Plumas County Grand Jury
2005-2006
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The "Animal Control Safety Guidelines" manual is incomplete. There is no written Departmental policy or procedure on accidental needle sticks. Also, the "Animal Control General Orders" manual is incomplete. There is no written Departmental procedure on euthanasia.
F2:
The Animal Control Department is under the supervision of the Sheriff's Department. Employees of Animal Control are represented by the Operating Engineers Union whereas the employees of the Sheriff's Department are members of the Sheriff's Association. These two entities have different standards and operating practices.
F3:
Many of the laws applicable to the Animal Control Department fall under the Agricultural Code rather than the Penal Code.
F4:
On average, Staff meetings are held only once per year.
F5:
Animal Control General Order Section III, A-10., states that "the pens shall be cleaned and the animals checked for food and water every 24 hours, minimally". This policy is not being followed. There is one day per week where no employee is scheduled to care for or feed the animals.
F6:
Dosages for euthanasia drugs are determined by animal weight. There is no scale to weigh the animals. 17
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Policies and procedures for accidental needle sticks and for animal euthanasia be developed and implemented immediately.
R2:
The Animal Control Department be removed from the Sheriff's Office supervision and moved to a more appropriate department.
R3:
The Department Head hold staff meetings a minimum of 4 times per year.
R4:
Staff coverage be sufficient to provide care for the kennel animals 2 times per day, 7 days per week.
R5:
A weight scale be acquired and that its use be implemented immediately.
R6:
An oversight committee be formed. Membership could include the head of the supervising department and volunteers from the community. 18
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Due to age, size and condition it is in need of replacement.
F2:
Reports show a change in classification, by severity of offense, of inmate percentages is causing housing issues.
F3:
Staffing levels are low. Injuries, vacation and training cause undue stress on remaining personnel.
F4:
The assigning of a full-time Facilities Services maintenance person has been a great improvement to the productivity of the jail staff. The deficiencies noted in the 2004/05 Grand Jury Report have been mostly taken care of with the exceptions of the Control Room. The working area of the staff has been redone. The maintenance person has started bringing the jail to the newer standards set by the Board of Corrections. Work maintenance logs are now available and accessible. Still needed at the last jail tour were the logs for fire safety, sprinkler and fire extinguisher (these were started, not finished).
F5:
The Control Room still remains a crowded maze of wires and there is no known completion date. See the Board’s Response to Finding #4, Plumas County Jail, from the 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final Report: “Agree. However, the County notes that a RFP (Request For Proposal) with specifications is being done for the repairs in the control room wiring. This RFP is estimated to be completed by December 2005.”
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Audit Committee be established and commence operation.
R2:
The Auditor/Controller Subcommittee Chair and the Treasurer of the Grand Jury be nominated as the two Grand Jury representatives to the committee. Plumas County Jail INTRODUCTION The Plumas County Jail was completed in 1976 for the detention of both male and female adult inmates. In 1985 an addition was completed and the facility is now capable of housing sixty-seven (67) inmates. The facility houses pretrial defendants and persons who are serving a sentence of one (1) year or less. Inmates sentenced to state prison are housed at the jail awaiting transportation to a prison facility. As with so many jails in the state of California, the Plumas County Jail is outdated and in need of many major repairs and should be replaced. REASON FOR INVESTIGATION Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 919 the Grand Jury must annually inquire into the condition and management of all public prisons located within the County PROCEDURES FOLLOWED The Grand Jury members:
R3:
Reviewed past Grand Jury reports.
R4:
Interviewed personnel. 9
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Board of Supervisors failed to establish the Audit Committee by November 1, 2005 as they agreed to do in their response to the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The recommendation has been implemented, with summary of the implemented action.
