Responses to the 2020-2021 Shasta County Grand Jury Reports

F1

During the 2018 Carr fire evacuations the Shasta County The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Supervisor of District 2 of Shasta County used Board of Super- finding. the authority of his office to enter the evacuated visors area and fuel his personal home generator mul- tiple times for personal gain.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1

The Shasta County Board of Supervisors Shasta County The recommendation has been imple- will place on their agenda by October 15, 2021, Board of Super- mented. A resolution of censure against the a motion to publicly censure the Supervisor of visors Supervisor of District 2 was adopted by a District 2 for actions taken during the 2018 Carr majority of the Board of Supervisors on Fire. June 8, 2021.

F2

Review by the SCGJ finds that this activity Shasta County The Board of Supervisors disagrees par- is prohibited by California State Assembly Bill Board of Super- tially with this finding. AB 1234 establishes No. 1234. visors a requirement that certain public officials complete two hours of training in general ethics principles every two years, and there was no finding by the Grand Jury that the Supervisor of District 2 of Shasta County failed to complete such training. In addition, the Grand Jury expressly found that "no laws were broken." The Board of Supervi- sors agrees with the Grand Jury that there is a general governmental ethics principle, as noted in AB 1234, prohibiting the use of public resources for personal purposes, and that the District 2 Supervisor's conduct is a breach of that general principle.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2

The Shasta County Board of Supervisors Shasta County The recommendation has been imple- by October 15, 2021, will offer the Supervisor of Board of Super- mented. On June 8, 2021, a resolution was District 2 an opportunity to publicly apologize visors adopted by a majority of the Board of Super- for his actions. visors offering this opportunity to the Super- visor of District 2. Anderson Union High School District Report “Teaching Current and Future Leaders” THE 2020-2021 SHASTA COUNTY GRAND REQUIRED RESPONSES JURY FOUND AND/OR RECOMMENDED: RESPONDENT

F3

When AUHSD Trustees conduct business Anderson Union Finding #3 does not state a particular short- during closed session, accurate reporting of High School coming of the District's Brown Act compli- closed sessions during the public session en- District Board of ance, but to the extent the finding implies a sures transparency, increases public confi- Trustees and lack of compliance with closed session re- dence in trustee activity, and meets Brown Act Superintendent porting rules, the District disagrees wholly requirements. with the finding. AUHSD trustees follow Brown Act protocols when reporting out of closed session: a) if the Board took action, the Board president reports in open session the disposition of the action taken b) We note that "Non-action items, such as obtain- ing direction from the legislative body, re- gardless of whether a vote is taken on that direction, need not be reported out." (Lozano Smith Brown Act Handbook, 2021, p.26) To explain: Government Code section 54957.1 is cited in the grand jury report but the report only lists the portion of the statute that says a legislative body shall report "any action taken." However, this is not the sum of what section 54957.1 requires. Crucially, not all actions taken are required to be re- ported, nor should they for confidentiality reasons. Only the specific categories of ac- tions listed in section 54957.1 are reported out. For example, section 54957.1 only re- quires reporting of "Action taken to appoint, employ, dismiss, accept the resignation of, or otherwise affect the employment status of a public employee in closed session ..." It would be inappropriate for confidentiality reasons to detail closed session discus- sions or direction given on private person- nel matters that do not rise to the level of action that affects employment status. Sec- tion 54957.1 goes on to list a similar narrow category of reports that are made from closed session for items such as real prop- erty negotiations, conferences with legal counsel, and so on. The report states that "years" of agendas were reviewed and expresses concern that no action is reported out in some cases. Be- cause the report does not identify any partic- ular action that was taken in closed session 4 that should have been reported out, the Dis- trict is unable to examine any particular sce- nario and assess compliance. We note, however, that it is common and lawful to have discussion and for boards to give direc- tion in closed session, but to still have no re- portable action. We have reviewed our prac- tices and are confident that required reports are made, that staff and board mem- bers are knowledgeable about the required reports, and that assistance of legal counsel is used when needed to ensure Brown Act compliance. Response: This has already been imple- mented, as Board members do regularly re- view the Brown Act, and the Board Presi- dent has reviewed the closed session re- porting requirements. Staff and the Board as a whole endeavor to ensure compliance with the reporting rules and we have not identified any situations where reports are lacking. The District appreciates the recom- mendation and agrees that Brown Act com- pliance is a critical component of govern- ment transparency.

