2015-2016 Final Report (pdf)

Alleged violation of the Brown Act.

Alleged violation of District policy.

Alleged violation of election laws. APPROACH: The Grand Jury conducted numerous interviews including the complainant, current staff, former staff and members of the Board of Directors of the John C. Fremont Healthcare District (JCFHD). The Grand Jury reviewed agendas and minutes for regular, special and committee meetings of the JCFHD for the period of January 2015 through February 2016, The Brown Act, JCFHD By-Laws, Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, The Consent Agenda ©Core Strategies for NonProfits, Minutes.BusinessDictionary.com, and the website of the John C. Fremont Healthcare District. The Mariposa County Clerk-Registrar of Voters was interviewed and numerous documents were provided to the Grand Jury regarding the laws and other information relative to the election in question to the John C. Fremont Healthcare District Board of Directors. DISCUSSION: The John C. Fremont Healthcare District is a political subdivision of the State of California, under the Local Healthcare District Law. The Hospital District was formed in 1947 by the voters of Mariposa County. The John C. Fremont Hospital opened its doors in 1951 as a general acute care facility with twenty- four beds, laboratory and x-ray services. Today the facility is a thirty-four bed District hospital providing services including three medical clinics, inpatient care, outpatient service, skilled nursing, home health, hospice, laboratory, imaging and cardiopulmonary services along with a twenty-four hour emergency department. The District also offers a clinic with numerous specialists and is the only hospital serving the residents of Mariposa and Eastern Madera County as well as visitors to Yosemite National Park and other nearby areas. The nearest hospitals with emergency rooms are located in Merced, Madera, Sonora and Fresno. The John C. Fremont Healthcare District Board of Directors consists of five members of the community, elected in November of every even year, to a term of four years. There is no term limit. The Board of Directors has the authority to set goals, determine policies, direct operational affairs, control the property of the District and exercise the powers listed under Healthcare District Law. Board members are unpaid and receive a small stipend for each of the regular Board meetings they attend. The Board meets on the last Wednesday of each month. The annual meeting is held on the last Wednesday of June where officers for the coming year are elected. Special meetings may be called at any time. Standing committees are Finance, Board Education and Development, Policies, Procedures & Bylaws and Community Relations. Committees are comprised of two Board members and meet as follows: Finance meets monthly. Education and Development, Policies, Procedures and Bylaws and Community Relations meet at least quarterly. Ad hoc committees may be appointed at any time as deemed necessary and may include Board members and non-Board members as needed. Committees consist of two Board members. Board members not named to the committee may attend committee meetings as “observers” only. Brown Act 54952.2(6) Committees discuss items of business in their area of responsibility and make recommendations to the full Board at a subsequent regular meeting. The Finance Committee reports to the Board on a monthly basis. The Chairperson of the Board of Directors is the principal officer of both the District and the Board. Among other responsibilities, the Chairperson is responsible for assuring that an agenda is planned for Board meetings. The Secretary-Treasurer is responsible for, among other things, to see that meetings are noticed and minutes are kept. The Brown Act requires that at least 72 hours before a meeting an agenda specifying date, time and location of the meeting as well as a brief description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed shall be posted in a location accessible to the public. Brown Act 54954.2.(a)(1) Agendas for committee and regular meetings include the date and time posted and are initialed by the person posting the agenda. The Board of Directors selects a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who supervises all the employees of the healthcare district and is responsible for the overall operation of the District. The CEO reports to the Board of Directors. The Administrative Assistant to the CEO also acts as the Clerk of the Board. The John C. Fremont Healthcare District Board of Directors is required to abide by the provisions of the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) Government Code §54950-54963. By provision in their bylaws, the Board of Directors uses the guidelines of Rosenberg’s Rules of Order for conduct of their meetings. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order are simple rules of parliamentary procedure for meetings including quorum, the role of the chair, format for agenda item discussion, motion, debate and voting. A consent agenda is specifically used for routine, procedural, informational and self-explanatory, non-controversial items. Any item needing discussion, action or is controversial in any way should be a separate agenda item. All items on the consent agenda are still open to discussion and debate if a Board member requests same. Following the preparation of minutes Board members and staff have the opportunity to review the material for any corrections needed. At the next regular meeting the Board votes to approve or amend the minutes, including committee meetings, regular meetings, special meetings, etc. Minutes are the permanent, formal and detailed record of business transacted and resolutions adopted at official meetings such as those of the Board of Directors. Once written up and approved at the next meeting, the minutes are accepted as a true representation of the proceedings they record and can be used as prima facie evidence in legal matters. BusinessDictionary.com/definition/minutes. The Brown Act §54954.2 (b) (1)(2) delineates that “emergency” items may be added to an agenda upon determination of a two-thirds vote of the members present. This action is required to merely place an “emergency” item on the agenda. Discussion and vote regarding the specifics of the item are