F2:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting of April 4, 2006, it was commented that an Audit Committee still had not been established. At the Grand Jury meeting of April 6, 2006, a request for the nomination of two Grand Jury members to the Audit Committee was received from the County Counsel's office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
F3:
As of the writing of this report, June 8, 2006, the Audit Committee still does not appear to be established or functioning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The recommendation requires further analysis. If the person or entity reports in this manner, the law requires an explanation of the analysis or studies in a time frame not to exceed six months.
F4:
The assigning of a full-time Facilities Services maintenance person has been a great improvement to the productivity of the jail staff. The deficiencies noted in the 2004/05 Grand Jury Report have been mostly taken care of with the exceptions of the Control Room. The working area of the staff has been redone. The maintenance person has started bringing the jail to the newer standards set by the Board of Corrections. Work maintenance logs are now available and accessible. Still needed at the last jail tour were the logs for fire safety, sprinkler and fire extinguisher (these were started, not finished).
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation. If either a finding or recommendation deals with budgetary or personnel matters of a county department headed by an elected officer, both the elected officer and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if the Grand Jury so requests, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. Requirement to Respond No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency (includes departments) shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the Grand Jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the Superior Court who impaneled the Grand Jury. Distribution List The final report of the 2005-2006 Plumas County Grand Jury will be distributed to the following individuals and agencies: The Honorable Judge Ira Kaufman The Honorable Judge Garrett W. Olney Plumas County Grand Jury for 2005-2006 Plumas County Grand Jury for 2006-2007 Plumas County Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Plumas County Administrative Officer Plumas County Auditor/Controller Plumas County Building Department Plumas County Clerk Plumas County Counsel Plumas County Department of Human Resources Plumas County Development Commission Plumas County District Attorney Plumas County Facility Services Department Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Plumas County Information and Technology Department (Website) Plumas County Jail Plumas County Libraries Plumas County Office of Emergency Services (OES) Plumas County Planning Department Plumas County Probation Department Plumas County Public Health Agency Plumas County Sheriff Plumas County Unified School District California State Archivist California Attorney General's Office City of Portola All Special Districts (47) Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Fire Departments Feather River College California Grand Jurors Association Plumas County Court Executive Officer Plumas County Reviews Review of Feather River College The Grand Jury is charged with reviewing all aspects of county government, since everything cannot be covered this is usually done by looking at the areas which are required to be investigated every year and then the remaining ones on a rotating basis, Since Feather River College had never been reviewed, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury decided to undertake this task. The subject review was started but we soon discovered that it was such a complex job due to the several entities which make up the total institution: Administration, Board of Directors, Faculty, Students, and the very involved communication between them, plus the additional complications which developed that we could not do it justice within the time available to this years jury. It is fairly easy to merely make a list of perceived problems and/or shortcomings, but we believe that to present a comprehensive picture of an area which is of such importance to the county citizens and the student clientele it would be best to continue this investigation into the ensuing Grand Jury year. Plumas County Auditor/Controller
F5:
The Control Room still remains a crowded maze of wires and there is no known completion date. See the Board's Response to Finding #4, Plumas County Jail, from the 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final Report: "Agree. However, the County notes that a RFP (Request For Proposal) with specifications is being done for the repairs in the control room wiring. This RFP is estimated to be completed by December 2005."
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The public deserves to have access to Board of Supervisors meeting content in a timely and efficient manner. The time utilized by the Board Clerk to type minutes from a tape recorder could be better spent on other assignments. Board minutes do not have to be approved before dissemination to the public if noted, "Not approved". Today's technology is such that the Board meetings can be audio-recorded on disc, and digitally transferred to paper. This can then be readily placed on the internet. The discs can be copied and disseminated for a fee to those citizens who wish to hear the board meeting content, and for those who do not have internet access. It is not acceptable for individual Supervisors to imply that the public is "not really interested" or to claim that the public will "take things out of context".
