Mendocino County Grand Jury • 1999-2000

Mendocino County Grand Jury Response

Published: December 19, 2000 215 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F2, F5, F20, F21, F22, F25, F26, F27, F29, F30, F31, F32, F33, F34, F35, F36, F37, F38, F39, F40, F41, F42, F43, F44, F45, F46, F47, F48, F49, F50, F51, F52, F53, F54, F55, F56, F57, F58, F59, F60, F61, F62, F63, F64, F65, F66, F67, F68, F69, F70, F71, F72, F73, F74, F75, F76, F77, F78, F79, F80, F81, F82, F83, F84, F85, F86, F87, F88, F89, F90, F91, F92, F93, F94, F95, F96, F97

Findings and Recommendations 21 findings

F1
The Audit consisted of the results of a survey of all available employees and found serious problems in all of the FARs units. The employee survey results are as follows: a. Turnover rate for FARs was 59% in 1997/1998 fiscal year, which was almost twice that of the ten other comparable counties surveyed. This figure also included any FARs transferred to another division in the MCDSS. In addition, 43.4% of FARs were planning to leave. Top five 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 65 reasons cited for leaving were: low pay, inadequate management, favoritism, burnout, and lack of recognition for achievement. b. The MCDSS was out of compliance with state regulations regarding time required to process applications for CalWORKS and Food Stamps. c. 30% thought management had done a good job implementing changes in the past year. d. 30% thought their opinions were valued and respected by management, but only 11.7% thought their opinions were valued and would contribute to fulfilling the MCDSS goals and purposes. e. 33% thought management communicated the goals of MCDSS clearly and consistently, while only 15% thought communication between management and staff was good. f. 20% thought MCDSS was managed efficiently. g. 13.6% thought good work was consistently recognized and rewarded. h. 42.4% thought supervisors were fair in dealing with employees (testimony showed this has improved with personnel changes). i. 13.3% agreed that coordination between units and divisions in MCDSS was good. j. 90% were not satisfied with their salary. MCDSS salaries range between 90-93 % of the other counties surveyed (testimony revealed the Board of Supervisors {BOS} are considering the Slavin Report proposals to improve salaries). k. 18.3% thought MCDSS Human Resources Division was helpful in resolving personnel matters. l. 47.5% thought their training was sufficient. A review of documentation and testimony from several former and current employees from the Fort Bragg FARs units, including management personnel resulted in the findings listed below: Response (Social Services): Agree, with clarification. This first finding is a selective listing of information from a management audit conducted in late 1998. 66 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with clarification. This finding represents a selective listing of information from a management audit conducted in late 1998. Since that time, many of the recommendations contained in that report have been implemented. Findings 2. Testimony supports most of the Audit findings. The MCDSS has developed a Multi-Faceted Action Plan, which has been approved by the BOS, to address the issues raised by the Audit. Response (Social Services): The Board agrees that a Multi-Faceted Action Plan has been approved and implemented, but is unable to confirm or deny the testimony referred to by the Grand Jury. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees that a Multi-Faceted Action Plan has been approved and implemented, but is unable to confirm or deny the testimony referred to by the Grand Jury. 3. The MCDSS management did not accept the finding by the Audit that favoritism played a part in promotions of employees. Staff reported occasions of favoritism practiced in promotions toward certain staff members, plus subtle favoritism or discrimination against men. MCDSS denies that favoritism is practiced in the MCDSS, stating this is only a “... perception of favoritism held by some people.” Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Audit did not make a finding that favoritism played a part in promotions of employees. The Audit stated: “Although recruitment for supervisory positions in the Department follows general Merit Service Systems guidelines, the perception exists among some staff that employees are promoted to supervisory positions based upon favoritism and loyalty to management rather than merit.” The Department’s response to the Audit was: “It is accepted that the perception of favoritism is held by some people; the reality is that promotions follow personnel guidelines and are based on a determination of who appears to be able to best perform the job.” The Department follows standard government personnel practices in its adherence to Civil Service and Merit System regulations in the recruitment, testing, and selection of employees. There is no discrimination against men. The individual filing the complaint with the Grand Jury also filed an EEOC complaint regarding not getting a promotion. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing conducted an investigation and found no evidence of discrimination by the Department. This outcome was communicated to the Grand Jury prior to the completion of their report. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 67 An ability to work well with (not loyalty to) one’s supervisor, i.e. management, is one factor, among several, in selecting a new supervisor. The Department provided staff with additional information on criteria for promotion in response to the Audit, and will continue to provide clarification of the values placed on the interpersonal skills and job experience needed for supervisor positions. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board does not agree with this finding. The Audit, on , refers to a “perception of favoritism” which exists among “some employees”.