handled in a separate action. FINDINGS: John C. Fremont Healthcare District is a vital asset for Mariposa County and it is imperative that the District remain a viable operation in the community. The Board of Directors and staff appear to be sincerely dedicated to their mission “to excel in the provision of quality health care services” and their vision “to be the organization of choice for community health care.” However, numerous issues surfaced during our investigation that appear problematic and have the potential to negatively impact the District and distract the Board of Directors from its mission of continued service to the community. After reviewing the agendas and minutes of the JCFHD Board of Directors for the period of January 2015 through February 2016, as well as conducting numerous interviews, the Grand Jury has determined that: Board members and staff appear to violate the provisions of The Brown Act and how they apply to the District, and; 21 Board members and staff appear to violate the overall intent of the Brown Act §54950 which states, in part, “It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.” Agendas and minutes of both committee meetings and Board meetings often lack clarity and appear confusing and/or incomplete with conflicting information. Examples are: Minutes of Board meetings do not reflect consistent following of Rosenberg’s Rules of Order including establishment of a quorum, discussion of action items and the calling for or recording of a vote. When changes/corrections are made to minutes, the nature of the changes is not noted making it impossible to know if the changes are minor or substantive. Attendance at committee meetings by more than two Board members is prohibited unless additional members are observing only. Discrepancies between the agenda and the minutes including items listed on the agenda with no record of any consideration in the minutes, items taken up at a meeting which were not on the agenda and discrepancies between regular committee meeting minutes and the information in Board minutes regarding the same subject. There is general disagreement among staff and Board members as to who has the ultimate responsibility, and each has tried to evade responsibility, for the accuracy of the agendas and minutes of Board meetings and for ensuring adherence to both the provisions of The Brown Act and to policies established by the Board of Directors. There is a difference of opinion among those interviewed if sufficient opportunity is afforded for discussion or question of agenda items during Board meetings. The Grand Jury found that not all Board members received background information for all items added as “emergencies” even when the “emergency” items were known prior to the meeting. During the investigation of the complaint the Grand Jury discovered specific issues of concern as summarized below: Consistent use of the consent agenda to approve non-routine and controversial items. Attendance at committee meetings by Board members not named to the committee not documented as “observers only” and contributed comments that may have influenced outcome. Agendas for committee meetings of the Board of Directors for January-September 2015 do not contain the time and place of the meeting. NOTE: Agendas for February 2016 committee meetings show the time of the meeting. However, the location is shown only as “Board Room” with no specific information as to exact address. Brown Act §54954.2 (a) (1). Minutes for regular meetings where “emergency items” were added to the agenda do not reflect a vote to approve such action. Brown Act §54954.2 (b) (2) Minutes of regular Board meetings reviewed state “Open session disclosure pursuant to Government Code §54957.7” but do not reflect that the items to be discussed in closed session were actually disclosed prior to going into closed session. Brown Act §54957.7 None of the minutes of regular Board meetings reviewed reflect a vote relative to the decisions made in closed sessions. Brown Act §54957.1 (a) Convening a committee meeting and conducting business without a quorum. Addressing a potentially controversial item of business under “Other Business” rather than a clear and separate agenda item giving the perception the topic was being shielded from public view. Of particular interest to the Grand Jury was the handling of a specific committee meeting and subsequent regular Board meeting: A Finance Committee meeting agenda was posted at 1:05 PM. The agenda for the subsequent regular meeting was posted on the same day at 2:30 PM. The Finance Committee is always on the agenda for every regular meeting as the committee always has important and timely business for review, action or approval. It is questionable why the Finance Committee was left off the regular meeting agenda as the information needed to place it on the agenda was known at the time of preparation of the agenda. The “emergency” items in question were four agreements and one action item. One of the agreements was related to a controversial subject. Background information on this particular agreement was not given to all Board members for review prior to the meeting. Subsequently, the four agreements were added to the regular meeting as “emergencies” with no vote to do so. Brown Act 54954.2(b)(2). Additionally, the minutes reflect that there was neither discussion of the four emergency items nor a vote to approve, reject or to dispense with them in any way. The four agreements were moved to the consent agenda with no vote to do so. The consent agenda was then approved in total, including the four “emergency” agreements, by a vote of the Board with no discussion. Later in the same Board meeting another agenda item was added as an “emergency” and placed under Discussion/Action Items without a vote to do so. Placing “emergency items” into a consent agenda is not only improper but gives the impression of “ramrodding” something through without public scrutiny and violating the public trust. The Grand Jury found that all relevant Government and Elections Code provisions were followed regarding the noticing and calling of a special election and subsequent appointment by the 23 Mariposa County Board of Supervisors to fill an open seat on the John C. Fremont Healthcare District Board of Directors. (Board of Supervisors Resolution 2015-55)