F6:
Some Supervisors are not fulfilling their obligation to attend community advisory meetings on a regular basis nor to provide appropriate oversight of county departments, such as Facility Services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Some Supervisors are not fulfilling their obligation to attend community advisory meetings on a regular basis nor to provide appropriate oversight of county departments, such as Facility Services. Re
F7:
The cemetery district's records indicate that the specific plot originally sold to the complainant is now owned by the board member CS.
F8:
The PCD Secretary has a letter to PCD from the Plumas County Auditor- Controller's office, dated 12/2/04, which reports that the $300 warrant issued was stale dated and had been cancelled, with the funds transferred into the unclaimed trust fund.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R95-96:
Adminstrative/CAO X 95-96, Assessor
R96-97:
98-99 X X X F/U Fire Ag. Commissioner Engineering Environmental Health Housing and Community Development Local Agency Formation Commission Planning X Χ X Public Works F/U 95-96, X
R97-98:
Support Division Mental Health 95-96,
R98-99:
Auditor/Controller X X X X Board of Supervisors Clerk/Recorder X inc. Chamber of Commerce Information Technology
R99-00:
X Fair Farm Advisor Law Library
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Board of Supervisors failed to establish the Audit Committee by November 1, 2005 as they agreed to do in their response to the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The recommendation has been implemented, with summary of the implemented action.
F2:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting of April 4, 2006, it was commented that an Audit Committee still had not been established. At the Grand Jury meeting of April 6, 2006, a request for the nomination of two Grand Jury members to the Audit Committee was received from the County Counsel's office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
F3:
As of the writing of this report, June 8, 2006, the Audit Committee still does not appear to be established or functioning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The recommendation requires further analysis. If the person or entity reports in this manner, the law requires an explanation of the analysis or studies in a time frame not to exceed six months.
F4:
The assigning of a full-time Facilities Services maintenance person has been a great improvement to the productivity of the jail staff. The deficiencies noted in the 2004/05 Grand Jury Report have been mostly taken care of with the exceptions of the Control Room. The working area of the staff has been redone. The maintenance person has started bringing the jail to the newer standards set by the Board of Corrections. Work maintenance logs are now available and accessible. Still needed at the last jail tour were the logs for fire safety, sprinkler and fire extinguisher (these were started, not finished).
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation. If either a finding or recommendation deals with budgetary or personnel matters of a county department headed by an elected officer, both the elected officer and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if the Grand Jury so requests, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. Requirement to Respond No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency (includes departments) shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the Grand Jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the Superior Court who impaneled the Grand Jury. Distribution List The final report of the 2005-2006 Plumas County Grand Jury will be distributed to the following individuals and agencies: The Honorable Judge Ira Kaufman The Honorable Judge Garrett W. Olney Plumas County Grand Jury for 2005-2006 Plumas County Grand Jury for 2006-2007 Plumas County Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Plumas County Administrative Officer Plumas County Auditor/Controller Plumas County Building Department Plumas County Clerk Plumas County Counsel Plumas County Department of Human Resources Plumas County Development Commission Plumas County District Attorney Plumas County Facility Services Department Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Plumas County Information and Technology Department (Website) Plumas County Jail Plumas County Libraries Plumas County Office of Emergency Services (OES) Plumas County Planning Department Plumas County Probation Department Plumas County Public Health Agency Plumas County Sheriff Plumas County Unified School District California State Archivist California Attorney General's Office City of Portola All Special Districts (47) Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Fire Departments Feather River College California Grand Jurors Association Plumas County Court Executive Officer Plumas County Reviews Review of Feather River College The Grand Jury is charged with reviewing all aspects of county government, since everything cannot be covered this is usually done by looking at the areas which are required to be investigated every year and then the remaining ones on a rotating basis, Since Feather River College had never been reviewed, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury decided to undertake this task. The subject review was started but we soon discovered that it was such a complex job due to the several entities which make up the total institution: Administration, Board of Directors, Faculty, Students, and the very involved communication between them, plus the additional complications which developed that we could not do it justice within the time available to this years jury. It is fairly easy to merely make a list of perceived problems and/or shortcomings, but we believe that to present a comprehensive picture of an area which is of such importance to the county citizens and the student clientele it would be best to continue this investigation into the ensuing Grand Jury year. Plumas County Auditor/Controller
F5:
The Control Room still remains a crowded maze of wires and there is no known completion date. See the Board's Response to Finding #4, Plumas County Jail, from the 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final Report: "Agree. However, the County notes that a RFP (Request For Proposal) with specifications is being done for the repairs in the control room wiring. This RFP is estimated to be completed by December 2005."