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Clearigate was applied to water in the reservoir in excess of Clearigate label instructions. Response (RVCWD): The Board agrees that the Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner found that there may have been an over- application of Clearigate based on label instructions. The Board notes that the first time Clearigate was used in the District’s raw water reservoir, it was applied by Bill Thomas who is employed by Applied Biochemists, the manufacturer of Clearigate. The Department of Agriculture determined that Mr. Thomas calculated the amount of Clearigate to apply, and that he actually performed the first application on May 13, 1999. That application was also observed by a representative of the Agricultural Commissioner who did not note any violations at the time of the application. District employees, including the General Manager, relied upon the manufacturer to properly apply Clearigate in compliance with label instructions developed by the manufacturer.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The Billing Clerk, a volunteer, executes water shut-offs for delinquent customers, without consulting the Board.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The Personnel Manual needs updating and many employees were not sure there was one that was actually followed by management. Neither management nor employees were sufficiently familiar with the manual. Response (Community Development Commission): In 1996, the Personnel Manuel was substantially incorporated into and replaced by a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding between the CDC and the employees’ union which then represented and now represents most of the CDC employees. The CDC acknowledges that the Personnel Manual needs to be revised as a comprehensive document separate and apart from the MOU. The CDC will revise the Personnel Manual within the next year. Response (Board of Supervisors): Response: The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The FSD is in the process of becoming a separate department of Mendocino County government. The Family Support Unit will be under the direct authority of the Board of Supervisors. It will no longer be a division of the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mendocino County District Attorney Response Requested 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 87 Mendocino County Family Support Unit 88 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report MENDOCINO COUNTY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Domestic violence has long been a private matter, occurring behind closed doors in homes and treated confidentially by law enforcement and in emergency rooms. Family violence has now become a matter of deep public concern. Media coverage has brought this age old problem to the front page. A growing public awareness and understanding of the threats and effects of family violence has brought practices and policies for prosecuting and preventing family violence under public scrutiny. In the mid-1990’s the California legislature added new, stricter sections to the Penal Code that underscore the criminal nature of domestic violence. In 1996 they also added a provision that requires all persons convicted of a crime of domestic violence complete a one-year batterers counseling program as a condition of probation. In Mendocino County, it was alleged that the criminal justice system was not sensitive to the gravity of crimes of domestic violence and the prosecution and sentencing of family violence criminals was not rigorous. Reason for Review The Grand Jury received citizen complaints. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury researched the California Penal and Family Codes; the written domestic violence publications, policies, procedures and training programs of each law enforcement agency in the County; domestic violence calls and arrest records for the years 1998 and 1999 from each law enforcement agency; District Attorney domestic violence prosecution summary; the District Attorney’s Policy and Procedures Manual; California Attorney General publications including the Women’s Rights Handbook, Mendocino County Criminal Justice Trend Data, the California Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program and the Report on Arrests for Domestic Violence in California; Probation Department records and procedures; Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) Manuals for domestic violence, including the viewing of telecourses; The Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project; general literature on battering; Sonoma State University resource guide for batterer programs; San Diego Regional Training course on Domestic Violence for First Responders; and minutes of meetings of the Mendocino County Domestic Violence Council and the county’s Law Enforcement Administrators Association (LEAA). The Grand Jury also reviewed over sixty domestic violence arrest reports and court case files, as well as attending domestic violence courtroom proceedings in Ukiah and Willits. The Grand Jury interviewed the complainants, both past and present members of the District Attorney’s Office including Victim-Witness Assistance; past and present members of the Probation Department; officers and staff of Project Sanctuary; a 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 89 counseling program facilitator; victims and perpetrators of domestic violence; peace officers from the Ukiah Police Department and the Sheriff’s Office; concerned citizens and a representative of the Mendocino County Courts. Relevant Law The principal Penal Code Sections concerning crimes of domestic violence are 273.5 (domestic violence battery with trauma) and 243(e)(1) (domestic violence battery). However, violations of other Penal Code Sections may be crimes of domestic violence; among these are Sections 422 (terrorist threats), 646.9 (stalking), 236 (false imprisonment), 262 (spousal rape), and 273.6 (a) and (d) (violation of restraining or protective orders). Penal Code Section 13700 covers law enforcement response to domestic violence, including mandatory reporting of incidents. The probation requirements for crimes of domestic violence and the details of consequent batterers counseling programs are stipulated in Section 1203.097 of the Penal Code. Section 6211 of the Family Code defines the victims of domestic violence. The requirements for domestic violence training of peace officers is found in Section 13519 of the Penal Code. General Aspects of Domestic Violence Findings 1. California law includes in crimes of domestic violence, in addition to spousal relationships, former spouses, cohabitants and former cohabitants including (as of 1994) gay or lesbian relationships, any person who is the parent of his or her child, any person with whom there is a dating or engagement relationship, a child, or any other person related by consanguinity. