Consolidated Final Report for Fiscal Year

Conclusions 11

• CL1 Page 131
  Adherence to the requirement for a complete inventory upon a change of evidence technician or supervisor: The Grass Valley Police Department has and will continue to adhere to this requirement. Audits will be diligently scheduled upon the change of an evidence technician or evidence supervisor. These audits will include a 100% inventory of all firearms, money, and narcotics. These audits were performed in 2012 and 2015 upon the change of evidence technicians, and again in 2016 upon the appointment of a new Chief of Police.
• CL2 Page 131
  Random spot inventories need to be performed and documented: Although random “spot inventories” are performed on a regular basis by the evidence sergeant and Captain, they have not been consistently documented. GVPD has initiated a protocol for capturing and documenting these spot inventories. The evidence sergeant will keep and maintain the records of his audit and inventory activity and it will be available to the Captain, Chief of Police, or an independent auditor upon request.
• CL3 Page 129
  Inventories of firearms, narcotics, and money must be conducted on at least a quarterly basis: The random spot inventories conducted by the evidence sergeant and captain have and will continue to include checking of firearms, narcotics, and money. These random spot inventories will be conducted quarterly at a minimum.
• CL4 Page 131
  External audits must be conducted on a biennial basis at a minimum: External audits have been and will continue to be conducted on a biennial basis. Current GVPD Status GVPD has fully complied with recommendation R7. A complete inventory was conducted in April of 2016. Documentation of random spot inventories and quarterly firearm, narcotics, and money inventories is being maintained in digital format. An external audit was conducted in April of 2016. Response to Recommendation R7 by TPD The recommendation has been partially implemented but will not be fully implemented. As indicated in Finding #6, the Truckee Police Department currently complies with the
• CL5 Page 132
  With a few exceptions the Nevada County law enforcement agencies have been responsive to the recommendations contained in the 2015-2016 Report on EHUs.
• CL6 Page 133
  The more significant exceptions are the failure of the NCSO to achieve the goal of having updated written policies and procedures in place by September 1, 2016 and the failure to schedule and have an external audit conducted prior to the end of 2016. TPD declined to accept the recommendation to conduct an external audit, however the Jury has learned that the TPD is preparing a contract for an external audit.
• CL7 Page 135
  The Value of Transparency in the Nevada County Board of Supervisors
• CL8 Page 135
  The Value of Transparency in the Nevada County Board of Supervisors A Report on Responses to the 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report Introduction The 2016-2017 Nevada County Grand Jury (Jury) has reviewed the responses to the report entitled The Value of Transparency in the Nevada County Board of Supervisors issued by the 2015-2016 Jury (2015-2016 Report) and inquired about progress toward implementation of those responses where appropriate. This report contains the results of follow-up interviews and information gathered to determine if the Board of Supervisors followed through with the responses given to that prior report. Approach The 2015-2016 Report examined the issue of ethical transparency in the Nevada County Board of Supervisors (Board), specifically regarding conflict of interest and abstention. The Report asked the question “Is there a difference between a legal conflict and an ethical conflict?” It found that while the Supervisors are certainly ethical people there have been occasions when their conduct could have been interpreted otherwise by the public. The purpose of the review and this report was to determine if the Board implemented the actions they agreed to take in their responses to the 2015-2016 Report. Responses to Findings and Recommendations of the 2015-2016 Report Finding F5 Most of the Supervisors believe ethics refers to the Form 700 filings required from elected officials each year by the FPPC. Response to Finding F5 Disagree. The annual Form 700 filing is required by the California Government Code Section 87200 as a means for judicial, elected and appointed officials to publicly disclose certain economic interests. The Board understands that ethics laws extend beyond the Form 700 to encompass a comprehensive and complex array of issues ranging from Open Meetings Law (the “Brown Act”), public contracting, due process, perquisites and other official acts to codes of conduct when we are off-duty as well.
• CL9 Page 138
  Current Status Regarding Finding F5 The Jury recognizes that the ethics training the Supervisors receive does cover much more than just the Form 700 requirements and accepts their statement. Recommendation R1 Seek additional training and information to understand the difference between legal requirements and ethical considerations. Recommendation R4 Increase personal awareness of the need for public transparency between the Supervisors and parties with business before the Nevada County Board of Supervisors. Response to Recommendations R1 and R4 The recommendation is being implemented. These matters are covered comprehensively in the Ethics training the Supervisors receive that meets the requirements of AB 1234, and in the New Supervisor orientation every Supervisor receives through the California State Association of Counties. This training must meet requirements of State law and therefore is provided separately by a qualified legal expert. In addition, the Board members are regularly advised by County Counsel as issues arise, and members are encouraged to seek assistance from County Counsel if there is ever a question on how to proceed. Current Status Regarding Recommendations R1 and R4 The Jury hopes the Supervisors gain enough understanding in their training that “meets the requirements” and that they heed the advice of County Counsel. Finding F7 The Order and Decorum lacks sufficient guidance to Supervisors in assisting them in their personal decision making on questions of recusal. Response to Finding F7 Partially agree. Because the Board members receive focused ethics training that meets the legal requirements of AB 1234, the Order and Decorum is not intended for that purpose. Instead, it is designed to provide general guidance on the conduct of meetings. However, item #13 of the Order and Decorum does seek to address the matter of abstention and recusal. As indicated in Responses R2 and R3 below, the Board will consider revisions to this document during its annual workshop in January 2017.
• CL10 Page 139
  Recommendation R2 Develop and implement guidelines to assist the Nevada County Board of Supervisors in its decisions as to whether recusal is appropriate on a particular issue. Recommendation R3 Augment the Order and Decorum document, particularly in the area of public transparency of relationships between a Supervisor and parties with business before the Nevada County Board of Supervisors. Response to Recommendations R2 and R3 The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by March 1, 2017. Although such guidelines are covered comprehensively in the AB 1234 Ethics training and in the New Supervisor orientation every Supervisor receives through the California State Association of Counties, the Board will consider revisions to strengthen and clarify the Order and Decorum document at its annual workshop in January 2017. Whatever amendments are agreed to at the workshop will be implemented at a subsequent Board meeting in February, 2017. Current Status Regarding Finding F7, and Recommendations R2 and R3 Examination of the revised document, approved at the Board of Supervisors meeting on February 14, 2017 showed revisions only in the first section, titled “Public Participation in Board Meetings,” and did not address the subject of the Recommendations. Item #13, “Disqualification/Abstention” was not changed from the previous wording: Any Supervisor may abstain from voting on any matter. If it is determined, in consultation with the County Counsel or the FPPC, that a Supervisor has a legal conflict on any matter, then the Supervisor shall be disqualified from discussing or voting on that matter. A disqualification/abstention from voting on the merits of any matter shall be announced by the Supervisor audibly. The Supervisor may state the reason for disqualification/abstention. However, any Supervisor disqualifying him/herself due to a legal conflict of interest shall state the reason, shall completely abstain from participating in discussion on the matter and shall leave the room until the Board has completed its discussion and action on that matter. Abstention/Disqualification shall not count as a vote for or against a matter for which a vote is taken. This section applies to all elected and appointed officials serving on any board, committee or commission of the County of Nevada. (Ord. 1558, 2/14/89)
• CL11 Page 140
  The Jury’s goal in these Recommendations was to direct the Supervisors’ attention to the issue of transparency and recusal. The Jury could not verify Item #13 was discussed at the Board’s January meeting. The Jury believes the wording of Item #13 is sufficient if it is discussed in depth at the January workshop and considered often throughout the year.

No Responses Found 2

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