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The public deserves to have access to Board of Supervisors meeting content in a timely and efficient manner. The time utilized by the Board Clerk to type minutes from a tape recorder could be better spent on other assignments. Board minutes do not have to be approved before dissemination to the public if noted, "Not approved". Today's technology is such that the Board meetings can be audio-recorded on disc, and digitally transferred to paper. This can then be readily placed on the internet. The discs can be copied and disseminated for a fee to those citizens who wish to hear the board meeting content, and for those who do not have internet access. It is not acceptable for individual Supervisors to imply that the public is "not really interested" or to claim that the public will "take things out of context".
F6:
Some Supervisors are not fulfilling their obligation to attend community advisory meetings on a regular basis nor to provide appropriate oversight of county departments, such as Facility Services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Some Supervisors are not fulfilling their obligation to attend community advisory meetings on a regular basis nor to provide appropriate oversight of county departments, such as Facility Services. Re
F7:
The cemetery district's records indicate that the specific plot originally sold to the complainant is now owned by the board member CS.
F8:
The PCD Secretary has a letter to PCD from the Plumas County Auditor- Controller's office, dated 12/2/04, which reports that the $300 warrant issued was stale dated and had been cancelled, with the funds transferred into the unclaimed trust fund.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R95-96:
Adminstrative/CAO X 95-96, Assessor
R96-97:
98-99 X X X F/U Fire Ag. Commissioner Engineering Environmental Health Housing and Community Development Local Agency Formation Commission Planning X Χ X Public Works F/U 95-96, X
R97-98:
Support Division Mental Health 95-96,
R98-99:
Auditor/Controller X X X X Board of Supervisors Clerk/Recorder X inc. Chamber of Commerce Information Technology
R99-00:
X Fair Farm Advisor Law Library
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Board of Supervisors failed to establish the Audit Committee by November 1, 2005 as they agreed to do in their response to the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury report.
F2:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting of April 4, 2006, it was commented that an Audit Committee still had not been established. At the Grand Jury meeting of April 6, 2006, a request for the nomination of two Grand Jury members to the Audit Committee was received from the County Counsel’s office.
F3:
As of the writing of this report, June 8, 2006, the Audit Committee still does not appear to be established or functioning. 8
F4:
The assigning of a full-time Facilities Services maintenance person has been a great improvement to the productivity of the jail staff. The deficiencies noted in the 2004/05 Grand Jury Report have been mostly taken care of with the exceptions of the Control Room. The working area of the staff has been redone. The maintenance person has started bringing the jail to the newer standards set by the Board of Corrections. Work maintenance logs are now available and accessible. Still needed at the last jail tour were the logs for fire safety, sprinkler and fire extinguisher (these were started, not finished).
F5:
The Control Room still remains a crowded maze of wires and there is no known completion date. See the Board’s Response to Finding #4, Plumas County Jail, from the 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final Report: “Agree. However, the County notes that a RFP (Request For Proposal) with specifications is being done for the repairs in the control room wiring. This RFP is estimated to be completed by December 2005.”
F6:
Some Supervisors are not fulfilling their obligation to attend community advisory meetings on a regular basis nor to provide appropriate oversight of county departments, such as Facility Services.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The recommendation has been implemented, with summary of the implemented action.
