Gran Jurado del Condado de Placer

2000-2001

23 informes

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 9 hallazgos
F1: The Agency has minimized the use of outside contractors for Special Needs transportation. Although not totally eliminated, they have reduced outside contracting by a large margin. Last year approximately 40 to 50 students were transported by outside contractors. As of February 2002 the Agency has five students on MediCab. As personnel becomes available, that number should drop. Reducing cab services was accomplished through more personnel, better routing, and utilizing three new vans that meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards safety regulations for school buses. Mid-Placer has formal written contracts with each contractor. Employees of these companies go through Mid-Placer pre-employment requirements of drug testing and fingerprinting. The recommendations of Finding 1 have been implemented.
F2: The Agency maintains the policy of background checks through the Department of Justice “Live Scan” fingerprinting before any employee transports students. (The California Education Code §45125.1 was amended by the Montoya Law and is included in these background checks.) The recommendations of Finding 2 have been implemented.
F3: Mid-Placer Board maintains that it fully complies with all established policies and state law concerning the transportation of special needs children. The board appears to be active in providing direction and oversight. The recommendations of Finding 3 have been implemented.
F4: Accountability for Special Needs Students is in effect. New emergency forms were developed for students’ families and schools to fill out so that MPPSTA has the latest up-to-date information on each student. Emergency forms are kept in three different areas: a master file in the office, the route books for substitute drivers, and on the bus with the regular driver. These forms are updated as changes occur. The recommendations of Finding 4 have been implemented.
F5: PCOE is highly involved in the Agency and is fully represented on the governing board. PCOE is proactive with the Agency by providing training for employees, including but not limited to CPR and training of related student services such as aides trained in mental health. Aides on buses that transport the emotionally disturbed are decreasing instances of disruption. The Agency is getting positive feedback from families of Special Needs students. The recommendations of Finding 5 have been implemented.
F6: Regarding the complaint procedure that showed Mid-Placer was failing to respond in a timely manner to complaints by teachers and parents, the board adopted a more proactive Uniform Complaint Procedure, Board Policy #2080. This current procedure closely aligns itself with several California school districts and allows the complaint to be resolved at the lowest possible level or be escalated to the State level if necessary. Mid-Placer management has developed a new method of monitoring and tracking complaints. Incidents are logged electronically in the PCOE office and are immediately dispersed to the Mid-Placer office. The reports are saved on the computer with ‘hard copies’ also making it easy to track each complaint from receipt to resolution. Concerns called into the agency are to be returned within one business day or sooner whether or not the issue has been solved. Complaints received by PCOE have dropped from a high of nearly 400 in 1999- 2000 to just over 50 in 2000-2001. The recommendations of Finding 6 have been implemented.
F7: Possibly for the first time in a long time the Agency has more drivers than routes. Although the Agency is reporting more drivers than routes it does face the issue of a 5% to 15% daily absenteeism rate and a need to cover routes for requested field trips. MPPSTA still is in need of more qualified drivers. Mid-Placer will continue to maintain an aggressive campaign to recruit and train more drivers. In the past year drivers have negotiated an increase of 3.17% and have a tentative agreement for another 3% on the salary schedule. Drivers are now being paid $10.75 to $13.06 per hour. Recruiting, training and hiring are top priority. Strategies for gaining new hires include job fairs, local college contacts, direct mailers, word of mouth, and local newspaper ads. The recommendations of Finding 7 have been implemented.
F8: Radio equipment has been updated to meet the needs of communications between the school buses and the dispatch office. Two handheld radios for supervisors have been added for times when they are called out on emergencies. Also a new repeater system has been installed with an antenna mounted on a higher hilltop so that the area of coverage is expanded. New digital radios have been installed and programmed in the buses. A communications vendor makes certain all of the equipment is functioning well. The recommendations of Finding 8 have been implemented.
F9: All relevant information, including IEP protocols, is current and available for internal or external drivers. The information does not breach confidentiality but is adequate to ensure the safety of the special needs children. The recommendations of Finding 9 have been implemented. Commendation New management for the Mid-Placer Transportation Agency implemented and exceeded the recommendations of the prior Grand Jury. No further oversight is necessary by the succeeding Grand Jury. No response is required.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: There is a need for a clear-cut definition of necessary and reasonable reimbursable expenses for elected County officials.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The County should develop a policy to include a clearer definition of necessary and reasonable reimbursable expenses for elected County officials.
