Butte County Grand Jury
• 2009-2010
Butte County Grand Jury Report 2009-2010 City of Oroville – Personal Service Contracts and Personnel Issues
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 17 findings
F1
While attending Oroville City Council meetings, the Grand Jury observed confusion and lengthy discussions between the City Council and City staff due to inadequate background information in the Staff Reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Staff reports provided to the City Council in support of agenda items should be more detailed and provide better background information to avoid confusion and unnecessary discussions.
F2
The normal procedure for members of the public to review and/or obtain Staff Reports is to go to City Hall to access such reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Agenda Packets, in addition to being available at City Hall, should be provided to the public via the City's website.
F3
Contracts submitted to the City Council have been inaccurate and, in at least one instance, the required insurance document was not submitted timely to the City.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The City should institute a procedure for reviewing Personal Services Contracts for accuracy, insuring required documents are provided in a timely manner, and confirming the formation of a business entity entering into the contract with the City.
F4
The City entered into a Personal Services Contract with an unformed business entity.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
The City should institute a procedure for reviewing Personal Services Contracts for accuracy, insuring required documents are provided in a timely manner, and confirming the formation of a business entity entering into the contract with the City.
R4
The City Attorney should be consulted on the legality of making payments to an unformed business entity – B&M Development LLC.
F5
The City's Personnel Polices and Procedures are unclear as to what constitutes progressive discipline.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The Personnel Rules and Procedures should be revised to clearly define the progressive discipline process, including Letters of Reprimand and the arbitration procedure.
F6
It was noted that the Letters of Reprimand reviewed by the Grand Jury were not signed, dated, nor was there an acknowledgment of receipt by employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Letters of Reprimand should be signed and dated by both a City representative and the employee.
F7
The City failed to officially advise in writing a hostile workplace complainant of the outcome of the investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The City needs to adhere to its Unlawful Workplace Harassment Policy and Complaint Procedure regarding notification of outcome of investigations.
F8
The Grand Jury observed ongoing conflict among the City Council, Department Heads, and employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
The City should establish an independent body to review personnel decisions, such as a Personnel Commission composed of citizens of Butte County, adopt an appeal process for personnel decisions, and/or retain a qualified Personnel Officer.
F9
The City's nepotism rule has been modified so that the employment of immediate family members of the City Administrator or City Council Members already in the employment of the City is permitted.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
There is a perception of nepotism by having an immediate family member of the City Administrator employed by the City.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The paragraph allowing employment of immediate family members of the City Administrator or City Council Member should be rescinded from the City Personnel Rules and Regulations, Rule 4.8e.
F11
Until the recent removal of Personnel Officer's duties from the City Administrator, there was ongoing conflict between members of the City Council and the City Administrator in performance of those duties, particularly regarding disciplinary matters.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
The City should establish an independent body to review personnel decisions, such as a Personnel Commission composed of citizens of Butte County, adopt an appeal process for personnel decisions, and/or retain a qualified Personnel Officer.
F12
Employees circumvent the “chain of command” regarding disciplinary matters because of their belief of being treated unfairly.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
The City should establish an independent body to review personnel decisions, such as a Personnel Commission composed of citizens of Butte County, adopt an appeal process for personnel decisions, and/or retain a qualified Personnel Officer.
F13
Administrative leave (Relief of Duty) provisions of the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations have has been used inappropriately.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
Oroville Personnel Rules and Regulations, Rule 6.3d should be amended to limit the length of administrative leave (Relief of Duty).
F14
As currently written, there is no provision to appeal the imposition of the administrative leave (Relief of Duty) provisions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
A procedure to appeal the imposition of administrative leave (Relief of Duty) should be adopted.
F15
The City is not adhering to its established procedure for employee evaluations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
Department Heads should adhere to the City's evaluation procedure and a provision regarding compliance with that procedure should be included in Department Heads’ evaluations.
F16
There is no procedure for initiating an investigation of a department head for alleged misconduct.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13
A procedure to conduct investigations of department heads for alleged misconduct should be established by the City Council.
F17
The City does not issue identification cards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14
Identification cards should be issued for all employees, department heads, and City Council Members.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Oroville
City