Plumas County Grand Jury
2003-2004
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
HR came into existence in 1996.
F2:
The "Personnel Rules" were originally adopted February 14, 1986 by BOS resolution No. 86-3979. They were completely revised and adopted February 15, 2000 by BOS resolution No. 00-6363.
F3:
Rule 15 - Performance Evaluation. 15.01 Policy: "Each appointing authority shall be responsible for effectively evaluating the performance and conduct of the department's employees. The frequency shall be at least once a year. An effective evaluation provides written documentation, in regular and timely manner, on the quality of performance and employee departmental needs. Such documentation shall provide a basis for future personnel decisions. The performance evaluation shall be completed and presented to the employee prior to the end of the calendar date covered by the evaluation." (emphasis added)
F4:
Rule 6 - Salary. 6.05 Merit Advancement by Salary Ste2: "The personnel action shall be based on performance evaluations conducted pursuant to Rule 15." 5. 6.06 Longevity Advancement: "Upon satisfactory performance, as evidenced by a performance evaluation, an employee's salary shall be increased (5%) at the following times: upon completion of seven, ten, fourteen, eighteen, and twenty-one years of full- time continuous and compensated service, measured from date of hire."
F6:
The CAO has the responsibility to prepare performance evaluations and provide them to the BOS for the seventeen positions that constitute the department heads, which the CAO supervises. The CAO is to provide the department head with a copy of what is provided to the BOS. The BOS makes the final evaluation after a closed hearing with the department head and the CAO. Official personnel records from HR disclose that thirteen of the department heads performance evaluations are delinquent. The HR director has not been evaluated since July 2002. The head of Planning/Building Services was last done October 1997, the head of Public Works was last done July 1997, the head of Probation had gone from January 1991 until December 2003, (the performance evaluation occurred because the department head requested it). The head of Office of Emergency Services (OES) hired in January 1977 (a one- half time appointment) has never received a performance evaluation. This position includes the responsibilities of County Fire Warden; this position is often overlooked by both the CAO and HR Director. HR omitted this position from the listing of department heads they supplied to the Grand Jury.
F7:
Within the departments there are delinquent performance evaluations for employees whose tenure falls into the time frames when they are not eligible for either a merit or longevity salary increase. This occurs during employment years eight, nine, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, nineteen, twenty, or over twenty-one years of service. These merit and longevity raises are separate from cost of living raises, which usually occur annually and do not require a current performance evaluation. The department heads are responsible for assuring that all performance evaluations occur in a timely manner in their departments. HR does not notify department heads of due dates. The following table shows employees of Plumas County whose tenure status does not provide an opportunity for either a merit or longevity salary increase:
F8:
HR tracks all employees to verify that each employee has received all raises he/she is entitled to and that the evaluation necessary to support the raise has been forwarded to HR. The evaluation is not official until it is on file in HR.
F9:
The HR computer system does not pick up due dates for evaluations. The HR Department does not have computer software to track personnel, therefore tracking must be performed manually.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The CAO and the BOS agree on a monthly schedule for conducting annual performance reviews of all department heads. This would average three evaluations every two months. At that review the department head would document the currency of the performance reviews of employees in their department.
R2:
The prior CAO, currently on retainer, could assist the present CAO in bringing performance evaluations up to date.
R3:
There have been various memos, letters of direction and procedures generated over the last four years that are not reflected in the "Personnel Rules." The "Personnel Rules" should be reviewed and updated annually.
R4:
The HR department should obtain software that will facilitate its operations.
R15-17:
41 4 19, 20 & >21 29 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The current procedure is the Grand Jury issues its report, findings and recommendations on or about June 30'. The BOS or the agency involved then has 90 days in which to file a written response. That response is during a new Grand Jury term, when most of the members are not familiar with the findings and recommendations of the prior Grand Jury.
F2:
The BOS, on the last two Grand Jury reports for Plumas County, has failed to acknowledge and address all of the findings and recommendations with regard to fire protection issues. On the 2002/2003 report the BOS did file a supplemental response after they were reminded they had not responded to the initial report.
F3:
The BOS, on numerous occasions during the past five years, has responded that it agreed with the Grand Jury's findings and/or recommendations and set an action date for implementation, which on many occasions, they failed to keep. (See examples in Appendix A)
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The 1999/2000 Grand Jury made findings and recommendations for annual evaluations of Department Heads. The BOS responded there was an existing performance review procedure. The 2003/2004 Grand Jury found, although the procedure does exist, not all Department Heads are evaluated annually. (See Finding #3, Department of Human Resources section.)
F4:
The 1999/2000 Grand Jury made findings and recommendations for annual evaluations of Department Heads. The BOS responded there was an existing performance review procedure. The 2003/2004 Grand Jury found, although the procedure does exist, not all Department Heads are evaluated annually. (See Finding #3, Department of Human Resources section.)
F5:
California Government Code Section 87300 requires every County to adopt and promulgate a conflict of interest code.
F6:
California's Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Section 87 1 00 et seq.) prohibits public officials from making, participate in making, or in any way seeking to influence government decisions in which they have a financial interest.