F2: The review of elected County officials’ reimbursable expenses needs to be conducted by an entity that can examine the claims with respect to the new policy.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The responsibility for reviewing elected County officials’ expense claims be delegated to the Auditor-Controller’s Office. Respondents Placer County Auditor-Controller Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Counsel Placer County Executive Officer RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable James D. Garbolino Presiding Judge of the Superior Court County of Placer Historic Court House 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos
F1: The Grand Jury noted that the District is studying the feasibility of joining with an APCD similar in size and demographics.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The Grand Jury recommends that Placer County continue efforts to join neighboring counties to form a regional district in order to enforce California air pollution control laws.
F2: The California Health and Safety Code § 40701.5 provides that expenses of a district not met by grants, subventions, permit fees, penalties, or a surcharge of registered motor vehicles, shall be provided by an annual per capita assessment of those cities which have agreed to have a member on the District board and of the County included in the District.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The County and participating cities should share a per capita fee equally among each of the jurisdictions.
F3: The California Health and Safety Code authorizes the District to adopt fees in conjunction with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to stay current with the cost of administering programs.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Structure fees to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index.
F4: The APCD by law can charge a $4 per vehicle registration fee. Placer County is one of three counties charging $2. All the other counties charge $4.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Take the necessary steps to raise the per vehicle fee to $4.
F5: The APCD does not have the resources to respond, in a timely fashion, to citizen complaints related to monitoring pollution releases from stationary industrial sources, nor does it have an adequate system in place for daily monitoring of potential or actual pollution releases. There are sites within Placer County which have had repeated releases of organic compounds. As it is now, the District must rely on self-reporting by the polluter, or a report of suspicion by nearby residents. By the time a report is investigated, the pollution may have dissipated.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: Develop plans to follow up aggressively on complaints from citizens related to discharges from industrial sites on a 24-hour basis. In addition, monitor, on a full time basis, repeat violators as well as sites which may release toxic substances known to cause long term or acute health problems. The legislature has authorized Districts to require stationary sources of potential air pollution to install monitoring devices and to reimburse Districts for costs related to collecting and evaluating data from such devices (See Health and Safety Codes § 42700(b) and 41511).
F6: Due to the rapid growth in Placer County, the Grand Jury recognizes the challenges faced by the Air Pollution Control District.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: The 2001-2002 Grand Jury should continue to monitor the Air Pollution Control District issues. Respondents: City of Auburn City of Colfax City of Lincoln City of Rocklin City of Roseville Placer County Air Pollution Control Board Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Chief Executive Officer Township of Loomis RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable James D. Garbolino Presiding Judge Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: A review of the 1999-2000 financial audits, investment policy and the comprehensive annual financial report found Placer County to be in compliance with standard financial practices and in excellent fiscal health.
F2: There is no internal audit division within the Placer County Auditor-Controller’s Office.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors provide additional funding to implement an internal audit division within the Auditor-Controller’s Office. Respondents Placer County Auditor-Controller Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Executive Officer RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable James D. Garbolino Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street. Auburn, CA 95603
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: The 2000-2001 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: Placer County officials should provide strong support for this three-part approach (rehabilitation, prevention and punishment) to reducing recidivism. This support should include funding, making space available and remodeling of the facilities, where appropriate.
F2: There still 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 2001-2002 Grand Jury should monitor the progress of the existing and proposed construction at the facility.
F3: The Placer County Sheriff's Department bills through the Revenue Services Division the cost of housing inmates in the Placer County Jails. At present the Revenue Services Division is able to recoup about 1% of the amounts billed, which is enough to pay for one officer per year and the cost of administering the program. Cost of medical care is included in the daily "housing" rate and is allowed by state law.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The Placer County Sheriff's Department and the Revenue Services Division should continue to pursue reimbursement of the costs of medical care and the housing of inmates.