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding, although the Sheriff would defer to the statutory definitions. California Penal Code §13700 defines “abuse” and “domestic violence” as follows: (1) “Abuse” means intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, or placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to himself, herself or another. (2) “Domestic violence” means abuse committed against an adult or a fully emancipated minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the suspect has had a child or is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship. For purposes of this subdivision, “cohabitant” means two unrelated adult persons living together for a substantial period of time, resulting in some permanency of relationship. Factors that may determine whether persons 90 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report are cohabiting include, but are not limited to, (1) sexual relations between the parties while sharing the same living quarters, (2) sharing of income or expenses, (3) joint use or ownership of property, (4) whether the parties hold themselves out as husband and wife, (5) the continuity of the relationship, and (6) the length of the relationship. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. 2. According to the California Attorney General, in over 75% of domestic violence cases either the batterer or the victim, or both, have been using alcohol or drugs. Mendocino County arrest reports indicate that weapons are involved more than 50% of the time. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board assumes this finding is accurate. 3. The California legislature passed in 1995 a “zero tolerance” statute on domestic violence that requires that all law enforcement agencies implement, by July 1, 1996, written policies that encourage the arrest of domestic violence offenders, if there is probable cause or if a protective order is violated. In the past both parties involved in a domestic violence dispute have, at times, been arrested. This statute discourages but does not prohibit dual arrests. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees partially with this finding, but only so far as the date. Pursuant to California Penal Code §13701, subsection (a), every law enforcement agency in the state was required to implement written policies and standards for officers’ responses to domestic violence calls by January 1, 1986. Subsequent amendments to this statute have addressed the issues of mandatory arrest, dual- arrests, and identification of the primary aggressor. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has not independently verified this finding. The Board does agree with the response provided by the Sheriff. Domestic Violence in Mendocino County Findings 4. The number of arrests in California for domestic violence, reported to the Attorney General, has risen steadily from 113.6 per 100,000 total population in 1988 to 169.9 in 1998, an increase of 49.6 %. However, in Mendocino County, during the same time frame, the domestic violence arrest rate rose 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 91 from 155.0 to 310.8, an increase of 100 %. This increase in reporting is in large part due to increased awareness and sensitivity to domestic disputes by both law enforcement and the public of Mendocino County. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees in part with this finding. The arrest rate per 100,000 population and the rate of increase appear to be incorrect. The following chart is based on domestic violence arrest data from the California Attorney General’s Office and population data from the demographic unit of the State of California Department of Finance. Mendocino County Domestic Violence Arrests Rate Per 100,000 Population 350 315 310 297 300 232 267 250 219 232 200 218 150 171 143 100 119 50 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Based on this data, the increase from 1988 to 1998 was 62.2%, not 100% as cited by the Grand Jury. However as the chart above shows, neither of these figures reflects the year-to-year fluctuations in arrest rates. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has not independently verified this finding. The Board does agree with the response provided by the Sheriff. 5. Less than 50% of 9-1-1 domestic violence calls resulted in an arrest in Mendocino County during 1998 and 1999. The arrest rate varied among the four law enforcement agencies in the county. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees in part with this finding, because the statistic is misleading. The classification assigned to a call by dispatch is not an accurate indication of whether conduct at the scene should lead to an arrest. Dispatchers do not investigate the circumstances of the call; they gather basic information and relay it to responding patrol units. The verbal information provided to the dispatcher does not in itself establish probable cause to make an arrest. 92 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. Dispatchers do not investigate the circumstances of the calls they receive. The verbal information given to the dispatcher does not, in itself, establish probable cause to make an arrest. 6. The Law Enforcement Administrators Association (LEAA) of Mendocino County brings together the heads of all county agencies involved in law enforcement, including the District Attorney, the Sheriff, the Chiefs of the three city police departments, the Captain of the local branch of the California Highway Patrol, The Chief Probation Officer, the Major Crimes Task Force Commander and the Superintendent of the California State Parks. In 1996, the LEAA issued a domestic violence policy detailing arrest and evidence gathering procedures. In February 2000, the District Attorney distributed to all LEAA members a family violence checklist which stresses the importance of taped interviews. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
