Gran Jurado del Condado de Placer
2004-2005
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (3)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
12 hallazgos
F1:
ARD’s outside legal counsel has not provided a cost effective, stabilizing influence in recent years.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
ARD evaluate the retention of new outside legal counsel to provide a fresh perspective on its legal issues and the cost effectiveness thereof.
F2:
ARD’s outside auditing firm has remained the same for five years.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
ARD’s outside audit firm be changed.
F3:
ARD lacks a Board approved Capital Improvement 5-Year Plan.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
ARD’s board annually approve a Capital Improvement 5-Year Plan.
F4:
ARD is evaluating the need for an operational/management audit.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
ARD commission an operational/management audit. 3
F5:
ARD’s financial information has lacked timeliness.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
ARD develop and maintain its financial information on a timely basis; approval of monthly financial statements should never lag more than one month.
F6:
ARD has not implemented a clear procedure for investigation of harassment claims against the district.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
ARD implement a clear policy regarding the handling of harassment claims against the district, and bring closure to existing claims expeditiously.
F7:
ARD is evaluating a revision to the Board Procedures and Responsibilities Policy.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
ARD adopt a current revision to the Board Procedures and Responsibilities Policy and ensure members adhere to that policy in conducting their activities.
F8:
ARD board members do not receive enough timely training regarding the Brown Act, and have a limited understanding of its ramifications.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
ARD ensure all board members have timely Brown Act training. This training should not be limited to merely handing out relevant materials and hoping board members read it.
F9:
ARD enjoys widespread community support.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
ARD find a way to leverage its community support to achieve a more favorable perception of the district. An active public relations effort would be highly beneficial.
F10:
All new PGO supervisors for the past several years have initially known nothing of PGO work and have required basic PGO training.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
The 2005-2006 Grand Jury continue to monitor ARD, ensuring these recommendations are implemented. Respondents (within 60 days) (See pages 39-42 for Respondents’ Instructions): • Auburn Area Recreation and Parks District Administrator Respondents (within 90 days) (See pages 39-42 for Respondents’ Instructions): • Auburn Area Recreation and Parks District Board of Directors 4 PLACER COUNTY MAIN JAIL Summary A new 120-bed wing was added to the Placer County Main Jail in March, 2003, increasing the jail’s potential capacity to 646 beds. However, as a result of earlier budget shortfalls and, more recently, the delay of hiring, 106 beds are still not being used. In the year 2004, 37% of all inmates were released early because the added 120 beds were not used. In early 2005, 14 beds were made available for use, but 106 beds are still not being used. Therefore, the Grand Jury recommends the county take the steps necessary to make use of these 106 beds and also recommends the county Personnel Department work closely with jail staff to facilitate the hiring of the necessary officers to fully staff the jail. Narrative
F11:
Follow-up on the PGO situation by the 2005-2006 Grand Jury. Respondents (within 60 days) (see pages 39-42 for Respondents’ Instructions): • Public Guardian’s Office • Health and Human Services Department • Placer County Executive Officer 27 BURTON CREEK SHERIFF’S SUBSTATION Summary The Burton Creek Sheriff’s Substation and related courtroom facilities are outmoded and have reached the point where future remodeling is not cost effective. Therefore, the Grand Jury recommends active planning started for a new enlarged facility on a site already owned by Placer County. Narrative Background to Investigation. Penal Code Section 919(b) states: “The Grand Jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” Accordingly, the 2004-2005 Placer County Grand Jury visited the Burton Creek Sheriff’s Substation and related courtroom and other facilities. Because the Grand Jury has visited and reported on the Burton Creek facilities for each of the past several years, the Grand Jury also followed up on the specific recommendations of previous Grand Juries. Inadequacy of the Current Burton Creek Sheriff’s Substation Facility. The current facility housing the sheriff’s substation and courtroom functions, built in 1960, has been remodeled many times. The Sheriff’s Office has off-loaded some of its operations to a nearby rented facility. However, this is only a minor aid to the basic problem of having an outmoded and inadequate facility. Based