F4: 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 the town of Loomis. Obviously, the need for corrections facilities in this area will continue to increase.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The Board of Supervisors, County Executive Officer, Sheriff's Department and Criminal Justice Policy Commission should continue to work towards construction of a South Placer Criminal Justice facility. It is this Grand Jury's desire, as it has been for past Grand Juries, that a South County Facility located in the Roseville-Lincoln-Loomis-Rocklin area be built. Respondents Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Executive Officer Placer County Facility Services Director Placer County Sheriff-Coroner-Marshal RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable James D. Garbolino Presiding Judge of the Superior Court County of Placer Historic Court House 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 8 hallazgos
F1: The Auburn shelter facility is inadequate to meet the existing and future needs of this rapidly growing County. Animal Control management stated that completion of a new facility is expected in three to five years. The Grand Jury commends Placer County for its commitment to building larger and more modern shelter facilities within the next few years.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Placer County Board of Supervisors ensure that expansion of animal control shelter operations into new facilities continues to be a high priority on the list of pending capital improvements.
F2: Animal Control does not currently employ a licensed veterinarian or qualified veterinary technician, nor have one on retainer.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors allocate funds to allow Animal Control to either hire or retain the services of a licensed veterinarian or qualified veterinary technician at the shelter facilities.
F3: Animal Control does not have a quarantine infirmary for cats.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The Grand Jury recommends that the County allocate space to be used exclusively for sheltering and treating cats that require quarantine to prevent transmission of disease to healthy animals.
F4: Animal Control does not perform heartworm tests on incoming animals.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The Grand Jury recommends that Animal Control contract with a service or obtain training to perform heartworm testing on all dogs and cats upon arrival at the shelters. Animals who test positive for the disease should be evaluated by a licensed veterinarian or qualified veterinary technician to determine the best course of treatment.
F5: The Animal Control Program Manager has recently started monitoring the numbers of animals housed, treated and destroyed. The Grand Jury commends him for his proactive approach to management of animal control operations.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: The Grand Jury recommends that the Animal Control Program Manager continue his current efforts to track and analyze information pertaining to the health and welfare of homeless animals in Placer County. The results of the analyses should be used to improve the services offered by Animal Control.
F6: Placer County Code 6.20 (Animal Impoundment) is not in compliance with sections of the California Penal Code, Civil Code, and Food and Agriculture Code.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: The Grand Jury recommends County Code be brought into compliance with State law as quickly as possible.
F7: Animal Control policies and procedures are incomplete.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: The Grand Jury recommends Animal Control policies and procedures be reviewed and updated at least annually to reflect changes in State law, County ordinances, and/or management policies. They should address all aspects of animal control.
F8: There is no public advisory board within Placer County to provide oversight of Animal Control activities and facilities.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: The Grand Jury recommends that the County solicit participation from community members on a public advisory board that would serve as a liaison between the citizens of Placer County and Animal Control. Respondents Placer County Animal Control Program Manager Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Department of Health & Human Services Director Placer County Environmental Health Director Placer County Executive Officer Placer County Health Officer RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable James D. Garbolino Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603 EXHIBIT 1, EXHIBIT 1, EXHIBIT 1, EXHIBIT 2, EXHIBIT 2,
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: The external doors at the Juvenile Detention Center are secured with manual locks and keys, which creates the potential for delay in the event of emergency evacuations. Institute measures to allow quick, safe exit from the building in the event of life threatening emergencies, maintaining the safety and security of inmates, staff and the public at all times.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: Institute measures to allow quick, safe exit from the building in the event of life threatening emergencies, maintaining the safety and security of inmates, staff and the public at all times.
F2: As noted in last year’s Grand Jury report, certain aspects of the facility’s construction may allow juveniles to harm themselves or others. Stairways have open railings. The handicapped lift has an easily accessed electrical control panel.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Find ways to reduce or mitigate these risks.
F3: While staffing levels meet the minimum requirements of California Code of Regulations Title 15, Crime Prevention and Corrections, they have not been adequate to ensure complete coverage of the facility’s needs at all times
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Juvenile Detention Center management should conduct an immediate analysis of staffing levels and male/female demographics in relation to the physical plant to ensure full-time, part-time and on-call staff are adequate at all times to meet the needs of youth housed in the facility.
F4: Juvenile Detention Center staff are not currently authorized to carry pepper spray as a defensive tool.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The Grand Jury recommends that the draft policy authorizing the use of pepper spray by appropriately trained staff be approved and implemented as soon as possible.