State standards regulating caseload assignments for Emergency Response SWs were developed in the early 1980s before the state mandated CWS/CMS Data System was implemented. While the information this system makes available is considered most useful, all staff stated that the current program for data input is extremely cumbersome and requires extra time for SWs to collect and enter information. Response (Social Services): Agree. It is estimated conservatively that the CWS/CMS computer systems increased the workload of social workers by approximately 10%. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Family and Children's Services Division SWs are on-call on a rotating basis to provide 24-hour coverage to assess children's situations for immediate danger. Response (Social Services): Agree. It should be noted that the stand-by rate is $1.25 per hour and has not been increased many years. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. 10. All changes in placement are made in consultation with the ER Supervisor. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. 11. ER in Ukiah has been divided into two separate units: ER which follows the case through the initial court disposition and the Court Unit which stays with the case for continuing services, that can end with family services or continue until the child is 18. If this division proves successful, it will serve as a model for the remaining CPS offices in the county. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this finding. Comments The Grand Jury commends Child Protective Services and the Emergency Response Unit for initiating a reorganization of their department. The aim of this reorganization is to terminate Emergency Response involvement after initial court action and assign the case to a single Social Worker throughout the time the case is active with the Child Welfare System and thereby promote consistency in case management. 56 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Social Services): Agree. The Department worked with the Child Welfare League of America in 1999 to develop a strategic plan to guide the reorganization and continuing improvement of the Children’s Services Division. Changes will take place over time, but progress is being made in building a strong and effective continuum of services to children and their families in Mendocino County. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Department of Social Services 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 57 MENDOCINO COUNTY COUNSEL The County Counsel is charged by State law with the responsibility to defend or prosecute all civil actions and proceedings which concern the County or any of its officers. The County Counsel also provides legal advice and representation to the following: all County officers and departments, boards and commissions, special districts governed by the Board of Supervisors (BOS), the Mendocino County Grand Jury, and the Superior Courts located within the County. The County Counsel also acts as legal advisor on a fee for service basis to special districts, the Mendocino County Community Development Commission, the Mendocino Transit Authority and other Joint Powers Agencies. Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury received a citizen's complaint. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed: The complainant, three County Supervisors, County Counsel, Assistant District Attorney, Deputy County Counsel, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and representatives of County Departments served by the County Counsel, such as General Services, Social Services, and the Sheriff's Department. Documents reviewed: Mendocino County Code Sections (Titles II & III); California Government Code Section 26520-26530 and Section 27640-27648; published opinions to the Grand Jury from the County Counsel for the past seven years. Relevant Law Mendocino County Code, Titles II & III; California Government Code, Section 26520-26530 and Section 27640-27648. Findings 1. A County Counsel may be appointed by the BOS in any California County. Mendocino County has chosen to appoint a County Counsel. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 2. The County Counsel serves four-year terms. He may be removed for several reasons having to do with job performance and is subject to annual review by the BOS. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 58 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 3. The County Counsel was created in Mendocino County by the BOS in 1977, when it was split off from the District Attorney. County Counsel shall discharge all the duties vested by law in the District Attorney, other than those of a Public Prosecutor. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 4. The County Counsel is one of the advisors to the Grand Jury. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 5. The County Counsel represents and advises the County Special Districts when: a. A Special District Board requests it. b. A Special District Board is composed in whole or in part of members of the BOS, and c. No specific provision is made to obtain legal services. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 6. According to California Government Code Section 26526, the County Counsel is the legal advisor to the BOS, shall attend its meetings, when required, and shall oppose all claims against the County that the County Counsel deems unjust and illegal. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 7. The Grand Jury heard testimony that there exists a state of animosity between the County Counsel, the District Attorney, some County Supervisors, and past Grand Juries. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board believes that due to the nature of County Counsel’s responsibilities that, at times, determinations and/or investigations might be perceived as animosity between the various offices and individuals. However, without further detailed information regarding specific incidents, the Board is unable to respond further to this finding. 