R2:
The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
R3:
The recommendation requires further analysis. If the person or entity reports in this manner, the law requires an explanation of the analysis or studies in a time frame not to exceed six months. 5
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation. If either a finding or recommendation deals with budgetary or personnel matters of a county department headed by an elected officer, both the elected officer and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if the Grand Jury so requests, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. Requirement to Respond No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency (includes departments) shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the Grand Jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the Superior Court who impaneled the Grand Jury. Distribution List The final report of the 2005-2006 Plumas County Grand Jury will be distributed to the following individuals and agencies: The Honorable Judge Ira Kaufman The Honorable Judge Garrett W. OIney Plumas County Grand Jury for 2005-2006 Plumas County Grand Jury for 2006-2007 Plumas County Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Plumas County Administrative Officer Plumas County Auditor/Controller Plumas County Building Department Plumas County Clerk Plumas County Counsel Plumas County Department of Human Resources Plumas County Development Commission Plumas County District Attorney Plumas County Facility Services Department Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Plumas County Information and Technology Department (Website) Plumas County Jail Plumas County Libraries Plumas County Office of Emergency Services (OES) Plumas County Planning Department Plumas County Probation Department Plumas County Public Health Agency Plumas County Sheriff Plumas County Unified School District California State Archivist California Attorney General’s Office City of Portola All Special Districts (47) Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Fire Departments Feather River College California Grand Jurors Association Plumas County Court Executive Officer 7
R5:
There is no apparent concern by the Board of Supervisors to ensure that the public is informed in a timely manner of their actions. This is evidenced by the fact that the Board meeting minutes are not posted on the internet for up to six weeks following each meeting. Other means of informing the public are not employed, other than limited newspaper coverage. Only one supervisor expressed belief that this is an issue and that the public is concerned and interested.
R6:
Some Supervisors are not fulfilling their obligation to attend community advisory meetings on a regular basis nor to provide appropriate oversight of county departments, such as Facility Services. Recommendations
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The allegations of misconduct which were investigated by the Grand Jury were not supported by documentary evidence or testimony by first-hand witnesses. Unsupportable formal and informal complaints against the PCSD have been presented to the Plumas County Grand Jury for at least the last five years.
F2:
The Attorney General's Office, which was invited into the PCSD investigation by the 2004-2005 Grand Jury, withdrew from participation early in 2006 because it could find no first-hand testimony or evidence of felony offenses.
F3:
Staff meeting frequency and regularity are not consistent throughout the PCSD, in some cases degrading communications and supervision efficiency.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Citizens not elevate to the level of formal complaints second or third hand stories of official misconduct for which they have no supporting evidence and can not deliver important sworn testimony.
R2:
PCSD implement a uniform policy of frequent, regular staff meetings to enhance the quality of supervision and intra-departmental communication. COMPLAINT SUMMARY COMPLAINT #05/06-1 Nature of Complaint Complainant reported “dishonest, improper, illegal and inefficient” behavior on the part of the Portola City Council. Response The Grand Jury sent a letter to complainant indicating that the complaint lacked adequate specificity for the Grand Jury to act and suggested that complainant resubmit with some specific details. COMPLAINT #05/06-2 Nature of Complaint This complaint was referred from the 2004/2005 Grand Jury. The complainant brought forth several issues regarding inspections, code violations and contractor licensure with the county Building and Planning Services Department. Response Following investigation of this complaint a letter was mailed to the complainant advising that personal consultation with the new administrator of this department is the most effective means of solving concerns. The new philosophy and reorganization of the department