F5: There is no inpatient treatment facility in Placer County for youth with mental health problems. The Grand Jury recommends that the Probation Department contract with appropriate institutions within Placer County to provide family centered services for children and youth under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court who need residential treatment services for mental health problems. The Placer County Board of Supervisors should work to designate a facility within Placer County that meets these needs. Respondents Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Chief Probation Officer Placer County Executive Officer Placer County Juvenile Detention Center Director RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable James D. Garbolino Presiding Judge, Superior Court County of Placer Historic Courthouse 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: The Grand Jury recommends that the Probation Department contract with appropriate institutions within Placer County to provide family centered services for children and youth under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court who need residential treatment services for mental health problems. The Placer County Board of Supervisors should work to designate a facility within Placer County that meets these needs. Respondents Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Chief Probation Officer Placer County Executive Officer Placer County Juvenile Detention Center Director
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos
F1: Prior to the Grand Jury’s investigation, there were no contracts for private contract services (i.e., taxicabs) between Mid-Placer and the service providers hired, contrary to State law and liability concerns. Mid-Placer management and their Board of Directors failed to determine the qualification of the outside private contract service companies prior to entrusting them with special needs children.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The Grand Jury recommends that there be a Board policy requiring formal, written contracts with service providers prior to any use of subletted services in transporting special needs children.
F2: The opinion of the legal advisor to the Grand Jury states that all outside contract drivers fall under the requirements of the California Education Code §45125.1 (which was amended by the Montoya Law) and all other requirements for bus drivers in regard to transporting special needs children. Mid-Placer was not consistently ensuring that outside service providers were in compliance with the California Education Code regarding qualifications of individuals who interact with school children.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Grand Jury recommends that background checks be completed before children are transported in the sole custody of any individual, internal or external to Mid-Placer. Furthermore, Mid-Placer should ensure that each of its drivers – whether contracted or not – complies with the provisions of the California Education Code which was amended by the Montoya Law.
F3: The Mid-Placer Board has been lacking in direction and oversight regarding the agency’s compliance with established policies and State laws concerning the transportation of special needs children.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: School districts, Mid-Placer, and the Placer County Office of Education share responsibility in the matters discussed in this report. The Grand Jury recommends that the Placer County Office of Education be the lead agency to ensure that the requirements of special needs children are met. The Board should hold management accountable for transportation special needs children in accordance with State and Federal laws and agency policies.
F4: Mid-Placer has not adequately and consistently met the transportation requirements of special needs children, which has compromised and/or limited the integrity of educational benefits for these children. The integrity of special needs students’ educational day benefits continually has been compromised or limited by last minute changes in drivers, routes, and/or vehicles.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The Grand Jury recommends that Mid-Placer, the Placer County Office of Education, and the Mid-Placer Board of Directors prioritize transportation of special needs students in accordance with statutes. The Grand Jury recommends that Mid-Placer review its service policy for special needs children to ensure that these children receive the maximum benefit of transportation in relationship to education. The policy should ensure, among other things, that the transportation of every student with special needs by the same driver and on the same vehicle is given top priority as often as possible.
F5: Mid-Placer’s management has been ineffectual in prioritizing the use of available resources, particularly in the transportation of special needs children.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: The Grand Jury recommends that Mid-Placer recognize that the term “special needs” implies that those children who meet the criteria must be given priority consideration. The Mid-Placer Board, Placer County Office of Education, and Mid-Placer management should work together to prioritize resources appropriately, bearing in mind their legal and ethical responsibilities for special needs children.
F6: Mid-Placer and the Placer County Office of Education failed to respond in a timely manner to complaints by teachers and parents regarding transportation services for special needs children.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: The Grand Jury recommends that the Mid-Placer Board of Directors, the Placer County Office of Education, and Mid-Placer management develop a policy regarding complaints. The Grand Jury recommends that the policy include but not be limited to the following: (a) A method to ensure that complainants promptly receive responsive information regarding the handling and resolution of complaints. (b) A tracking mechanism for each complaint from receipt to resolution. (c) A method for complainants to escalate their concerns to a higher level if satisfactory resolution is not forthcoming. (d) Reports of the nature and resolution of complaints at each Board meeting. (e) A formal mechanism for the Placer County Office of Education to forward complaints to Mid-Placer management.