F7:
In conducting interviews of the five members of the BOS, each member had a slightly different view of what constituted a "conflict of interest" while serving on the Board.
F8:
The former county counsel verbally advised some board members that in order for a conflict to exist it must be shown that the Supervisor in question must receive "financial gain."
F9:
Currently each Board member annually completes a Statement of Economic Interests (California Fair Political Practices Commission form 700), a public document disclosing personal financial interests.
F10:
The BOS rejected the Grand Jury's recommendation last year to re-establish the Plumas County Planning Commission.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The BOS authorize the County Administrative Officer (CAO) to place Grand Jury Recommendation items on the BOS agenda to follow up on recommendations in which the BOS has already agreed to take action.
R2:
The BOS, on the last two Grand Jury reports for Plumas County, has failed to acknowledge and address all of the findings and recommendations with regard to fire protection issues. On the 2002/2003 report the BOS did file a supplemental response after they were reminded they had not responded to the initial report.
R3:
The BOS, on numerous occasions during the past five years, has responded that it agreed with the Grand Jury's findings and/or recommendations and set an action date for implementation, which on many occasions, they failed to keep. (See examples in
R5:
California Government Code Section 87300 requires every County to adopt and promulgate a conflict of interest code.
R6:
California's Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Section 87 1 00 et seq.) prohibits public officials from making, participate in making, or in any way seeking to influence government decisions in which they have a financial interest.
R7:
In conducting interviews of the five members of the BOS, each member had a slightly different view of what constituted a "conflict of interest" while serving on the Board.
R8:
The former county counsel verbally advised some board members that in order for a conflict to exist it must be shown that the Supervisor in question must receive "financial gain."
R9:
Currently each Board member annually completes a Statement of Economic Interests (California Fair Political Practices Commission form 700), a public document disclosing personal financial interests.
R10:
The BOS rejected the Grand Jury's recommendation last year to re-establish the Plumas County Planning Commission.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Some approved expenditures of the initial installment have not been consistent with stated goals of the SA. Projects not aligned with the goals of the SA have included $10,000 for increasing the capacity of a well owned by the Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District, $115,000 to the PCFC for the 2003-2004 budget expenditures, $452,000 to repay the general fund for loans to the PCFC for expenditures that had accumulated for several years (These expenditures are being reviewed by DWR).
F2:
Plumas County has a building permit moratorium in the Sierra Valley. This moratorium can be lifted only after the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determines that an adequate Sierra Valley flood plain map has been developed.
F3:
The PCFC has recommended approximately $500,000 be allocated to a Sierra Valley flood plain study to develop a flood plain map of the county's portion of the valley.
F4:
Some approved expenditures are consistent with the goals of the SA. They include $75,000 for a vegetative management project contracted through Plumas Corporation and approximately $28,000 to develop a strategy document (Feather River Watershed Management Strategy) for using the SA funds.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The BOS/PCFC avoid the temptation to use the SA funds for projects or activities that offer short fixes but are not consistent with the stated goals. The BOS/PCFC has a unique opportunity to show it can be a responsible steward of these watershed improvement funds. To the extent funds are expended for watershed restoration the more likely business and citizens of Plumas County will receive an environmental and economic benefit.
R2:
The Sierra Valley flood plain study should not be funded with SA money because it is not in compliance with the goals of that agreement.
R3:
The BOS/PCFC should utilize the Feather River Watershed Management Strategy as a guide to prioritize and fund projects.
R4:
The BOS/PCFC seek opportunities to leverage these funds through partnerships with public agencies and private landowners, thereby increasing the benefit to Plumas County.
R5:
Appropriate use of the SA funds can demonstrate to the SWP that it is economically sound policy to fund additional programs beyond those authorized by the WF.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The jail's heating and ventilating is regulated by an offsite computer- controlled system (the "DELTA" system). The purpose of this system is to realize energy efficiencies. It was noted during the inspections that the jail areas, particularly the maximum-security section, appeared very warm and damp. The jail staff indicated conditions were often too hot or cold.
F2:
It was noted the standby generator for emergency power during power failures was missing. The Grand Jury was informed that the generator had been removed by Facility Services in December 2003 because it had been "red tagged." During a countywide power outage in that month, the jail was without backup power for over twenty-four hours creating a security problem. While a new generator was on order, it had not yet been received (as of May 1, 2004), forcing the jail to rent a temporary trailer-mounted generator at a cost of $1,800 per month for three months.
F3:
The present jail facility presents many security issues because of the way it was constructed in 1976. Examples: there is no automated lock-in control when moving inmates from one cell to another; the physical layout is linear which makes it more labor intensive and places staff in direct contact with prisoners; there are no slots in maximum security cell doors requiring food to have to be served to prisoners by opening the cell door; access to jail facilities for disabled female inmates is inadequate. The Jail Commander estimated a new jail facility might cost in excess of $12 million.
F4:
There are numerous maintenance problems applicable to the jail. Previously, the jail had its own full-time maintenance employee. Maintenance now has to be requested of the Facility Services Department. Due to that department's understaffing situation, requested maintenance orders are often not completed in a timely manner or not completed at all. Documentation indicated twenty- two open work orders for the jail with only six currently in the process of correction.
