4: The Prisoner Intake area is too small to accommodate detention vehicles safely. At the time of this report, this expansion and remodel was in progress.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The 2000-2001 Grand Jury should monitor this construction.
F5: There is a continuing need for more administrative space at the Main Jail.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: The Sheriff’s Department and the Facility Services Director should study the feasibility of extending the building. If feasible, funding should be pursued for such an extension.
F6: The Placer County Sheriff’s Department bills through the Revenue Services Department the cost of housing inmates in the Placer County Jails. At present they are able to recoup about one percent of their costs, which is enough to pay for one officer per year and the cost of administering the program. Cost of medical care is figured in the daily “housing” rate and is set by state law.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: The Placer County Sheriff’s Department and the Revenue Services Department should continue to pursue reimbursement of the costs of housing inmates.
F7: Placer County is one of the fastest growing counties in the State of California. By the year 2010, it is projected that 70% of Placer’s population will reside in the southern portion of the county, which encompasses the cities of Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, and Loomis. Obviously the need for corrections facilities in this area will continue to increase. The Cities of Roseville and Rocklin have agreed to a county facilities fee that will help fund the construction of additional county administration and criminal justice facilities.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: The Board of Supervisors, County Executive Officer, Sheriff’s Department, and Criminal Justice Policy Committee should continue to work towards the approval, funding, and eventual construction of a South Placer facility. It is this Grand Jury’s desire, as it has been for other Grand Juries, that a South County Facility located in the Roseville-Lincoln-Loomis-Rocklin area will be built in the near future. County officials should continue to work with officials in the communities of Roseville, Rocklin, Loomis, Lincoln, Auburn, and Colfax to develop an equitable cost-sharing plan.
F8: There are over 600 felony warrants and 6,000 misdemeanant warrants outstanding and no facilities to house the offenders.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: Placer County needs to construct the South Placer Jail Facility. Respondents Placer County Sheriff Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Executive Officer Placer County Facility Services Director Auburn City Council Colfax City Council Lincoln City Council Loomis Town Council Rocklin City Council Roseville City Council RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable Larry D. Gaddis Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: The four police departments are functioning well, although faced with increasing difficulty in recruiting and retaining competent personnel.
F2: Rocklin has outgrown its current police facility.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Rocklin City Council needs to build the new Rocklin Civic Plaza and include a larger police facility.
F3: The County Jail in Auburn is a long way from the fast growing communities of South Placer. The County does not currently have the resources to build additional facilities in South Placer. The County has proposed a fee on new home construction to help accumulate the funds. The City of Roseville has agreed to adopt the fee, but the other communities have so far chosen not to participate.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The communities of Lincoln, Rocklin and Loomis, like Roseville, have the most to gain from new County facilities in South Placer. These communities should adopt a facilities construction fee to help bring this project to reality. Respondents Rocklin City Council Lincoln City Council Loomis Town Council RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable Larry D. Gaddis Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: There is a need for an appropriate residential facility to provide inmates undergoing drug and alcohol treatment with housing and classrooms for counseling and education.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Acquire that portion of the building used by Facility Services as a woodshop and remodel it for the housing of 45 to 62 inmates and two related classrooms.
F2: More vocational training could be made available for inmates with the procurement of additional space.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Remove stored items from an existing storage building and convert it for use as a woodshop and automotive repair facility.
F3: There is a need to establish stabilization housing for mentally ill inmate patients.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Refurbish a currently vacant building for the housing of up to 16 mentally ill inmate patients.
F4: At least two room additions are essential to provide space for proposed expanded educational programs.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Facility Services, in cooperation with the Corrections Division, should complete the unfinished space between the Main Jail and the kitchen area to include one classroom and one multi-purpose program room.