F7: Mid-Placer does not have sufficient driver staff and qualified aides to ensure adequate coverage of all special needs routes.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: The Grand Jury recommends that the policy include but not be limited to the following: The Grand Jury recommends that the Mid-Placer Board of Directors and Mid-Placer develop a detailed strategy and timetable to remedy the shortage and turnover rate of drivers. The recruitment, training, and retention of drivers must become a priority. The Grand Jury also recommends that the Placer County Office of Education accept responsibility for both training and providing qualified aides.
F8: Communication is a vital key for success in the transportation of special needs children. The Grand Jury found the following inadequacies: (a) Communication between some mobile vehicles used to transport special needs children and base stations was nonexistent or inadequate. (b) Communication from Mid-Placer to parents, teachers, drivers, and aides of special needs children is inadequate, i.e., route changes, driver changes, non-availability of service, etc. (c) Mid-Placer has no system in place to monitor the whereabouts of special needs children while entrusted to them.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: The Grand Jury recommends that the policy include but not be limited to the following: (a) The Grand Jury recommends that all vehicles used to transport special needs children are outfitted with working radio equipment and some other type of backup communication equipment such as cellular telephones. For those vehicles that currently do not have adequate equipment, the Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Directors and Mid-Placer budget and obtain required equipment as soon as possible. (b) The Grand Jury recommends that Mid-Placer needs to comply with already established parental notification requirements stated in the Mid-Placer Public Schools Transportation Agency, Special Education Parent Handbook. Furthermore, the Grand Jury recommends that management implement procedures to ensure timely notification of any changes affecting special needs children to all other affected parties, i.e., teachers, aides, drivers, etc. (c) The Grand Jury recommends that Mid-Placer and the Board of Directors develop, implement, and follow procedures to ensure timely and responsive communication during the transportation of special needs children.
F9: Despite existing internal policies, drivers do not always have sufficient route information, IEP protocols, and emergency contact information to ensure the safe transportation and delivery of special needs children.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9: The Grand Jury recommends that the policy include but not be limited to the following: The Grand Jury recommends that Mid-Placer ensure that all relevant information, including IEP protocols, is current and available for internal or external drivers. Such information should not breach confidentiality, but should be adequate to ensure the safety of the special needs children.
F10: The Placer County Grand Jury found that additional follow-up and monitoring is required by the 2001-2002 Grand Jury.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10: The Grand Jury recommends that the policy include but not be limited to the following: The Grand Jury recommends that the 2001-2002 Placer County Grand Jury follow-up and monitor Mid-Placer Transportation Agency. Respondents Ackerman Elementary School District Superintendent Alta-Dutch Flat School District Superintendent Board of Directors for the Mid-Placer Public Schools Transportation Agency Colfax Elementary School District Superintendent Loomis Union School District Superintendent Mid-Placer Public Schools Transportation Agency Placer County Office of Education Placer Union High School District Superintendent RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable James D. Garbolino Presiding Judge of the Superior Court County of Placer Historic Court House 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603 ADDENDUM TERMINOLOGY: 1. Developmental disability – means a disability which originates before an individual attains age 18, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual.” This term “shall include mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism.” It shall “also include disabling conditions found to be closely related to mental retardation or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with mental retardation, but shall not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.” 2. Special Education – In the context of this report, special education, special needs, and children with developmental disabilities are used interchangeably and should be considered as having the same meaning. 3. “d.b.a.” – Doing business as. This is used when a business or an owner uses a fictitious name(s) to operate a business. There are legal requirements to file with the County and/or State and notify the public of these names. 