All departments should keep cash registers, drawers and/or boxes locked at all times they are not in use.

No more than one person should have access to a cash drawer or box at the same time.

Couriers should not have the key to the cash bag in their possession during transport of the funds.

Keys to cash drawers or boxes should be kept in a location away from the cash and known only to those staff members requiring that information. 32

Auditor is encouraged to consider specific guidelines for handling overages and shortages of cash.

Auditor and Treasurer should meet with department heads regarding different methods of transporting cash to the Treasurer and how improvements may be made.

Any variations from the established cash handling procedures should be approved by the Auditor.

Obtain additional training as needed for all County employees who handle cash.

Continue pursuit of the ability of departments being able to accept credit and debit cards.

Consider installing security cameras at the solid waste disposal site, library, parks and recreation office and any other department presenting a need for additional security as well as for monitoring sensitive areas. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE: The Grand Jury requests a response from the Board of Supervisors. The Grand Jury invites a response from the Mariposa County Auditor, Treasurer and any department head who handles cash as to the findings and recommendations in this report. BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT AND UNLICENSED COUNSELORS INTRODUCTION: The Grand Jury responded to a complaint alleging that:

The Board of Supervisors has experienced significant difficulty in securing a candidate who is qualified, willing and able to fulfill the requirements of both medical officer and administrator. In 2015, a new Health Officer for the Health Department was hired. Serious discord and upheaval within the Health Department ensued for approximately ten months until the new Health officer resigned from the position. The interim Medical Officer, is a local physician, and interim health administrator is the County Administrative Officer. On April 5, 2016 Dr. Eric Sergienko was appointed by the Board of Supervisors as the new County Health Officer. He is expected to start later this year. Mariposa County is the only county in California that is not a member of County Health Executives Association of California, a wide ranging resource with extensive expertise in administration of county health departments and has areas of focus on small county jurisdictions. Mariposa County is not accredited by the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). This accreditation is not mandatory, but takes a multi-year process to become accredited and in the future is expected to be tied to funding. Most counties like Mariposa that have a free-standing health department have an administrative person directing the health department and hire a part time contract physician (typically a local physician) for anywhere from eight (8) hours (for counties the size of Mariposa such as Inyo) to twenty (20) hours a week (for larger counties such as Lake County which has three times the population of Mariposa). According to these counties this structure has enabled the health department to function more efficiently, afforded a considerable savings and made recruitment for health department personnel in small counties easier. According to the organizational chart for the Mariposa County Health Department the Environmental Health Manager supervises the Senior Environmental Health Specialist and the two Registered Environmental Health Specialists. The Environmental Health Manager, the Senior Environmental Health Specialist and the two Registered Environmental Health Specialists work out of the 5100 Bullion location. The Development Service Technicians located in Environmental Health (5100 Bullion Street) are supervised by the Office Technician who is located in Public Health (5085 Bullion Street). Additionally, there is a long history of conflict and personnel issues within both divisions of the Health Department. FINDINGS: The Mariposa County Health Department provides a vital public service to this community with regards to both public health and environmental health. It is imperative that this department function productively and without discord. The job description for the Health Officer, who is the director of the Mariposa County Health Department, is lengthy and involves a wide range of experience both as a medical doctor and as an administrator. The job description states, among other duties, that the incumbent plans, organizes, administers and supervises all services, programs and activities of the Health Department. Further, the incumbent selects, trains, supervises, motivates and evaluates the performance of department staff, provides advice and assistance as needed and provides for or coordinates staff training. The position requires knowledge of principles of management, supervision, training and performance evaluation and the ability to plan, organize and supervise 10 staff. It is noted that the minimum qualifications include supervisory or management experience in a broad range of public health programs is "highly desirable" but not stated as “mandatory”. As stated in the Mariposa Gazette on November 26, 2015 it would seem the Board of Supervisors has two viable options: 1) Maintain the current organizational structure requiring the Health Department to have a Health Officer (medical doctor) to head the health department, or; 2) Approve a County Health Administrator (CHA) who would serve as