F5: The Capital Improvements Committee, primarily composed of the County Executive Officer and the Director of Facility Services, is an advisor to the County Board of Supervisors regarding the County's overall needs regarding facility improvements and associated budgetary considerations.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: The Capital Improvements Committee should favorably examine the Realities Program in detail and ultimately approve its basic provisions for a recommended concurrence of the Board of Supervisors. Respondents Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Executive Officer Placer County Facility Services Director Placer County Sheriff RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable Larry D. Gaddis Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 9 hallazgos
F1: The College did “give” as opposed to “lend” approximately $250,000 in funds to the Foundation over a period of nine to ten years. This was done at the request of the College administration and the Foundation Board of Directors and with the approval of the College Board of Trustees. There were no supporting documents other than Board minutes to these transactions.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Immediately amplify the information flow from the College administration to the Board of Trustees. Publish minutes of Board actions that can be understood by the public without a review of meeting tapes.
F2: The Foundation financial records are confusing. The creation of three accounts with strange labels and the lateral movement of funds from one account to the other are mystifying and unexplained.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Develop a method that will allow the public to review Board meeting tapes on a standard recorder in a neutral location such as the College library.
F3: The gift of property appraised at $34,500 to the Foundation by the former Executive Director is a fact. The money derived from the sale of that property is $3,900 plus a note in the amount of $5,000, which was paid in installments of $250 per month plus interest for a total net to the College of $8,900 plus interest.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Obey the Brown Act. (cid:1) The College’s Response to the Grand Jury Final Report 1, Titled “Sierra Community College District, Secret Settlement of Gender Discrimination Lawsuit” In monitoring how the Board of Trustees and the College administration would address the Grand Jury report, it was observed by the Grand Jury that one of the first responses by the College President/Superintendent was to conceal the response process from public view. At a Board meeting of February 8, 2000, the President/Superintendent said to the Board, “I don’t want to be a part of this. I want to be out of this thing, and I think what David [Parker, Board of Trustees’ President] is suggesting is to have a draft of a response mailed to your homes individually and that would be confidential and privileged information because it comes from the law firm.” Fortunately the President/Superintendent’s suggestion was not implemented. The Sierra College Board of Trustees did conduct a series of public meetings to address Grand Jury Final Report 1, titled “Sierra Community College District, Secret Settlement of Gender Discrimination Lawsuit.” From those meetings and from further investigation by the Grand Jury following publication of the report, a series of facts have emerged which help to clarify the role some Trustees had in the decision to maintain the confidentiality of the Furtado settlement and in setting the College on a course of conduct designed to defend the concealment of the terms and conditions of the settlement of the Furtado lawsuit. (cid:1) Formation of the Subcommittee On May 26, 1998, a three-member subcommittee of the Board of Trustees of Sierra College was appointed pursuant to § 70902 (d), Education Code of the State of California to deal with all aspects of the Furtado litigation. Testimony before the Grand Jury revealed that the subcommittee was formed for the purpose of isolating Trustee Sally Robison from receiving further information regarding the lawsuit. She was considered to be an adverse party to the College. In § 70209 (d) of the Education Code it states: “Wherever in this section or any other statute a power is vested in the governing board, the governing board of a community college district, by majority vote, may adopt a rule delegating the power to district’s chief executive officer or any other employee or committee as the governing board may designate; provided however, that the governing board shall not delegate any power that is expressly made non-delegable by statute. Any rule delegating authority shall prescribe the limits of the delegation.” The subcommittee was lawfully appointed pursuant to the provisions of § 70902 (d). The Board, from testimony given to the Grand Jury by all members of the Board of Trustees who served on the Board at the time, and from the subcommittee members themselves, limited the subcommittee by prohibiting them from making any decisions regarding the settlement of the Furtado case. Any decisions required were to be taken back to the full Board of Trustees.