8. Outside counsel is hired by the County Counsel when a conflict of interest arises, which, contrary to allegations, testimony showed occurred less than once a year. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 59 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 9. The County Counsel reviews contracts for legal aspects, not content, to determine if the contract is legally defensible. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 10. Staff attorneys work with minimal supervision and are overseen by the Chief Deputy County Counsel. Staff meetings are seldom held. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 11. On occasion, County Counsel has been unable to advise the Grand Jury and other County departments due to its representation of County departments, which created, in the view of County Counsel, a conflict of interest. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 12. A review of the past seven years of County Counsel opinions did not support the allegation that 50% of County Counsel opinions have been reversed. The Grand Jury investigations revealed such reversals as minimal. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Salaries of MCOE administrators have increased disproportionally more than those of teachers. One reason for this may be the reclassification of administrative positions with new titles and increased salaries. At the same time CCS classroom budgets have declined. Response (Office of Education): It would be helpful to know what “reclassification of administrative positions” the Grand Jury is referring to. Again, CCS classroom budgets have not declined but have increased as indicated in response to Finding #5 above. As pay raises are negotiated with the union for certificated and classified staff, administration receives the same percent increase.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Training is sometimes restricted as a result of the budget restraints for reimbursement of pay as many of the classes require overtime. The UPD ran out of overtime in February 2000 and has since curtailed the training program. POST is responsible for setting training standards for the hiring of police officers. POST requires 24 hours of training per year, which is discretionary with each department. POST will reimburse local districts for up to 80 hours of training per officer per year, but does not include reimbursement for overtime. Response (City of Ukiah): Concur with finding. However, P.O.S.T. does reimburse associated overtime for some specific training courses.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The CDC is publicly funded. The ED has been authorized to use an Agency vehicle, which happens to be a GMC sports utility vehicle. The ED stated she had to use it as she had no other vehicle. Use includes commuting to work between Ukiah and Willits, personal shopping, transportation of family members, plus business purposes. During the period June 1998 to January 2000, there were 23,700 miles put on the vehicle (based on CDC data). During that same period, commuting alone would have used approximately 18 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 17,000 miles, or well over 60% of the total mileage. This would leave little for other personal errands and normal business use. The CDC’s new policy is that the value of the percentage of personal use of the vehicle is listed as a fringe benefit on the ED’s IRS W2 Form. This still would not reimburse the Commission for use of the vehicle. The personal use of this or other vehicles is a questionable use of public funds. Response (Community Development Commission): As part of the compensation package negotiated with the executive director, the Commissioners agreed to provide her with a vehicle for official and non-official use. Employees also use the vehicle during office hours as needed. This fringe benefit to the executive director is reported on her W-2 form and the vehicle is fully insured. The use and mileage computations stated in the report are inaccurate. The report calculates that 60% of the 23,700 miles driven from June, 1998, to January, 2000, were driven in the executive director’s Willits- Ukiah commute. In fact, the executive director did not even move to Willits until October, 1999. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
Increased cooperation between law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office is needed to obtain the best possible services to the victims of domestic violence and to ensure public safety. Testimony indicates that relations between the District Attorney and the Ukiah Police Department began improving in November 1999. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board defers to the District Attorney and the City of Ukiah on this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Many employees stated that they do not feel free to speak up about issues without suffering reprisals. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Department does not know the number that constitutes “many employees” and does not 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 75 know if the employees cited evidence on which they based their feelings. It is the Department’s policy to maintain open, honest, direct and respectful communication at all levels of discourse. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board was not provided with enough information by the Grand Jury to either agree or disagree with this. It is unknown how many employees were individually interviewed, how much was based on hearsay or perception, and what constitutes “many”.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Training is not always sufficient, due to the ineffectiveness of some trainers and lack of proper supervision. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The County and the Department provide a great deal of training on a wide variety of topics. 76 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report It is unclear what specific training sessions this statement refers to. Training is evaluated after it is given and ineffective presenters or topics are not repeated. Response (Board of Supervisors): Do not agree. The Department and the County use recognized training professionals and all classes are evaluated by the participants for effectiveness.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