4. IEP - The individualized education program (IEP) is a written statement for each child with a disability which is disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in accordance with Section 614(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. APPLICABLE CODES: California Chapter 840 statute clearly states, and amends the California Education Code §45125.1 that: (a) “Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), if the employees of any entity that has a contract with a school district, as defined in Section 41302.5, to provide any of the following services may have any contact with pupils, those employees shall submit or have submitted their fingerprints in a manner authorized by the Department of Justice together with a fee determined by the Department of Justice to be sufficient to reimburse the department for its costs incurred in processing the applications: (1) School and classroom janitorial. (2) Schoolsite administrative. (3) Schoolsite grounds and landscape maintenance. (4) Public transportation. (emphasis added) (5) Schoolsite food-related. (b) “This section shall not apply to an entity providing any of the services listed in subdivision (a) to a school district in an emergency or exceptional situation, such as when pupil health or safety is endangered or when repairs are needed to make school facilities safe and habitable. (c) “This section shall not apply to an entity providing any of the services listed in subdivision (1) to a school district when the school district determines that the employees of the entity will have limited contact with pupils, the school district shall consider the totality of the circumstances, including factors such as the length of time the contractors will be on school grounds whether pupils will be in proximity with the site where the contractors will be working, and whether the contracts will be working by themselves or with others. If a school district has made this determination, the school district shall take appropriate steps to protect the safety of any pupils that may come in contact with these employees.” California Vehicle Code §34500 Those requirements include but are not limited to: (1) Applicants should be interview and tested at the closest CHP office, (2) School bus officers and coordinators will conduct an initial interview to ensure minimum requirements for the certificate, (3) medical examination and certificate, (4) fingerprinted by the CHP, (5) FBI fingerprint card, (6) first aid exam as determined by the Emergency Medical Services Authority, et al. California Education Code §14550, Joint Powers Authority “(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local education agency’s obligations pursuant to law may not be avoided through participation in a joint powers authority. (b) A local education agency’s financial obligations to the state may not be avoided through participation in a joint powers authority. (c) A local education agency’s participation in a joint powers authority may not relieve the local education agency of any financial obligation or responsibility to the state unless the state entity undertaking the obligation is a party to the joint powers agreement and expressly agrees in the agreement to undertake the obligation. (d) A local educational entity retains ultimate responsibility over its obligations in case of default by a joint powers authority in which it participates.”
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 16 hallazgos
F1: $165,000 was removed from the Post Retirement Medical Fund by Sierra College administrators: $93,000 in 1995-96 and $72,000 in 1998-99.
F2: The Post Retirement Medical Fund was created by collective bargaining Agreement(s) between the College and its two employee organizations, the Sierra College Faculty Association (SCFA) and the Federation of United School Employees (FUSE), in 1990.
F3: There is no authority granted in the collective bargaining agreements between the College and the employee organizations (SCFA and FUSE) for anyone or any entity to remove funds from the Post Retirement Medical Fund, other than in conformance with collective bargaining agreement provisions regarding resigning or noncontributing employees.
F4: Removal of $165,000 from the Post Retirement Medical Fund by College administrators was inappropriate and a breach of the collective bargaining agreement(s) terms and conditions between the College and its employees, as well as a violation of Government Code §3540 et seq. The College administration had an obligation to obey the terms and conditions of its own contractual agreements with its employees. Instead of acting in a forthright and ethical manner as a trustee of employee funds, they took it upon themselves to covertly and unilaterally invade an employee benefit fund to cover budget shortages. The College, had they chosen to follow the contract terms, would have notified their employees of their intentions to divert the monies in the Post Retirement Medical Fund to other uses. According to the statements of John DeLury, Finance administrator, on March 14, 2000, they were obligated to return to the table to negotiate new and different contract provisions as required by Government Code §3540 et seq.
F5: Union representatives of the faculty and classified employees participating in the Post Retirement Medical Fund were derelict in their duty to safeguard the funds of their constituents.
F6: The Post Retirement Medical Fund was and is identified on Sierra College audits from 1991 to 2000 as a “fiduciary” account. The Grand Jury concluded that the Post Retirement Medical Fund was in fact a “fiduciary account” identified variously on fiscal records of the College, the Placer County Office of Education, and the Placer County Treasurer as an “expendable trust account” and/or an “agency account.”
F7: The Post Retirement Medical Fund originally and through 1996 was identified on College financial records as a “trust account” as defined by the Budget and Accounting Manual for California community colleges.
F8: The Post Retirement Medical Fund from about 1996 on has been identified as an “agency” account as defined by the Budget and Accounting Manual for California community colleges.
F9: The funds contributed to the Post Retirement Medical Fund are “employee benefits” as defined by the Budget and Accounting Manual for California community colleges.