F4: The audit of May 1996 did reveal accounting irregularities which appear to be bookkeeping shortcomings and not serious in nature.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Complaint The Sierra College District has given $250,000 to the Sierra College Foundation over the last five years. The Sierra College Foundation lost $25,000 in 1995/1996. The records of Foundation finances were inadequate. The Foundation Executive Director made a gift of real property to the Foundation to gain a tax deduction. The property was later sold at a fraction of the value stated when the donation was made. An audit of the Foundation in May 1996 revealed accounting irregularities. Investigation The Grand Jury spent an extensive amount of time reviewing Foundation financial records from 1994 to the present. In addition, Sierra College staff, personnel, former employees and members of the Board of Trustees were interviewed. An audit of the Foundation’s accounts dated May 1996 was also reviewed. The Sierra College Foundation has existed for a lengthy period of time. It is a California non-profit corporation with its own appointed/elected 18 member Board of Directors. It qualifies as an Internal Revenue Code § 501 (c)(3), tax-free organization and can accept donations that allow the donor to take a tax deduction. Its purpose is to receive donations for scholarships for general or specific distribution to students; to receive donations for expenditure on College equipment as identified by the Foundation Board and to raise funds for the above purposes. Over the lengthy history of the Foundation, it has received periodic infusions of money from the Sierra College District general funds. In testimony given before the Grand Jury, several Trustees and the College President/Superintendent agreed that the sum of money granted to the Foundation was around $250,000 over the last nine to ten years. The Foundation, despite its independent status as a California non-profit corporation, is in reality an auxiliary organization of Sierra College. The signatories on Foundation accounts are College administrators and employees with the exception of the Foundation President. The audits of the College are inclusive of Foundation audits and language in the audits indicates that the Foundation is considered to be an arm of the College. The transfer of College funds to the Foundation has been done with approval of the Sierra College Board of Trustees. The purpose of these infusions of funds into the Foundation’s coffers has been described as necessary to keep the Foundation operational as the Foundation has never generated sufficient funds to support itself. These fund transfers from College to Foundation have been variously described in minutes of Board meetings and/or Board member interviews as both loans and gifts. Board minutes of August 22, 1995 cite a $22,500 “loan” from the Board of Trustees to the Foundation. The Grand Jury investigation concluded that such transfers were never repaid nor is there any expectation they would ever be repaid. No documentation, such as promissory notes or collateral papers, has ever been created in any fund transfer. Board members were extensively questioned about this documentation and not one indicated any concern about the lack of such documentation. Board members, with few exceptions, consider the transfer of funds to the Foundation as a legitimate expenditure of College funds. In 1995, the Foundation, with the concurrence of College District administration, hired a new Executive Director. It was felt at the time that the Foundation needed an active program to raise funds. As part of this fundraising plan, several grants administered by the College Economic Development staff were moved to Foundation control so that administrative fees could be collected and a money stream would be created to bolster the Foundation’s financial picture. At about the same time, April 1995, $300,000 of Foundation funds on deposit with the Placer County Treasurer were withdrawn and deposited into a money market account held by Westamerica Bank. In June 1995, these funds were divided and re-deposited into accounts at the same bank, labeled as Scholarship account, Special account, and Operating account. From records available, these accounts were holding accounts. Funds were transferred in and out of these accounts and to and from each of the three accounts. In that same month, June 1995, a $75,000 revolving line of credit was taken out secured by the funds already on deposit at Westamerica Bank. The $75,000 line of credit was to be utilized as “seed” money to pay overhead until the grant money fees started to come in. This revolving line of credit utilized $140,000 over the life of the loan. Repayment of the loan apparently came from Foundation accounts. It is impossible to tell what specific funds were used to repay these loans as the accounts co-mingled all manner of funds from numerous sources. The Grand Jury, in an effort better to understand the purpose and nature of these accounts, reviewed the bookkeeping records currently utilized and apparently utilized at the time of these transactions. The funds collected from whatever source, i.e., fundraiser, donations, grant fees, etc., were deposited into one holding account. The computer bookkeeping system then broke these funds into numerous sub-funds specifically identifying the monies. It appears to be an effective control system; however, the rationale for the creation of the three Foundation accounts entitled Scholarship, Special and Operating is a mystery to be resolved. During the same time period (1995/1996), a plan was devised to sponsor a “street fair” to be held on weekends in the College parking lot. This planned event was unsuccessful due to weather conditions at the time, and the Foundation lost approximately $25,000 on the venture. Another plan for Foundation fundraising was the establishment of a golf driving range on College property. That never materialized due to financing problems, but substantial attorney fees for preparation of documents were incurred. In early 1996, an audit was performed which was published in May 1996. In