should prevent such concerns in the future. COMPLAINT #05/06-3 Nature of Complaint This complaint was Complaint #04/05-14 from the previous year’s Grand Jury. Response Complainant’s problem was solved without needing Grand Jury intervention. COMPLAINT #05/06-4 Nature of Complaint Building horse corrals close to complainant’s property and creating a nuisance with flies and odors. Response A letter was drafted referring complainant to the County Environmental Health Department and also recommending that complainant contact the Planning Department if there are questions concerning zoning issues. COMPLAINT #05/06-5 Nature of Complaint Complainant, a resident of Portola, reported that on January 16, 2004 complainant paid $100 down to the Portola Cemetery District (PCD) for a $300 plot adjacent to those of complainant’s parents and that same day an out-of- county relative (OCR) sent a check for the remaining $200 to the district. This check reportedly was a personal loan to the complainant. Complainant supplied copies of the check and receipts signed by the district manager. Complainant’s sibling (CS), with whom complainant is in litigation over the estate of their parent, was subsequently appointed to the board of directors of the PCD. The OCR later received a warrant, dated 04/29/04, in the amount of $300 from Plumas County along with a letter, dated 04/14/04, from the cemetery district secretary. The letter stated a mistake was made and that to a non-resident of Portola the price of the plot would be $500 and was under review to be increased to $785. The OCR wrote two letters to the district board. The first, dated 5/9/04 explained that the purchaser was the complainant, not the OCR, and a response was requested. The second, dated 6/21/04, addressed to the chairman of the district board asked for the minutes of the last three meetings of the board and a copy of the bylaws of the district. Complainant reports that no reply was received to either communication. Response The Grand Jury interviewed the Secretary of the PCD and reviewed his records of the matter. 21
R3:
The next Grand Jury review all the cemetery districts, which do not receive much publicity and remain obscure to the public.
R4:
The County Clerk include the cemetery districts in the list of special districts maintained by that office. COMPLAINT #05/06-6 COMPLAINT #05/06-7 COMPLAINT #05/06-8 COMPLAINT #05/06-9 COMPLAINT #05/06-10 Nature of Complaints These five complaints, all against the Feather River Canyon Community Services District (FRCCSD) addressed the issues of frequently interrupted, low pressure, and occasionally unsanitary water service at one of the seven systems maintained by the district. The complainants also reported a perceived lack of constructive response from the FRCCSD Board of Directors. Response The Grand Jury interviewed the Chairman of the FRCCSD Board of Directors and the Director of the Plumas County Community Development Commission (PCCDC) and gleaned the following information: The FRCCSD was formed in the 1980’s in response to California State Department of Health Services (CSDHS) newly enforced requirements on water systems. The district was form by multiple business owners with separate water systems in order to become eligible for grant funds necessary to update the water systems to meet new state requirements. These funds were made available to the district, largely as a result of the efforts of the PCCDC and the systems were upgraded by 1989. In the ensuing years the canyon population, and water demand, grew while the water systems equipment deteriorated. Necessary repairs became more and more frequent, with the district raising its annual budget from about $15,000 to $43,000 in 2005, still with an expected loss. About 2000, the CSDHS imposed new requirements on the district which require significant investment and with the help of the PCCDC in 2004 the district obtained block grants for $326,000, which will be used to cover work to commence this summer. The work specified in the 23 grants does not include improvements to the system which is the subject of the complaints, but some funds may be redirected to such use. It appears that the population base in the FRCCSD is large enough to create a water demand that exceeds the capacity of some systems, but is not large enough to finance the upgrades necessary to increase capacity and meet the CSDHS requirements. This district appears to have been surviving only on the charity of the federal and state governments. COMPLAINT #05/06-11 Nature of Complaint Complainant reports that a Sheriff’s Deputy, while answering a burglary call at complainant’s business establishment dealt with complainant in a rude and unprofessional manner. Response This complaint will be referred to the 2006-2007 Grand Jury. COMPLAINT #05/06-12 Nature of Complaint Complainant reported concerns about the quality of classes being offered at