The FARs are entry level positions for MCDSS. It is apparent that not all new hires come to the job adequately prepared for the workplace. Job expectations often are neither explained to nor understood by new employees. Response (Social Services): Agree in part/do not agree in part. FAR positions do require experience in providing basic public service, clerical or accounting work. They are filled many times by external applicants. Not all new hires are adequately prepared for this workplace by their previous jobs. A job specification is provided to all applicants. A complete job description is given to new employees. FARs are oriented and trained to the job of eligibility determination in groups in a classroom setting for 2-3 months, and then for 6-9 months is a training transition unit. Job expectations are thoroughly explained. It is possible that expectations may not be truly understood by new employees until they are able to experience the workload directly. It is very detail-oriented, regimented, regulated, computer-based, people- interactive work that is challenging to master. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department both agree and disagree in part with this finding as referenced in the Department’s response. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 77
No recommendations for this finding
F17
The BOC is charged with overseeing and making critical decisions concerning the administration of a highly complex housing program. They are further challenged to grasp the mass of regulations promulgated by HUD. In response to this need, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials sponsors a series of seminars and workshops, specifically designed for commissioners whose background is not in housing. Unfortunately, not all of the Commissioners have taken advantage of this important training. Response (Community Development Commission): The majority of the Commissioners have attended conferences and training sessions in an effort to remain current with the complex housing issues and seemingly ever changing policies and regulations. The executive director regularly circulates among Commissioners descriptions of available training sessions. 22 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
As required by HUD, personnel authorized to draw down money from their HUD account are issued an individual password code. No other person is authorized to use that code. The password code used to draw down money from HUD and restricted to specific users was reported by several employees to be loosely controlled. At this time, there is no authorized alternate person available. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 23 Response (Community Development Commission): Control over the HUD account password (LOCCS) is regulated by a designated Commissioner, currently Commissioner Henderson. The only person with authority to use the password is the executive director. The CDC will implement the recommendation of the Grand Jury and designate a second person with access authority. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
There were many reports of improper hiring and promotion practices. Job announcements were not always posted. Also, according to testimony, temporary employees were hired and then assigned to permanent jobs without posting. 24 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Community Development Commission): The CDC disagrees with this statement. All employment opportunities are posted internally so those interested employees may apply. All employment opportunities are advertised in the local newspaper. Since this finding is non-specific, the CDC is unable to provide specific information. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
The Probation Department Administrative Manual has not been updated in over ten years. Its contents are not well known by the staff and it is rarely referred to. There are more than a dozen sections that address subjects covered by the County Administrative and Policy and Procedures Manuals (e.g., Affirmative Action, Use of County Vehicles, Sexual Harassment, Seat Belts, Political Activity, among others). The Probation Administrative Manual does not include job descriptions for the court DPO’s nor supervision DPO’s. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 49 Response (Probation): Agree with this recommendation. An effort to update the manual was started by the previous chief, but stalled along the way. About a year ago, the CPO restarted the process and am currently working on the update. Duplication of sections with other manuals may occur when there are special needs or variations within the departments (e.g. use of vehicles for overnight transportation or on-call activities). Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
The current District Attorney has instituted the use of “Cite Hearings” in selected domestic violence cases (a total of 15 through October 1999). The accused and the victim are both brought together before the District Attorney. The hearing includes a strong warning to the offender that a repeat offense within a year of the hearing will result in the reopening of the current case. The presumption by the District Attorney is that the hearing is a forceful deterrent. It is used primarily when the chance of a conviction resulting from prosecution, in the view of the District Attorney, is not certain. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with the response provided by the District Attorney. 102 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
No recommendations for this finding
F28
The District Attorney’s open door policy has allowed batterers and victims of domestic violence opportunity to make direct presentations of their situation. The Grand Jury has found that, in at least two instances, such conversations have resulted in decisions, which were then forwarded to the prosecuting Deputy District Attorney as directives. The knowledge of the case and the views of the Deputy District Attorney were neither solicited nor heard by the District Attorney. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding, therefore we defer to the District Attorney for verification.