on Grand Jury observations and interviews, the current facility does not have the space needed to perform its required functions properly, nor is the facility amenable to the type of remodeling that would be required to make it a proper facility. Contractual Arrangements between Placer and Nevada Counties. Truckee, located near Tahoe City (but in Nevada County), houses a Nevada County Sheriff’s facility and related courtroom. Placer County contracts with Nevada County for the Truckee facility as needed to house inmates arrested in Placer County. This contractual arrangement helps Placer County to minimize space requirements in its Burton Creek Substation holding cells. Placement of New Sheriff’s Substation in Cabin Creek Area. Property in the Burton Creek/Tahoe City area is much more expensive than in most other areas of Placer County. However, Placer County owns the property housing the current Burton Creek Substation. Placer County also owns property in the Cabin Creek area which could be used to build a new Substation facility. The Cabin Creek area is located several miles north of Tahoe City, and is much closer to Truckee. The Grand Jury received a memorandum from the Placer County Assistant County Executive Officer which had been prepared by the Facility Services Department. The department estimated costs of a vehicle maintenance building 28 and a sand storage building on the Cabin Creek site. This same site might be used as a future sheriff’s substation and court. Active Planning Needed for a Future Substation Facility. While some of the Burton Creek Sheriff Department officials have presented the idea of building a new substation and courtroom facility at Cabin Creek, the idea has not been developed in detail, and thus has not been considered by policy makers. In order to effectively develop these concepts, it is important to have the pertinent Placer County entities start to plan for a new substation. Findings The 2004-2005 Placer County Grand Jury found: 1. The Burton Creek Sheriff’s Substation is housed in an inadequate facility.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
Follow-up on the PGO situation by the 2005-2006 Grand Jury. Respondents (within 60 days) (see pages 39-42 for Respondents’ Instructions): • Public Guardian’s Office • Health and Human Services Department • Placer County Executive Officer 27 BURTON CREEK SHERIFF’S SUBSTATION Summary The Burton Creek Sheriff’s Substation and related courtroom facilities are outmoded and have reached the point where future remodeling is not cost effective. Therefore, the Grand Jury recommends active planning started for a new enlarged facility on a site already owned by Placer County. Narrative
F2005:
In addition, he served on the San Bernardino County Grand Jury in the 1990’s. The 2004-2005 Grand Jury organized itself into nine Standing Committees for purposes of research, study, and preparation of reports. All reports herein have been approved by the Grand Jury’s full panel. The nine committees are as follows: Audit and Finance County Administration Health and Welfare Cities Criminal Justice Schools and Libraries Continuity Editorial Special Districts i TABLE OF CONTENTS Transmittal Letter……………………………………………………..…….………..…i Grand Jury Roster and Structure…………………………..……………………..….ii Table of Contents…………………………………………………..……….……..…..iii Auburn Area Recreation and Parks District…………………………..……….……1 Placer County Main Jail………………………………………………….…….……..5 Gender Bias in Domestic Violence Cases…………………………….…….……...8 Conflict of Interest and Record Keeping Practices of Planning ………… ….….11 Commissions and Design Review Boards of Cities in Placer County Placer County Public Guardian………………………………………….…….……22 Burton Creek Sheriff’s Substation…………………………………………….……28 Emergency Responses for the Elderly…………………………………….………30 City Jails within Placer County………………………………………….….……….33 Juvenile Detention Facility………………………………………………….….……35 Placer County Annual Audit………………………………………….…….………..37 Note to Respondents…………………………………………………………….…..39 California Penal Code Section 933.05……………………………….………….…41 List of Respondents..………………………………………………………………..43 ii AUBURN AREA RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT Summary The 2004-2005 Grand Jury continued work on four complaints received by the 2003-2004 Grand regarding the Auburn Area Recreation and Parks District (ARD), as well as an additional complaint received by the current Grand Jury. These complaints included allegations regarding receipt and disbursement of funds designated for a specific use, timeliness and accuracy of financial reports, independent investigation of claims alleged against board members by staff, Brown Act violations, and procurement issues. The Grand Jury found problems identified by previous Juries unaddressed along with additional matters of concern, and makes recommendations to improve ARD’s operations. Narrative Background to Investigation. Issues in ARD’s operations have been noted by previous grand juries. The 1997-1998 jury conducted an ARD investigation resulting in eight recommendations. The 2003-2004 Grand Jury’s ARD investigation led to four recommendations: 1. Better compliance with the Brown Act.