Feather River College. Complainant felt that classes had been “watered down”. Priorities seem to be misplaced for educating the students. Response The Grand Jury, pursuant to California Penal Code 914, is charged with specific responsibility to investigate and report on all aspects of county government, including community colleges. Administration, operations, and practices can be discussed or investigated by the Grand Jury. Curriculum cannot be challenged. COMPLAINT #05/06-13 Nature of Complaint This complaint was carried over from the 04/05 Grand Jury. The complainant questioned the legitimacy of a card lock transaction. Response The Grand Jury found that it was common for County employees to use a County . credit card for gas when they use their cars for work related procedures Recommendation The Grand Jury recommends that the County Administrative Officer and the Board of Supervisors review county travel policy concerning such use of credit cards. COMPLAINT #05/06-14 Nature of Complaint Complaint involved accusation of a breach of confidentiality by Court employees. Response Complainant was advised by letter that Court employees are under the jurisdiction of the State of California, and not Plumas County. Consequently the Grand Jury may not review this complaint. Complainant was advised to consult with the department administration. COMPLAINT #05/06-15 Nature of Complaint Complainant reports incidents of retaliation, harassment and failure to follow written policies at Feather River College. Response The Grand Jury does not investigate personnel matters. Since complainant has retained legal counsel the complainant should follow the advice and counsel of the attorney as to rights and remedies in this matter. COMPLAINT #05/06-16 Nature of Complaint The complainants alleged improprieties with the lay-off procedure followed by the county and benefits due temporary employees. Response The Grand Jury declined to pursue this complaint. The complainants should contact the Human Resources Department or their union representative for resolution of their complaint. COMPLAINT #05/06-17 Nature of Complaint The complaint alleged numerous instances of policy violation and impropriety in the Animal Control Department. Response After reviewing the complaint and it's supporting documentation, it was determined that a review of the Department was warranted. The review of Animal Control is included in the body of this Final Report. COMPLAINT #05/06-18 Nature of Complaint Complainant accused a current County Supervisor of a “conflict of interest” by simultaneously holding two public offices. Response The Grand Jury sought County Counsel opinion on this matter. Subsequent to this opinion a letter was sent to the complainant indicating that no “conflict of interest” exists, as a co-op board of directors is not a public office. COMPLAINT #05/06-19 Nature of Complaint Complainant charges that “Temporary Occupancy Permits” were not properly issued prior to occupancy of the Animal Shelter and the Permit Center, and that such permits are not offered to private landowners on an equal basis. Response Following investigation of this complaint a letter was mailed the complainant advising of the following: As a result of numerous interviews regarding this matter, and the receipt of additional documentation, the Grand Jury has concluded the following:
R5:
Temporary Occupancy Permits are issued to private landowners. The following recommendations will be forwarded to the Building and Planning Services administrator as well as to the Board of Supervisors:
R96-97:
98-99 Fire X X X F/U Ag. Commissioner Engineering Environmental Health Housing and Community Development Local Agency Formation Commission Planning X X X Public Works 95-96, X F/U
R97-98:
98-99 Plumas County Flood X X INC Control and Water Conservation District Airport Operations Facility Services 99-00 X X Recreation Districts 95-96 Nutrition Programs 95-96 Plumas Corporation X Hospital Districts X Plumas Unified School X X X District Feather River College INC Portola Cemetery District INC Key: F/U = Follow-up investigation INC = Incomplete investigation 31
R98-99:
Auditor/Controller X X Board of Supervisors X X Clerk/Recorder X inc. Chamber of Commerce Information Technology 99-00 Fair X Farm Advisor Law Library 99-00 F/U Library 98-99 Literacy Program 98-99 Museum 98-99 Human Resources 99-00 X Treasurer/Tax Collector 98-99 Alcohol and Drug 95-96 X inc. Senior Services District Attorney –Family 97-98 Support Division Mental Health 95-96,
R99-00:
Plumas County Public X Health Agency Public Administrator Public Guardian/Conservator 99-00 Sierra House 99-00 Social Services 95-96 Veteran’s Services 95-96 Animal Control 95-96 X X X F/U County Counsel District Attorney 98-99 Fish and Game Commission Jail 98-99 X X X X X Victim Witness Office of Emergency Services 30
* 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.