that audit it was stated that the Executive Director had donated a parcel of property located in Nevada County to the Foundation. The donated property was appraised at $34,500. Several months after that donation, the property was sold by the Foundation for $10,000: $5,000 in cash and a $5,000 note due and payable a few weeks after close of escrow. The donor - the then Executive Director - had been authorized by the Foundation Board of Directors to sign documents. He did so as the Foundation signing authority on the sale transaction of the property that he had previously donated. This Executive Director subsequently resigned. The May 1996 audit of the Foundation was reviewed for mention of the above donation. The auditor did note the donation and listed the funds received as $3,900 (which was after closing costs), but made no mention of the $5,000 note. Records were obtained from the Foundation pursuant to subpoena and it was discovered that the $5,000 note was paid but on an installment basis at the rate of $250 per month plus interest. That note was paid in full. The May 1996 Foundation audit did in fact reveal a number of bookkeeping discrepancies, none of which was significant. The audit also revealed that the Foundation investment portfolio had not been adequately accounted for. College personnel subsequently corrected these discrepancies. Following the May 1996 audit, the Foundation Board, President/Superintendent and the Board of Trustees reduced the size of the Foundation efforts. At present it consists of an organization that receives donations and holds a few fundraisers per year. It also receives income from a weekend car sales lot at the College.
F5: The Foundation’s grant operations have been taken back under College control. Foundation employees housed on campus now keep the books and records of the Foundation.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Complaint The College President/Superintendent and the Board of Trustees have engaged in the practice of “serial board meetings.” Investigation The Grand Jury investigated this allegation since the practice of “serial board meetings” is a violation of the intent of the Brown Act (Open Meeting). The Grand Jury found that the President/Superintendent held meetings with members of the Board of Trustees to discuss matters agendized for full Board meetings before the scheduled meetings. The practice of “serial board meetings” continued for a number of years until the Board and the administration were criticized by the press for Brown Act violations. Some Trustees have testified that such “serial board meetings” are no longer held. However, other Trustees have testified that they are still being held. The practice of “serial” board meetings violates the intent of the Brown Act.
F6: The Foundation is an auxiliary to Sierra College.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: Complaint The Board of Trustees adopted an antagonistic and biased attitude toward Trustee Sally Robison. Investigation The Grand Jury investigated and found that the Board of Trustees has from time to time become involved in internal strife. At one point in the summer and fall of 1996 considerable time, effort and attorney fees were devoted to an attempt to unseat then Board President Sally Robison. Testimony revealed that the event initiating the attempted removal was action by Robison to place an item on the Board agenda without the permission and in the absence of the President/Superintendent. Board custom provided that the agendizing of items for the Board was the responsibility of the President/Superintendent. State law allows any citizen to place an item on the agenda of a community college board.
F7: The College President/Superintendent in his alleged capacity as a private litigant in the Furtado lawsuit did not pay any of the litigation expenses or the settlement damages.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: Complaint Attorneys representing the Sierra College Board of Trustees attempted to procure telephone records of an elected official, namely Trustee Sally Robison. The contention of the complainant is that such an action is an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the elected official as well as of the constituents represented by that person. Investigation The issue of procurement of the telephone records of Sierra College Trustee Sally Robison first arose on May 26, 1998, when she was confronted in a closed session of the Board. A letter, addressed to the President/Superintendent, dated April 15, 1998, authored by the attorney to the Board and the College, mentioned Robison’s resistance to efforts to obtain her telephone records. That letter was shown to the Board in that closed session by means of an overhead projector. Robison, in testimony before the Grand Jury, stated she was astounded by the revelation on May 26, 1998, as she was totally unaware that anyone was seeking her telephone records. She tried on several occasions following that meeting to get information regarding the attorney’s statement. No response was given. At a public meeting in February 2000, the attorney’s letter of April 15, 1998 reappeared as part of the response to Grand Jury Final Report 1 titled, “Sierra Community College District, Secret Settlement of Gender Discrimination Lawsuit.” It became a public issue and the Grand Jury received a complaint. Investigation revealed that the law firm representing the President/Superintendent researched the issue of the employment history of Trustee Sally Robison on October 2,
F8: The College was a party to the lawsuit and a party to the settlement since the settlement included a confidentiality agreement.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: Complaint The President/Superintendent of Sierra College acted without prior Board approval. Investigation The Grand Jury found that there were a significant number of occasions during the construction projects at the Rocklin and Nevada City campuses that change orders were implemented prior to being approved by the Board of Trustees. These change orders for the most part were routine in nature and were non-controversial.