No recommendations for this finding
F98
1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 14. Although this investigation was prompted by citizen complaints against the current District Attorney, the Grand Jury found complaints dating back more than five years, criticizing the previous District Attorney for an “apparent lack of interest (in) pursuing domestic dispute complaints.” Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees or disagrees with this finding. Prosecution and Sentencing Findings 15. Domestic violence prosecution is a complex issue that involves not only the District Attorney, but the Courts, the Probation Department, Law Enforcement and the victims themselves, who play vital roles in the determination of outcomes. The arresting agency, after completing their investigation, forwards the case file to the District Attorney for prosecution. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 16. The review of domestic violence case files revealed some apparent inconsistencies, although there was no obvious pattern of dismissals nor in sentencing practices among the several courts in the County. Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the District Attorney. The ultimate decision on sentencing rests solely with the Courts. 17. The differences in domestic violence prosecution and conviction rates between 1998 and 1999 was statistically insignificant. There was however a notable drop in domestic violence arrests, from an average of 25 per month in 1998 to 20 per month in 1999. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees with this finding, only because the arrest statistics cited by the Grand Jury do not agree with the official statistics maintained by the California Attorney General, which show that for 1998 there were an average of 16.7 domestic violence arrests per month in Mendocino County. According to the Attorney General’s statistics, arrests for domestic violence in Mendocino County have fluctuated for several years. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 99 Mendocino County Domestic Violence Arrests 300 264 267 250 250 188 223 200 200 181 185 150 134 100 110 98 50 0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provide by the Sheriff. The official statistics maintained by the California Attorney General indicate that in 1998, the average monthly arrests for domestic violence was 16.7. 18. Often, the victim will recant testimony made at the time of arrest, making prosecution difficult. However, the District Attorney’s Victim-Witness Protection program is a positive force in aiding the victims of domestic violence and supporting the prosecution of batterers. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 19. In 1984, the California Legislature enacted a new domestic violence law (Chapter 1609). This statute in part states: “It is the intent of the legislature that the official response to cases of domestic violence shall stress the enforcement of the laws to protect the victim and shall communicate the attitude that violent behavior in the home is criminal behavior and will not be tolerated. Arrests of domestic violence offenders are encouraged if there is probable cause that an offense has been committed.” A review of Mendocino County domestic violence arrest records, dating back to 1988, demonstrate that the county’s law enforcement agencies have clearly been responsive to this legislative directive. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and commends all of Mendocino County’s law enforcement agencies work in this area. 100 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 20. Section 243 (e) (4) of the Penal Code (domestic violence battery) states: “The Legislature finds and declares that these specified crimes merit special consideration when imposing sentence so as to display society’s condemnation for these crimes of violence upon victims with whom a close relationship has been formed.” In the Grand Jury’s review of domestic violence case files, no indication of such special consideration was found. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding as it relates to the text of the statute. I neither agree nor disagree with the Grand Jury’s finding regarding their review of domestic violence case files. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has no specific knowledge of the cases reviewed by the Grand Jury, therefore, we cannot comment on this finding. 21. According to the District Attorney, these Penal Code Sections, that reflect the desire by the California legislature to place special emphasis on crimes of domestic violence, apply to the Court and to law enforcement and not to the district attorneys of the state. The District Attorney maintains that he treats all crimes equally and to do otherwise would expose him to censure and possible charges of misconduct. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors defers to the District Attorney on this finding. 22. The goals of domestic violence prosecution, as stated in the District Attorney’s Policy and Procedures Manual, are: (1) protection and safety for the victim and family members (2) punishment of the offender (3) referral of the victim and vulnerable family members to ... support agencies (4) rehabilitation of the offender Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 23. In addition to these goals, the City of Duluth, Minnesota, the model for the batterers counseling program used in Mendocino County, has the prosecution goal “to create a general deterrence to domestic violence in the community.” The Mendocino County District Attorney maintains that cases must be prosecuted on the basis of evidence and not on possible community reaction. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 101 Response (Sheriff): Neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. I have not read the Duluth, MN, program model. The remainder of this finding addresses statements made by the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board defers to the District Attorney on this finding.
No recommendations for this finding

Conclusions 3

Comments 24

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Ukiah City