Gran Jurado del Condado de Plumas
2003-2004
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 (2)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
"1. The Board of Supervisors should set forth protocol to better evaluate performance of the Building official (and other department heads). The protocol should include input from employees within the department as well as those individuals or agencies served by the department."
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
"2. That residents living outside of a fire district consider annexation to an adjacent district to improve their fire protections." BOS Response No response
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)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
"3. That Fire Districts pursue available grants to assist with their needs. The County Fire Warden, working with the Fire Officers' Association, could assist with this effort. The Vision 2020 program may be able to provide assistance with grants in the near future." BOS Response No response.
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.)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
"4. That the County Fire Warden, in collaboration with the Fire Officers' Association, coordinates implementation of countywide standardized training and safety programs. Additional funding through the County Fire Warden's office should assist in these endeavors. Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 Title HI funding, in addition to other grants, could be utilized." BOS Response No response.
F5:
California Government Code Section 87300 requires every County to adopt and promulgate a conflict of interest code.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
"5. That the Board of Supervisors clarify the County Fire Warden's job description in regard to countywide enforcement of all laws and ordinances, rules and regulations relating to fires or to fire prevention and protection, as addressed in Government Code Section 24008." BOS Response "Response: The recommendation will be implemented by March, 2003, or shortly thereafter in the CAO's discretion."
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
"6. That all Fire Chiefs, or their representatives, participate in the Plumas County Fire Officers' Association." BOS Response No response 2001-2002 Plumas County Purchasing Procedure
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
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.
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."
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
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."
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
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.
F10:
The BOS rejected the Grand Jury's recommendation last year to re-establish the Plumas County Planning Commission.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
The BOS rejected the Grand Jury's recommendation last year to re-establish the Plumas County Planning Commission. Recommendations The Grand Jury recommends:
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R15-17:
41 4 19, 20 & >21 29 7 The departments with the delinquent evaluations are Assessor, Auditor, County Counsel, District Attorney, Mental Health, Probation, and Information Technologies. 8. 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. 9. 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. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that: 1. 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. 2. The prior CAO, currently on retainer, could assist the present CAO in bringing performance evaluations up to date. 3. 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. 4. The HR department should obtain software that will facilitate its operations. Plumas Unified School District Function Plumas Unified School District's (PUSD) mission is to provide a quality education for all students in a supportive environment. The interscholastic program is an extension and integral part of the total physical education program of the district. Background An important part of the PUSD program is the interschool athletics program. In a rural county like Plumas County the athletics program requires travel over long distances to competitive events, and the transportation of the student athletes has been a concern, both to the school and to the parents. The Grand Jury was informed that parents of Portola High School student athletes had chartered private buses for athletic events played in other venues. This resulted in a union grievance which the PUSD settled. A preliminary inquiry indicated sufficient substance to warrant further investigation. The Grand Jury interviewed the Superintendent of Schools of Plumas County; the Supervisor of Transportation; the Director of Personnel of Plumas County Schools; the Principal of Portola High School; and a basketball coach of Portola High School. Also interviewed was the parent who had arranged for the chartered buses. Findings 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Student fundraisers and parent donations raised money for transportation to athletic events. 4. A coach deposited the funds in the Portola High Associated Student Body (ASB) account. 5. 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.) 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. Recommendations: The Grand Jury Recommends: 1. The- school district and the individual school principals provide clear guidance to the parents and other community groups to help make their support for the school programs effective and rewarding for both students and community. 2. All instructions regarding transportation of students to athletic events be conveyed in writing to parents identifying what is expected of them in transporting students, chartering buses or using school buses. 3. Students who participate in the management of ASB funds should be provided written guidelines on their responsibilities. 4. Parents should be given written instructions of the limitation on the ASB fund. 5. Teachers and coaches should be advised that their presence on any school bus trip, chartered or not, makes that trip a school sponsored affair. 6. The PUSD clarify the memo of March 3, 2004, regarding the authority for chartering buses. Commendations: The Grand Jury commends the Portola High School parents for making their decisions with good intentions. They were not aware of the technicalities of the ASB account or the provisions of the contract with CSEA Chapter 193. The Grand Jury commends the PUSD Superintendent, Mr. Chelloti, for his tenacity in finding funding solutions in a difficult financial environment with deteriorating budget revenues. The Grand Jury also commends the Principal of Portola High School, Mr. Lake, for his leadership and guidance through a difficult situation. Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (PCFC) Function Provide for control and disposition of storm, flood and other waters of the district; make water available for any present or future beneficial use or uses of lands or inhabitants within the district, including acquisition, storage and distribution for irrigation, domestic, fire protection, municipal, commercial, industrial, recreational and all other beneficial uses; develop and sell at wholesale hydroelectric energy to aid in financing water projects. Background Plumas County is recognized by the state of California as a County of Origin and therefore has water rights to specified amounts of water flowing from the county. That right would have been lost via an agreement (The Monterey Agreement (MA)) that was about to be finalized between State Water Project (SWP) contractors and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) approximately eight years ago. The PCFC (along with the other agencies) sued DWR and SWP. As a result of the litigation a resolution was reached, the Settlement Agreement (SA), whereby the DWR is required to make annual payments of $1 million to PCFC for four years. An additional $1 million dollars of payments for four additional years are authorized pending completion of a new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a successful defense of any legal challenge trying to invalidate the SA. The SA directs that: "3. Use of Funds. a. Funding of Watershed Programs. Plumas shall apply a majority of all funds received each year pursuant to Section IV(A) to Watershed Programs. b. Balance of Funds to General Purposes. Plumas may apply the balance of funds received each year to other district-related purposes, as determined by Plumas with due consideration for the needs of the Watershed Forum." In the SA, "Plumas" is defined as PCFC. The Watershed Forum (WF) is comprised of PCFC, DWR, and the SWP. The SA states, for the WF: 2. Purpose and Goals a. Generally. The Watershed Forum's purpose is to implement watershed management and restoration activities for the mutual benefit of Plumas and the SWP. Forum activities include design of, participation in, implementation of, and review of studies and demonstration projects related to watershed restoration. b. Specific Goals. The specific focus of the Watershed Forum's activities is to implement programs designed to achieve the following benefits: (1) Improved retention (storage) of water for augmented baseflow in streams; (2) Improved water quality (specifically, reduced sedimentation), and stream bank protection; (3) Improved upland vegetative management; and (4) Improved groundwater retention/storage in major aquifers." The Grand Jury noted the contentiousness of the July 28, 2003 meeting of the Plumas Watershed Forum. There was disagreement over how the funds should be spent. The Grand Jury therefore decided to investigate how the funds of the SA were going to be dispersed and what direction was provided by the settlement. The Grand Jury interviewed the members of the Board of Supervisors (BOS), past members of the BOS, Director of Public Works, Director of Planning/Building Services, the former County Counsel, County Auditor, Plumas County's litigation counsel, members of the WF Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and personnel previously employed by Plumas Corporation. Findings 1. 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). 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. Recommendations The Grand Jury recommends: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. The BOS/PCFC should utilize the Feather River Watershed Management Strategy as a guide to prioritize and fund projects. 4. The BOS/PCFC seek opportunities to leverage these funds through partnerships with public agencies and private landowners, thereby increasing the benefit to Plumas County. 5. 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. PLUMAS COUNTY JAIL Function To confine Plumas County prisoners who are awaiting arraignment, trial or serving sentences.
R98-99:
Fire X X Ag. Commissioner Engineering Environmental Health Housing and Community Development Local Agency Formation Commission Planning X Public Works 95-96, 97-98, X
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
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.
F7:
Complaints by PCCS teachers to the Sheriff's Office were not investigated in a timely manner.
F8:
There is no juvenile officer assigned by the Sheriff's Department to the PCCS.
Recomendaciones adicionales
11
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
"1. The Board of Supervisors should set forth protocol to better evaluate performance of the Building official (and other department heads). The protocol should include input from employees within the department as well as those individuals or agencies served by the department."
R2:
"2. That residents living outside of a fire district consider annexation to an adjacent district to improve their fire protections." BOS Response No response
R3:
"3. That Fire Districts pursue available grants to assist with their needs. The County Fire Warden, working with the Fire Officers' Association, could assist with this effort. The Vision 2020 program may be able to provide assistance with grants in the near future." BOS Response No response.
R4:
"4. That the County Fire Warden, in collaboration with the Fire Officers' Association, coordinates implementation of countywide standardized training and safety programs. Additional funding through the County Fire Warden's office should assist in these endeavors. Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 Title HI funding, in addition to other grants, could be utilized." BOS Response No response.
R5:
"5. That the Board of Supervisors clarify the County Fire Warden's job description in regard to countywide enforcement of all laws and ordinances, rules and regulations relating to fires or to fire prevention and protection, as addressed in Government Code Section 24008." BOS Response "Response: The recommendation will be implemented by March, 2003, or shortly thereafter in the CAO's discretion."
R6:
"6. That all Fire Chiefs, or their representatives, participate in the Plumas County Fire Officers' Association." BOS Response No response 2001-2002 Plumas County Purchasing Procedure
R7:
At least two to three times during the school year, a general meeting of the School District, Probation Department, Sheriff's Department and PCCS staff should be held to discuss current and emerging issues. COMPLAINT #03/04-03 Nature of Comi3laint A citizen submitted a complaint against the Sheriff s Department and the District Attorney alleging, among other charges, improper use of the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System ("CLETS") program in the District Attorney's Office by a County employee. Response The Complainant was advised that this complaint was not within the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury and that his complaint and related documentation was forwarded to the California State Attorney General's Office. Complainant was further advised to pursue his complaint with the California Attorney General and to consider consulting with the current County Sheriff. COMPLAINT #03/04-04 Nature of Complaint A citizen requested the Grand Jury investigate the Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District (GLRID) in regard to its management in the Crocker Mountain area. Complaints were as follows: • The GLRID refuses to serve (provide water) to the entire Crocker Mountain Subdivision • GLRID does not have maps available of the water and sewer system pipes on Crocker Mountain • GLRID does not post minutes of its board meetings and they do not have a Public Comment period on their agenda • No citizen of the Crocker Mountain area serves on the board of the GLRID
R95-96:
Central Plumas Recreation District
R97-98:
Mental Health 95-96, 99-00
R98-99:
Fire X X Ag. Commissioner Engineering Environmental Health Housing and Community Development Local Agency Formation Commission Planning X Public Works 95-96, 97-98, X
R99-00:
X Treasurer/Tax Collector