F9: The settlement agreement, its terms and conditions, were drafted by the attorneys representing the President/Superintendent with input from the attorney representing the College.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9: Complaint The President/Superintendent has failed to provide accurate and adequate information to the Board of Trustees, to the public, to the press and to the Grand Jury. Investigation (cid:1) Board Agendas and Minutes The Grand Jury found several disturbing practices which tend to deprive the Board of Trustees of a full and complete flow of information regarding the conduct of College affairs. Several years ago, either by administrative action or Board direction, the information contained in agendas of Board meetings and supporting “packet” documents was substantially reduced. The motivation for such action has been described as an effort “to save paper and thirty trees,” “to streamline the Board agenda,” “to reduce routine paperwork.” Items omitted include copies of warrants paid by the District, among other things. The reasons for such practices may be commendable, but the end result is in fact a diminution of the flow of information to the Board and to the public. The Grand Jury reviewed minutes of Board meetings for several years and concluded that the description of Board actions were many times so vague that it was impossible to determine what action the Board had taken. Board members testified that reduction of descriptions of Board activities in the minutes was intentional. It was done to avoid arguments over the wording of minutes copied from meeting tapes by staff secretaries and was legal according to the advice given by the College district’s attorneys. (cid:1) Media Relations Several years ago the practice of routinely preparing press releases for the media was discontinued. The staff person responsible for preparation of press releases was ordered by the President/Superintendent to cease performing that service, to discontinue attendance at Board meetings and to refrain from personal contact with Board members. During the time period 1996-1997, the Auburn Journal newspaper published a series of articles which were critical of the Sierra College administration and the Board of Trustees. The President/Superintendent and legal counsel for the College on at least four occasions complained to the newspaper publisher about negative press coverage. The President/Superintendent wrote a letter to the newspaper’s owner complaining about the newspaper editor. The result of those efforts is difficult to discern but the “offending” reporter and the editor subsequently left the employ of the newspaper and negative coverage ceased. Negative coverage of Sierra College, with the exception of the stories related to the publication of and response to the Grand Jury Final Report 1 titled, “Sierra Community College District, Secret Settlement of Gender Discrimination Lawsuit,” continues to be absent from virtually all Placer County publications, which are owned by the same newspaper organization. (cid:1) Tapes of Board of Trustees Meetings One of the chronic complaints by members of the public is the difficulty of reviewing Board of Trustee’s meeting tapes. Currently, if a member of the public wishes to hear a meeting tape, that person is required to go to the College President/Superintendent’s office, request to listen to a tape of the meeting in question, wait, sometimes for a lengthy period, listen to the tape on a tape recorder and provide a blank tape if a copy is desired. Tape quality, as determined by Grand Jury testimony and from the experience of Grand Jury members, is marginal and the content is frequently undecipherable. Several suggestions have been made by members of the public about the taping problems. One of them was to make the tapes available in the College library rather than the President/Superintendent’s office. The Board has failed to act on these requests. (cid:1) Brown Act Violations The Sierra College Board of Trustees has been criticized for years over Brown Act violations. Serial meetings by the President/Superintendent with Board members were open and blatant until press coverage curtailed the practice. The use of “Friday Letters,” which are prepared by the President/Superintendent and sent to Board members, and which on occasion discuss agendized matters of public business prior to Board meetings, is an ongoing practice. The Board President has made formal statements of Board positions before any meetings occur at which a Board position could be formalized. All these acts are examples of a Board of Trustees and President/Superintendent who seem to have forgotten that they are elected and appointed officials of a public, tax- supported institution. They have allowed themselves to adopt the position that their business is not the public’s business. (cid:1) The Furtado Settlement The handling of the Furtado settlement is illustrative of the manipulation and control of the flow of information to the Board of Trustees and the public.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: The old facility is now closed, as long recommended by Grand Juries. The Board of Supervisors and the Probation Department are commended for the closure, and the opening of the state-of-the-art new facility.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: None 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report 68
F2: External doors in the new facility must be unlocked manually and individually. This could be a problem in case of a fire or similar emergency.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Provide a means of electronically controlling outer doors from a secure central location.
