Mendocino County Grand Jury • 2000-2001

2000-2001 Grand Jury Final Report

Published: February 13, 2001 188 pages Consolidated Report

View Original PDF

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 2 findings

The Commission is successfully organizing, funding, building, administering, and maintaining the Noyo Harbor. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees nor disagrees. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 81 Response (Noyo Harbor District): The Noyo Harbor District agrees with this finding. Response (Fort Bragg City Council): The Fort Bragg City Council agrees with this finding. The City of Fort Bragg maintains a close and cooperative working relationship with the Noyo Harbor District which includes the appointment of one member of the Harbor District Board and joint appointment with the Board of Supervisors of the Commission Chair. The District provides regular written reports of the District’s operations to the City Council and the appointed representative provides periodic reports and updates on District activities at regular City Council meetings. Fiscal Matters The District is carrying out its fiscal responsibilities effectively. Findings 2. District revenues are derived from a combination of Mendocino County tax ($48,241.64 for fiscal year 99-00) and operating revenue, for example: slip rental, hoist/pier fees, and ground rental ($313,473.88 for fiscal year 99-00). Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Noyo Harbor District): The Noyo Harbor District agrees with this finding. 3. District had a net profit of 9.44% for the 99-00 fiscal year. The District has a capital fund of $900,000 for large maintenance projects and emergency situations. At present, most of the fund will be used for emergency repairs caused by ocean surge/storm damage. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Noyo Harbor District): The Noyo Harbor District disagrees with the last statement of this finding. Most of the fund will be used for dredging of the Noyo Mooring Basin (approx. $250,000.00), repair of the deteriorating sea wall (approx. $300,000.00) and the removal of dredge spoils material contained in the spoils site (approx. $122,000.00) 4. There is a possibility (subject to permit) of revenue from Caltrans’ use of Ocean Front Park for equipment marshalling during the replacement of the Noyo Harbor Bridge. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 82 Response (Noyo Harbor District): The Noyo Harbor District agrees with this finding. 5. The District keeps paid employees to the minimum number necessary. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Noyo Harbor District): The Noyo Harbor District agrees with this finding. 6. The Commissioners are not compensated for meetings, but are reimbursed for mileage and expenses incurred when they are required to leave the area on District business. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Noyo Harbor District): The Noyo Harbor District agrees with this finding. 7. The District budget and audit figures are acceptable to the BOS and the City Council. The audit is conducted annually by an independent source. The auditor's report indicates sound financial health. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Response (Noyo Harbor District): The Noyo Harbor District agrees with this finding. Response to Findings 2-7 above (Fort Bragg City Council): The Fort Bragg City Council agrees with the Report’s general comment regarding the District’s fiscal matters; that the District is carrying out its fiscal responsibilities effectively. The City Council has not initiated it’s own review of the detail of the District’s fiscal affairs, and has no information to suggest disagreement with the Grand Jury’s detailed findings identified above. The City Council has observed that the District has consistently performed in a fiscally responsible manner and is not aware of any irregularities or areas of concern in this regard. In addition, the City Council has supported and assisted the District in the implementation of its financial responsibilities by obtaining a grant for the purchase of a site for storage of dredge spoils resulting from the District’s dredging of the Harbor. The City maintains ownership of the dredge spoils site for use by the Harbor District. In addition the City Council recently adopted a resolution in support of the District’s request for federal funding for repair of the District’s breakwater at the mouth of the Harbor. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 83 For the purpose of clarification regarding Finding #4 above, the City Council notes that Ocean Front Park is owned and operated by the City of Fort Bragg. The parking area adjacent to the Park is the property of the Harbor District and is subject to its control. While the City Council supports the potential for the District to obtain revenue from use of its property, the City Council has expressed its concern that Ocean Front Park is a valuable public recreational amenity and access to the park should be maintained to the maximum extent feasible during the period the Noyo Bridge is under construction. Policies and Procedures Findings 8. Staff has indicated that ordinances and regulations from the various agencies serve to guide policy and procedure. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Response (Noyo Harbor District): The Noyo Harbor District disagrees with this finding. The Noyo Harbor District operates under it’s own Ordinance and regulations. It is a Port District organized under section 6200 et seq. of the State of California Harbors and Navigation Code. (Because Port Districts receive statutory authority from the California Harbors and Navigation Code of the State of California, they have the additional right to pass ordinances and enforce regulations within their boundaries.) However, some of the regulations within the ordinance are governed by the County of Mendocino and the State of California. Response (Fort Bragg City Council): The City Council has not initiated it’s own detailed review and has no information to disagree with the findings above regarding the District’s operational policy. 9. The District lacks a comprehensive policies and procedures handbook that reflects the daily operation and emergency mandates of the 16 agencies involved with the District. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Noyo Harbor District): The Noyo Harbor District agrees with this finding. The District realizes this is a very important finding and plans to work with other districts to establish a comprehensive policy and procedures handbook. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 84 Response (Fort Bragg City Council): The City Council has not initiated it’s own detailed review and has no information to disagree with the findings above regarding the District’s operational policy. Future Development The Commission has a stated interest in the development and improvement of the harbor area to enhance service to the public and increase revenue. Findings 10. The Noyo Harbor is a unique coastal entity that could be developed to enhance both the economic and recreational needs of visitors and local citizens. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Response (Noyo Harbor District): The Noyo Harbor District agrees with this finding. 11. The Plan, based on a 1992 study funded by the Coastal Conservancy, suggests a comprehensive plan for the future. The Plan writers gathered information from local proposals, committees, commissions, studies, and investigations. They conducted interviews and exchanged verbal and written correspondence with Harbor groups and individuals. From this data, they identified needs including the following: a. improvements for support of the commercial fishing industry (repair yard and mobile lift, work dock, oil disposal facility, additional berthing); b. additional launch ramp facilities for recreational boats, additional showers, restrooms, laundry facilities, storage lockers and berthing; c. additional parking; d. land use to be apportioned to commercial fishing and visitor facilities; e. affordable worker housing near the Harbor; f. natural resource oriented recreation should be encouraged; g. a system of pedestrian trails and paths to take advantage of the coastline; h. additional traffic access points for general circulation and emergency purposes at both the north and south sides of the Harbor; i. identify and plan protection for the natural resources of the Harbor; and j. develop revenue-producing facilities within the District. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 85 Response (Noyo Harbor District): The Noyo Harbor District agrees with this finding. However, the study is 9 years old with some of the recommendations having been addressed and implemented. Prior to proceeding with any development of the Harbor the Harbor District recommends that the study be updated. The Plan also suggests potential sources of grants and loans for proposed improvements. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding. Response (Noyo Harbor District): The Noyo Harbor District agrees with this finding. 13. The Commission, Board of Supervisors, and City Council do not have an action plan for implementing the recommendations in the Plan. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Response (Noyo Harbor District): The Noyo Harbor District agrees with this finding although the Harbor District does not have authority regarding planning and local land use controls. 14. The Commission and the City Council discuss periodically the possibility of annexing the Noyo Harbor area. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Response (Noyo Harbor District): The Noyo Harbor District agrees with this finding. Response to Findings 10 through 14 above (Fort Bragg City Council): The current City Council has not reviewed the 1992 report referenced and has no information to suggest disagreement with the findings reported above. The City Council agrees that the Noyo Harbor is a unique coastal amenity. The City Council also agrees that is does not have an action plan for implementing the