F10: The funds taken from the Post Retirement Medical Fund by College administrators were used to balance the College’s budgets of 1995-96 and 1998- 99.
F11: There is no evidence that funds taken from the Post Retirement Medical Fund by College administrators were used to pay “retiree’s health insurance premiums.”
F12: College administrators and several trustees were well aware of the nature and purpose of the Post Retirement Medical Fund before, during, and after the taking of $165,000 from the fund.
F13: The rationale for removal of funds from the Post Retirement Medical Fund presented to the Board of Trustees by a College administrator on September 22, 1998, was disingenuous. Such a taking of funds was clearly a violation of collective bargaining contract provisions regarding withdrawals of employer contributions.
F14: Sierra College has used the same contract audit firm for at least ten years.
F15: The $165,000 unilaterally removed from the Post Retirement Medical Fund ($93,000 in 1995-96 and $72,000 in 1998-99) by Sierra College was returned to that fund on December 29, 2000, along with $32,444 to compensate for estimated interest losses due to its removal. The result of the administration’s inappropriate use of the $165,000 from the Post Retirement Medical Fund is that the taxpayers paid the $32,444 from the Sierra College General Fund for estimated interest lost in its removal.
F16: In December 2000, the College Financial Officer and other administrators informed the Board of Trustees and Insurance Committee members that the College faces a shortfall of some $700,000 for the 2000 – 2001 budget year due to falling student enrollment. They have proposed several alternatives to deal with this budgetary deficit, one of them being to take more money from the Post Retirement Medical Fund.
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 2 hallazgos
F1: The County developed and implemented a plan that resulted in a relatively smooth transition into the year 2000. The 1999-2000 Grand Jury commends the County staff for its efforts and achievements.
F2: As of May 2000, the financial functions of the County’s computer system are still not working properly. Liquidated damages are still being assessed the vendor.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R2A: The County should continue to assess damages against the vendor until the financial system is fully operational.
R2B: The 2000-2001 Placer County Grand Jury should continue to monitor the system. Respondents Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Director of Administrative Services Placer County Executive 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: 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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
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.
Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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 4 hallazgos
F1: There is a great need to assure a safe and healthy environment for individuals seeking safety from violence at home, and requiring emergency shelter. While PEACE for Families is doing a good job of filling this need in Placer County with limited resources, additional financial assistance from the County beyond the $45,567 they currently receive each year would enable the agency to improve the quality of shelter available, serve more domestic violence victims, and expand the scope of services offered to sheltered women and children.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The Grand Jury recommends that Placer County provide additional funding to ensure the continued success and necessary growth of the PEACE for Families emergency shelter. To aid victims of domestic violence, the Grand Jury further recommends County officials look to existing resources, such as designating a portion of the County’s tobacco settlement funds for use by the shelter.
F2: The Grand Jury observed routine maintenance issues during its inspection of the shelter, including leaky bathroom faucets and exposed electrical outlets.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Grand Jury recommends that the Placer County Facility Services Department provide maintenance, service and repairs to the entire building (interior and exterior) at no cost, to assure a safe and healthy environment for families escaping a violent environment. The Grand Jury further recommends that the Placer County Board of Supervisors approve this as an ongoing expenditure.
F3: The Health and Human Services Department did not obtain periodic progress reports and annual financial audits from PEACE for Families as required by the contracts. There was no written documentation to indicate changes were made to the contracts that would have waived these requirements.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The Grand Jury recommends that all changes to County contracts be documented, agreed to in writing by all parties, and enforced to ensure the continued viability of the written contract.
F4: The Department of Health and Human Services did not hold PEACE for Families accountable for submission of financial information specifically related to the use of the County’s Presley funds (including annual audits and periodic progress reports) prior to renewing their annual contract.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The County should ensure that annual independent financial audits are completed and quarterly progress reports submitted as stated in the written contract. Respondents Executive Director, PEACE for Families Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Executive Officer Placer County Facility Services Director Placer County Health & Human Services Director RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: The Honorable James D. Garbolino Presiding Judge of the Superior Court County of Placer Historic Court House 101 Maple Street Auburn, CA 95603

* 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.

Additional documents

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