F3: Aspects of the construction may allow juveniles to harm themselves. There are exposed grates on the ceilings. Stairways have open railings. The handicapped lift has an easily accessed electrical control panel.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Find ways to reduce these risks.
F4: Fencing around the facility is lacking razor wire in two locations. This may allow inmates to escape.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Install razor wire where it is missing. Respondent Placer County Chief Probation Officer RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable Larry D. Gaddis Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos
F1: With the possible exception of a four-month period in 1997, the Director has lived within the district he represents while serving on the PCWA Board of Directors. The Director has declared an address in Sacramento County as his residence on various documents including bank records, tax records and DMV registration.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: After compiling this information, the Placer County Grand Jury has turned its findings over to the PCWA Board of Directors. We believe that armed with this information, they can make the appropriate decision in this matter. Respondents None
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: While a formal KIDZ training manual exists, system-wide training is not being conducted for all employees.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Appropriate system-wide training should be conducted for all employees.
F2: FSD has developed six binders of training materials on the Policy and Procedures manual and the KIDZ system. The Grand Jury commends the Compliance Outreach Coordinator for her efforts and work in preparing these manuals.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: None Respondent Placer County District Attorney RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable Larry D. Gaddis Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos
F1: The opposing legal opinions presented might be supported under current applicable law, but rendering legal advice is not the charge of a Grand Jury.
Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R2: The 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury recommends that the Heather Glen Community Services District Board of Directors, on behalf of all of its site owners, seek a judicial review of its amended CC&Rs. Respondent Heather Glen Community Services District Board of Directors RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 60 DAYS TO: The Honorable Larry D. Gaddis Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 11 hallazgos
F1: The lawsuits filed by Debra Furtado against Sierra College, its President and the other named employees was settled for a payment of $300,000 cash and a $250,000 annuity payable to Furtado over a five year period at the rate of $55,347.62 per year.
F2: At the time of the signing of the settlement agreement stating a payment of “$1.00 and additional valuable consideration” all defendants except the college President, one employee of the college, and the college itself had been dismissed as defendants in the case.
F3: The defendants, the college President, the college employee and the college were each represented by separate law firms throughout the litigation process.
F4: The attorney representing the college President drafted the Settlement Agreement stating a payment of “$1.00 and additional valuable consideration” as well as the confidentiality clause with penalties of $100,000 for revealing the actual settlement amount.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The practice of “confidential” settlements of lawsuits by a publicly supported institution is misleading to the public and unacceptable to the Grand Jury. Such confidential settlements erode public confidence in the integrity of its elected and appointed officials and could be perceived as a “cover up” whether or not an actual cover up is intended. The Grand Jury believes that Sierra College specifically and public institutions generally should not enter into “confidential” settlement agreements such as were utilized in the Furtado lawsuits.
F5: The settlement amount of $550,000 was substantial for an employment case of this type and could not be called a “nuisance” settlement.
F6: The attorney for the college denies in a news article dated 11/25/99 that his clients, the college administration, employees and Board of Trustees have knowledge of the true settlement amount of the Furtado lawsuits.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The practice of “confidential” settlements of lawsuits by a publicly supported institution is misleading to the public and unacceptable to the Grand Jury. Such confidential settlements erode public confidence in the integrity of its elected and appointed officials and could be perceived as a “cover up” whether or not an actual cover up is intended. The Grand Jury believes that Sierra College specifically and public institutions generally should not enter into “confidential” settlement agreements such as were utilized in the Furtado lawsuits.