F5:
Outside the jail, there are several problems relating to security in the yard areas. These include: a. Two surveillance cameras are not functioning; another camera is needed to cover the east end of the yard. b. Some of the lighting sensors are not functioning properly. One security light was noted as being on at 4:00 P.M. during the inspection. c. The main electrical panel and transformer are without adequate security. d. The outside female exercise area is not adequately wired for security.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should make a thorough review of the jail to determine the current and future adequacy of this facility. Sources of funding should be included in this review.
R2:
The Chief Administrative Officer, Sheriff, Facility Services Director and the jail staff should meet to assess the significant security and maintenance issues listed in the
R3:
Assign a full-time maintenance person to this facility.
R4:
All members of the Board of Supervisors should tour the jail facility at least once each year.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Personnel Rules of Plumas County ("Personnel Rules") define nepotism as: "The appointment in a department of a member of any employee's family to a permanent, temporary, or extra-help position resulting in the employee having substantial supervisorial authority over the family member."
F2:
There was no supportable evidence of improper job postings.
F3:
The department heads reported that performance evaluations are not consistently completed on an annual basis.
F4:
In "Personnel Rules," the Plumas County Human Resources Department neither defines nor provides procedures for employee pre-disciplinary hearings (Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194).
F5:
The Grand Jury found no evidence of Skelly Hearing violations in 2004.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
PCHA should always comply with guidelines specified in "Personnel Rules" regarding nepotism. Posting job opportunities should continue to be in accordance with "Personnel Rules. "
R2:
Annual performance evaluations should be completed for each employee as required in "Personnel Rules. "
R3:
Basic rules of procedure for the Skelly Hearing process should be included in "Personnel Rules " in order that all county employees have knowledge of their rights in the disciplinary process.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The PUSD notified each school administrator at the beginning of the school year that there would be a 75% cut in athletic funds. Portola High School elected to meet this requirement by eliminating funds for transportation to athletic events.
F2:
Parents of Portola basketball players, both boys and girls, were verbally informed that they would be responsible for transporting their student athletes to athletic events at other schools.
F3:
Student fundraisers and parent donations raised money for transportation to athletic events.
F4:
A coach deposited the funds in the Portola High Associated Student Body (ASB) account.
F5:
Once placed in an ASB account, the money was under the jurisdiction of the school district, not the parents. (Educational Code 48930 through 48936 governs the purposes and activities of the student body funds.)
F6:
On one occasion parents, following PUSD procedures, arranged to pay for a PUSD bus to transport the basketball team. However, at the last minute, parents were notified that no PUSD drivers were available. The parents transported the students in private vehicles.
F7:
The parents reasoned that chartered private buses would be more dependable. A parent paid for the charter buses with a personal credit card and was reimbursed from the ASB account.
F8:
The California State Employees Association Chapter 193 (CSEA) filed a grievance on behalf of the bus drivers, claiming that the trips should have been made in PUSD buses. Since they were not, the drivers did not receive overtime pay they would otherwise have earned. The CSEA 193 contract states that work traditionally performed by classified (uncredentialed) employees must continue to be performed by classified employees.
F9:
The PUSD settled the grievance and awarded the bus drivers a total of approximately $1,500. The bus drivers' grievance resolution was paid out of the Portola High School ASB account. The PUSD has since reimbursed the Portola High School ASB account and the amount of the grievance settlement- will be deducted July 1, 2004 from the 2004- 2005 Portola High School athletic budget.
F10:
The Director of Personnel Services on March 3, 2004 issued a memo that reads, in part, "...no PUSD students are to be transported on a chartered bus unless CSEA 193 has agreed in writing to the chartering of such a bus." This memo was sent to all high school principals and athletic directors.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
One probation officer is now assigned to students on probation who are enrolled at PCCS. This officer follows prescribed procedures by signing the visitation log and notifies teachers if students on probation are to be removed from the classroom. This has improved communications between the Probation Department and PCCS.
F2:
The Probation Department does not have a separate juvenile division.
F3:
The Probation Department is in need of expanded office space for personnel and equipment. Lack of space has caused overcrowding conditions and lower staff morale. Currently, there is inadequate office space for fourteen employees.
F4:
Two hundred hours of training are required for newly employed probation officers. The Chief Probation Officer indicated the department experiences high turnover. Many officers leave for higher paying positions in other counties once, they reach the two hundred hour mark. The average retention duration for entry- level probation officers is eighteen months. Current annual compensation levels are: entry level - $29,448; I year - $31,200; 4-5 years - $34,800.
F5:
Funding for the Probation Department is provided from the County general fund (55%), six separate grants (22%), State and federal sources (20%) and fees charged to probationers (3%).
F6:
At the time of the Grand Jury interview, the Chief Probation Officer had not received a performance evaluation for eleven years.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The space situation in the Probation Department should be addressed and corrected. The needs include three more offices and one room for conferences. Once some departments move to the new facility, the old law library could be considered for expansion of the Probation Department.
R2:
The Human Resources Director perform a study to address the turnover issues in the Probation Department.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors hold an annual performance evaluation with all the appointed Department heads.