No recommendations for this finding

F4

AUHSD has little organized training oppor- Anderson Union (See response to R4) tunities for trustees. Limited training is available High School for trustees who wish to participate. The lack of District Board of an organized training protocol results in ineffi- Trustees and ciency. Superintendent 5

Related Recommendations (1)

R4

By January 1, 2022, the AUHSD Superin- Anderson Union Respectfully, this recommendation delves tendent should identify and implement a com- High School into substantive policy determinations prehensive training program to establish train- District Board of about particular subjects of training se- ing for Trustees and administrative personnel. Trustees and lected for officers of the District, rather than Topics should include but are not limited to: Superintendent reporting on the procedural or operational Brown Act requirements, district operation, col- aspects of school district business. (An ex- legiality, computer skills, Form 700 conflict of cellent discussion of the Attorney General's interest, AUHSD Board Bylaws, and effective viewpoint on the scope of grand jury review media relations. of school district operations can be found at 78 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 290 (1995).) We re- spectfully believe that while a recommen- dation for increased training is appropriate, the topics listed are sensitive policy deci- sions for the school board and its admin- istration to make, especially given that the topics listed cover a wide range of subject matter areas, many unrelated to the sub- stance of this report. The District will par- tially implement the recommendation by (1) recommending Brown Act training for its board members in the 2021-22 school year, 8 and (2) continuing its ongoing practice of of- fering other training opportunities on cur- rent topics to Board members. SHASCOM 9-1-1 Investigation Report “Who Is Helping the Helpers” THE 2019-2020 SHASTA COUNTY GRAND REQUIRED RESPONSES JURY FOUND AND/OR RECOMMENDED: RESPONDENT

F5

The 2020-2021 SCGJ has found that the Anderson Union The Board agrees with the finding and current Superintendent is doing a good job of High School thanks the grand jury for acknowledging the efficiently operating and providing leadership District Board of positive efforts and accomplishments of our for the AUHSD. The Superintendent's perfor- Trustees and Superintendent. We appreciate the encour- mance is admirable given the current chal- Superintendent agement during these difficult times as we lenges. endeavor to keep our students, staff, and community safe during the ongoing corona- virus pandemic.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5

This Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff’s Shasta County Shasta County Sheriff: Office develop a written procedure by June 30, Sheriff The recommendation will not be imple- 2022, that includes the Grand Jury require- mented because it is not warranted or is not ments to increase transparency, such as: reasonable. Bullet point two is addressed in

F6

As of November 30, 2019, SHASCOM’s SHASCOM-911 Agree. Board of Directors was to require SHASCOM's Board of Direc- Director to present a timeline for achieving com- tors pliance with accreditation certification of the dis- patch center, either through POST or an alter- nate accreditation organization. This was ac- complished by August 26, 2020.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6

This Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff’s Shasta County Shasta County Sheriff: Office develop a written plan by June 30, 2022, Sheriff The recommendation will not be imple- that provides all DCIs with opportunities for ad- mented because it is not warranted or is not ditional forensic and job-related training, neces- reasonable. A written plan is not needed. All sary for continuing professional education, at no Deputy Coroner Investigators are required personal cost. to attend an 80-hour POST certified death investigation course along with a 40-hour PC 832 Arrest and Control course within one year of their hire date. Due to staffing levels and Covid restrictions, further ad- vanced trainings were cancelled or put on hold during the Covid-19 pandemic. Some trainings have resumed, and Deputy Coro- ner Investigators will continue to attend trainings as they become available. The at- tendance of these trainings will depend on appropriate staffing levels at the Coroner's Office. The Shasta County Coroner's Office will continue to schedule trainings/seminars for employees to promote career advance- ment and development. Additional Remarks from Shasta County The Shasta County Sheriff’s Office appre- Sheriff ciates and respects the Grand Jury pro- cess. Critical review, constructive criticism, and suggestions for improvement, via Grand Jury and/or other means, will always be received without bias and evaluated for implementation with the goal of improving service, efficiency, and professionalism within the organization. I was appointed to the Office of the Sheriff- Coroner in August 2021. I immediately con- ducted assessments throughout all divisions of the Sheriff's Office to include the Coro- ner's Office. This assessment revealed the priority to find methods to address staffing shortages within the office. Most signifi- cantly, among those concerns, was not only the staffing shortages but the excessive workload of the personnel currently occupy- ing the positions because of these short- ages. Staffing shortages and the dynamics created by the COVID 19 pandemic, com- bined with an increasingly growing case load, are at the core of the problem. Staff is overworked and overwhelmed. The three active Deputy Coroner Investigators rotate on call duties, responding to cases at all hours of the night, and rarely get their sched- uled time off. Investigators are down a sig- nificant amount of case reports. The Sher- iff’s Office has routinely conducted recruiting efforts, to fill vacant positions, but locating qualified candidates has been challenging. We are currently at the mercy of two con- tracted pathologists that respond from out of the area on an "as-needed" basis, which of- ten delays the processes. Additional, ongo- ing recruiting efforts to fill the permanent pathologist position has too been unsuc- cessful. The Coroner's Office Administrative Secretary is overwhelmed with phone calls, generated paperwork, and clerical duties im- pacted from staffing shortages. It is frustrating to read the "findings" and "recommendations" from the Grand Jury. The information contained within the Grand Jury report inspires skepticism about their investigative abilities. While I appreciate some of the objective findings and recom- mendations, others seem biased and the product of disgruntled past employee inter- views without further exploration into the matter. Missing is the fair assessment of comparative Coroner's Offices within the State. Also absent is the factual information in reference to mandated compliance is- sues, opposed to the opinion-based find- ings listed in the report. In my short time with the Sheriff's Office, I have learned one single most significant factor that is also missing from this report: the men and women of the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office, in all divisions and aspects of this organization, serve this community with absolute dedication, commitment, and integrity. As noted above, we are open to constructive criticism and will continue to implement change for the betterment of the citizens we serve. Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. 27

F7

By January 31, 2021, SHASCOM's Board SHASCOM-911 Agree. The Spillman CAD database is the of Directors was to instruct the Agency’s Direc- Board of Direc- responsibility of the IPS Board which sup- tor to present a project plan for incorporating in- tors ports the Redding Police Department, formation on people with access and functional Shasta County Sheriff’s Office, Anderson needs into the CAD database. This has not Police Department, and other public safety been done. agencies. These agencies have the capa- bility to develop a means to collect this data and input it into the Spillman CAD data- base. For example, the Redding Police De- partment provides a resource for the City of Redding called SNAP (Special Needs Alert Program). People with access and func- tional needs can upload their information and the data is flagged in the Spillman CAD database by the Redding Police Depart- ment. SHASCOM dispatchers can then re- lay this crucial information to first respond- ers. The Anderson Police Department and the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office are cur- rently in the process of implementing the SNAP program for their respective agen- cies. 11

No recommendations for this finding

F8

The existing cold storage facility accommo- Shasta County Shasta County Board of Supervisors: dates up to 20 gurneys. When the number of Board of Super- The Board of Supervisors disagrees wholly cadavers exceeds this number (and has been visors and Sher- with the finding. as high as 30), the cadavers (in body bags) are iff stored two to a gurney. The cold storage facility in the Coroner's Of- fice can accommodate six gurneys which is what is available and used. In addition, the cold storage facility has eight stainless steel rolling tables which can temporarily accom- modate two decedents (in body bags) should the decedents exceed the number of gurneys and tables available. Maximum capacity of decedents in the cold storage facility at the Coroner's Office is twenty-two. Should the Coroner's Office reach maxi- mum capacity, local mortuaries allow stor- age of decedents, at their facilities until room becomes available at the Coroner's Office. Shasta County Sheriff: The Sheriff-Coroner wholly disagrees with this finding. The cold storage facility in the Coroner's Office can accommodate 8 stain- less steel rolling tables and 6 gurneys which is what is available and used. If decedents exceed the number of tables and gurneys available, the decedents (in body bags) can be temporarily stored two to a table but only 1 on a gurney. Maximum capacity of dece- dents in the cold storage at the Coroner's Office is 22. If the Coroner's Office reaches maximum capacity, local mortuaries allow storage of decedents, at their facilities, until room becomes available at the Coroner's Office. 22

No recommendations for this finding

Responses to the 2020-2021 Shasta County Grand Jury Reports

Findings and Recommendations 8 findings

No Responses Found 1