F7: At least one member of the Sierra College Board of Trustees was notified by legal counsel for the Board of Trustees that the lawsuits had been settled and revealed the dollar amount of that settlement.
F8: Testimony from Sierra College Board of Trustees members revealed that the majority of the Board was informed of the settlement of the Furtado lawsuit only when they read about it in the newspapers.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2: The Sierra College Trustees are elected officials. As such, they have a responsibility to see to it that the institution is well managed. They are expected to set policy for governance of the college, its officials, employees, students and physical assets. To achieve these goals, they must receive information that is accurate and reliable. Such information may come from many sources, but principally it should come from college administrators. In the Furtado matter the Trustees were ill informed in that they had not received the details of the settlement. Despite that lack of knowledge, none of them, either individually or collectively, made any inquiries into the terms and conditions of the settlement of a multi-million dollar lawsuit that attacked the discriminatory personnel practices of the Sierra College administration. The Grand Jury believes that the Board of Trustees in their role of fiduciaries should never relinquish control over settlement of lawsuits as they did in the Furtado matter.
R3: The Grand Jury believes that Sierra College is a fine educational institution that delivers a sound educational product for its students and that its employees who provide that instruction are dedicated professionals. It is unfortunate for the college and its employees that the matters addressed in this Grand Jury report were ever allowed to occur. The Grand Jury further believes that truth in the conduct of public affairs is essential and to that end recommends that the facts of the Furtado lawsuits and settlement be investigated and revealed to public scrutiny by the college Board of Trustees and administration as promptly as possible. RESPONDENTS Sierra College Board of Trustees RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 60 DAYS TO: * The Honorable Larry D. Gaddis Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603 * Editors Note: Sierra Community College District’s response immediately follows this report. No further response is required.
F9: The settlement of the lawsuits filed by Furtado in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, was “contingent upon the approval by the Board of Supervisors {sic}” as stated by Garland Burrell, Jr., United States District Court Judge, by order dated 12/31/1998.
F10: The Sierra College Board of Trustees, acting together as a governing body, was never told the actual amount of the settlement of the Furtado lawsuits nor did they ever vote, ratify, approve or sign any settlement document in their official capacity or any capacity at all.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2: The Sierra College Trustees are elected officials. As such, they have a responsibility to see to it that the institution is well managed. They are expected to set policy for governance of the college, its officials, employees, students and physical assets. To achieve these goals, they must receive information that is accurate and reliable. Such information may come from many sources, but principally it should come from college administrators. In the Furtado matter the Trustees were ill informed in that they had not received the details of the settlement. Despite that lack of knowledge, none of them, either individually or collectively, made any inquiries into the terms and conditions of the settlement of a multi-million dollar lawsuit that attacked the discriminatory personnel practices of the Sierra College administration. The Grand Jury believes that the Board of Trustees in their role of fiduciaries should never relinquish control over settlement of lawsuits as they did in the Furtado matter.
R3: The Grand Jury believes that Sierra College is a fine educational institution that delivers a sound educational product for its students and that its employees who provide that instruction are dedicated professionals. It is unfortunate for the college and its employees that the matters addressed in this Grand Jury report were ever allowed to occur. The Grand Jury further believes that truth in the conduct of public affairs is essential and to that end recommends that the facts of the Furtado lawsuits and settlement be investigated and revealed to public scrutiny by the college Board of Trustees and administration as promptly as possible. RESPONDENTS Sierra College Board of Trustees RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 60 DAYS TO: * The Honorable Larry D. Gaddis Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603 * Editors Note: Sierra Community College District’s response immediately follows this report. No further response is required.
F11: The members of the Board of Trustees testified that they did not ask questions regarding the settlement because this matter was handled by the insurance company.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos
F2185: under the County’s Environmental Health Division of Health and Human Services.
Página 1

Additional documents

Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.