department head and a medical officer would be hired as part time and be subordinate to the CHA. As of the writing of this report the Board of Supervisors has voted to pursue option one based on an on-going contract for advertising, outreach and recruitment for a Health Officer. Over time, some primary responsibilities listed in the Health Officer job description have been delegated to subordinates which appears to be a contributing factor in the conflict within the Health Department and with other departments. The previous Health Officer reportedly did not like modern conveniences, such as email, and chose to run the department in a way that would appear somewhat antiquated. Numerous interviewees indicated that there has been little to no updating or modernizing office procedures over the past fifteen (15) or more years. Suggestions to update procedures resulted in an overall attitude of unwillingness to change. The Environmental Health Manager and Senior Environmental Health Specialist positions were originally contract positions with the State of California. The County of Mariposa reimbursed the State for these costs. In 2010 the State drastically increased the cost to Mariposa County for these positions. Subsequently, the Medical Officer recommended, and the Board of Supervisors approved with Resolution 2010-322, that the two State contracted employees be designated as County employees effective July 1, 2010. Job descriptions for the two positions were approved by the Board of Supervisors in December 2010 with Resolution 2010-563. Due to time constraints of the state contract expiration, these positions were not advertised and recruitment was not done within the local community. The Environmental Health Supervisor and Senior Environmental Health Specialist did not receive training for supervisory or management positions and apparently did not have adequate supervisory experience. During interviews conducted by the Grand Jury it was disclosed that the Environmental Health Manager actually supervises one of the Registered Environmental Health Specialists (REHS) and the Senior Environmental Health Specialist supervises the other REHS. However, the organizational chart does not reflect that reality. Additionally, while the Environmental Health Manager and the Senior Environmental Health Specialist are both tasked with supervising all Environmental Health employees, including support staff, the organizational chart shows the two Development Services Technician positions assigned to Environmental Health are supervised by the Public Health Office Technician who is located in a separate facility. Overall, the separate locations of the two divisions of the Health Department presents specific challenges. The Environmental Health Manager, by also having the title of Director of Environmental Health, is easily confused with the Public Health Department Director. In the past the Health Officer has tasked the Environmental Health Manager to represent the Health Department in meetings of department directors which has contributed to the conflict within the departments. The department directors need to speak freely with each other and cannot do so when the representation in a meeting is not equal or among peers. This is especially vital for policy and personnel issues. As reported by interviewees, little or no cross training is conducted. It is suggested by some that specific training and experience is denied to certain employees, thus making advancement impossible and negatively affecting moral. For example, the two Registered Environmental Health Specialists (REHS) are not encouraged to get the training and/or certifications for the Environmental Health Manager and Senior Supervising Environmental Health Specialist positions. Should either of these two previous state contracted employees choose to leave Mariposa County for whatever reason, the two subordinate REHS who have been dedicated to serving Mariposa County would not qualify to be promoted. This investigation revealed that promotions to management or supervisory positions appear to be given to employees based on their length of service without consideration given to manager/supervisor abilities. An employee who performs the job well may not necessarily possess the knowledge, skills, or personality to be a good supervisor or manager. Training for management and supervisory positions has not been offered or required. This investigation revealed numerous accounts of the following: Employee turnover due to bullying by supervisors. A toxic work environment with supervisors acting with hostility. Supervisors do not effectively or adequately address conflict and tolerate inappropriate behavior. Unequal treatment among equivalent status employees. Heavy handed and dictatorial management. Instances of high stress, reducing employees to tears resulting in the need to retreat to compose themselves. The job descriptions/responsibilities for each position is not accurately reflected in the organizational chart and does not indicate a clear chain of command. Some employees expressed concern about repercussions if they brought any issues to management. Some stated that complaints been brought to management but have not been acted upon. Some employees were hesitant to talk with the Grand Jury or meet with the Grand Jury even under the protection of confidentiality. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Board of Supervisors has hired a Medical Officer to direct the Health Department and he is expected to start later this year. If this situation should prove to be unsuccessful, or in preparation of future Health Department staffing, the Grand Jury recommends the following: The duties afforded to a Medical Officer/Health Department Administrator may possibly exceed both the time availability and the typical combined talents of one person. The Grand Jury believes that Option 2 as stated above is a better resolution to the difficulty in filling this position. It is recommended that in the future the Health Department be restructured as follows: Administrator: Full time position to act as department head and direct the entire department; and, Public Health Officer: Part time position to be a medical doctor responsible for medical duties as required by law and subordinate to the Administrator. NOTE: It is further noted that this structure might result in savings to the County to be used in other areas of pressing concern and allow for easier recruitment of qualified candidates. In the absence of approval for this restructure of the Health Department the following recommendations are made by the Grand Jury: The job description for the Health Officer should be revised to make supervisory or management experience mandatory, and; Due diligence on the part of Mariposa County Board of Supervisors should be paramount to make certain the candidate hired for the position of Health Officer/Administrator is qualified as both a medical doctor and, more importantly, an administrator. The Health Officer should seriously consider becoming a member of the County Health Executives Association of California and investigate the possibility and/or future necessity of accreditation by the Public Health Accreditation Board. The Health Department Director/Medical Officer should directly supervise and be actively involved with the Environmental Health division, making job descriptions and organizational charts reflect accurately the delineation of job duties and responsibility within the department. Support staff in Environmental Health (Development Service Technicians) should be supervised by the Environmental Health Manager, not by a supervisor located at a separate site. Any department head meetings involving either division of the Health Department should be attended by the Health Officer and any decisions or conclusions made between the department heads involved should then be disseminated to staff for implementation. These department head meetings should not be delegated to a subordinate. Supervisors/managers should be required to attend ongoing training in personnel management and supervision in order to obtain the necessary knowledge and skills for maintaining a positive, 13 productive and healthy work environment. In addition, the Health Officer should continuously monitor supervisors to make certain they are adequately performing their responsibilities. The incoming Health Officer, Human Resource Director, County Counsel and possibly the liaisons from the Board of Supervisors should be involved in an effort to pinpoint the source(s) of hostility and bullying and resolve the issue as soon as possible. Managers and/or supervisors and employees who are not availing themselves to training, which must be offered, or who continue to contribute to the discord and hostile work environment should be demoted or terminated from employment with Mariposa County. NOTE: The Grand Jury is excited, encouraged and looking forward to the changes forthcoming in the Health Department under the direction of Dr. Eric Sergienko. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE: The Grand Jury requests a response from the Board of Supervisors. The Grand Jury invites a response from the most recent Health Officer. MARIPOSA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (PLANNING, BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH) INTRODUCTION: The 2015-2016 Mariposa County Grand Jury determined to review Mariposa County Development Services (Planning, Building and Environmental Health) in relation to their customer service and efficiency of operation. This review was deemed necessary after an interview in an unrelated grand jury inquiry resulted in information that caused concern among the grand jurors. This review focuses on the interaction between Environmental Health and the Building Department as they relate to each other and as they relate to the customers requiring their services. APPROACH: The Grand Jury conducted fifteen (15) interviews with staff from both the Building Department and Environmental Health, local and consistently active contractors, and reviewed hundreds of memorandums, resolutions, emails and other documents relative to this issue. DISCUSSION: The Building Department is responsible for the implementation of Title 24, the State of California Building Codes. This includes issuing permits, inspections and compliance with Title 24. The Building Department performs many other functions such as information dissemination to the public, participation in the transient occupancy vacation rental approval process, general Mariposa County government programs, code enforcement and other tasks as directed by the Board of Supervisors. The Health Department is responsible to help protect the health, safety and well being of the public and preserve the quality of the environment. The Environmental Health division, which is an arm of the Health Department and supervised by the Health Department Director (County Health Officer), performs many functions such as approval of well and septic applications and inspections, commercial kitchens, storage tanks, swimming pools and participates in the transient occupancy vacation rental approval process. The departments share many of the same customers: Mariposa County residents, home and property owners, contractors, local businesses, and developers. With the move to the government center in 1997 the functions of Planning, Building and Environmental Health were co-located in one area. In 1999 the Mariposa Board of Supervisors reorganized the Planning and Building Departments (Resolutions 1999-77 and 1999-133). Mariposa County Development Services was established with the intent for the public to be able to access Planning, Building and Environmental Health within one building in order to expedite development within Mariposa County as well as provide better public service. With Resolution 1999-222 the Board of Supervisors approved two positions for Development Services Technician (DST), one for Building and one for Environmental Health. The Development Services Technicians were to be fully cross trained in order to perform all functions necessary to assist the public. This new classification was recommended to meet the staffing needs for an integrated approach to deliver service at the Development Services counter. With Resolution 2009-119, Development Services was to be open full time, Monday through Friday, with staff at the front counter available from 8 AM to 5 PM. In April 2009, due to staffing shortages, the Board of Supervisors passed Resolution 2009-174 authorizing the Building Department to conduct office hours from 7 AM to 4 PM and to remain closed for one hour each day for lunch. The resolution further states that at such time the Building Department becomes fully staffed, regular office hours would revert back to what existed before the adoption of this resolution. NOTE: Planning and Environmental Health were not affected and continued to remain open and available to customers for the entire work day. On January 19, 2016 the Board of Supervisors rescinded Resolution 2009-174 and replaced it with Resolution 2016-35 which keeps the hours of 7 AM - 4 PM for the Building Department but requires the department to remain open without closing for a lunch hour. Since the establishment of Development Services, many changes have taken place. The failing economy, lack of development within the county, resulting layoffs, budget shortfalls and personnel changes have seriously impacted the original vision of Development Services. During these various transitions, the Building Department became the "hub" of the development services offered to Mariposa County residents and businesses. If any permit or inspection was needed, it was requested through the Building Department and followed up by the Building Department staff. The Building Department staff distributed necessary information and paperwork to other departments, other departments responded back to the Building Department and the Building Department relayed this information to the customer as required. This process seemed to work fairly well when the Building Department was staffed by three Development Services Technicians. Regardless of opinion or interpretation of the intent of the Board of Supervisors for Development Services, the "hub" of Development Services became the "bottleneck" and customers were receiving neither timely nor accurate responses. It became apparent that one full time Development Services Technician in the Building Department could not continue to coordinate all questions and follow up on the status of planning, permitting and inspections. In 2013 the process was changed so that the customer was required to interact with each department individually and get approvals on their own, basically relieving the Building Department from the responsibility of handling and tracking paperwork for all three departments. This has caused conflict and discord within the Development Services specifically among the front counter staff. The former Health Officer had delegated the Environmental Health Manager the responsibility to meet with the Building and Planning Directors to find a solution to the problems being experienced. At the time of this investigation, attempts to resolve the conflict have been unsuccessful. FINDINGS: The Grand Jury has found that the personnel conflict between the Building Department and Environmental Health is a symptom of an overall larger problem. Refer to report titled MARIPOSA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT for additional information related to this issue. During the various transitions and fluctuations of the economy and personnel within the departments, the original vision of Development Services appears to have been lost. It was not that one department should be the "one stop" for services, but rather that all three departments be represented in the same location. It is clear by Resolution 1999-222 that the Development Service Technicians were to be cross trained in order to maintain the continuity of public service. Over time, attempts to resolve the conflict have been delegated by the Health Officer to a subordinate, apparently with little supervision, which appears to have been a contributing factor in the continuing conflict. Change is not easy and it appears to be common knowledge that the Building Department and Environmental Health are experiencing a long standing personnel conflict resulting from some of these changes initiated in 2013. The Grand Jury reviewed numerous memorandums and emails dating back years which exhibit an effort to detail, document and resolve the conflict between the staff members. Interviews revealed a climate of backbiting and undermining of efforts between the departments of Development Services and some of this has been expressed to the public. At the writing of this report, no permanent solution has been found.