F2 Page 1

Comment When granting contracts, the Board and the County Administrator ensure that more oversight power is written into contracts. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Promotional Alliance Certification of Part-time Coaches Certification of part-time coaches in Mendocino County schools is important to the safety of our students and required by Education Code 5593. Based on a Grand Jury survey and responses received, the schools are in compliance. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury mailed requests to superintendents of the nine Mendocino County school districts that have high school athletic programs. The Grand Jury received and read copies of every certification record of each part-time coach employed for the academic year 2000-20001 and checked the information against the rosters received. Background Information Part-time coach certification requires that anyone so-employed will be qualified to instruct students. Furthermore, the certification also attests that the coaches have been tested to be free of tuberculosis and have no criminal record. The obvious benefits of this certification are beyond question. Finally, Education Code 5593 requires certification. It is the law. Findings 1. Schools have different formats for recording and reporting certification. 2. Two previous Grand Juries have recommended a Countywide standardized form. 3. The

Recommendations 7

R1
Page 1

The Grand Jury suggests that the County Counsel create a mechanism, within the department, which would insulate individual attorneys, from conflict of interest situations, avoiding the need to hire outside counsel. ALREADY EST. DATE OF NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES Review of the benefits of creating an ethical wall or screen with respect to certain recurring County Counsel functions is an on-going process. X MENDOCINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES: 1. MCDSS should make it clear to all managers, supervisors, and employees that, by actions and deeds, favoritism of any kind will not be tolerated and all allegations of favoritism will be independently investigated. 2. MCDSS should include case complexity in all case load assignments. 3. If the Merit System procedure is continued, final selection should be made by independent evaluators in Training on personnel process to be implemented January – December 2001. In-service training for existing supervisors and managers has been provided since February 2000. As of February 2001, Orientation foe New Supervisors and ongoing Supervisor Training are required for all supervisors during their probationary period. Training staff on specific personnel process is planned for Fall 2001. X X Revision of caseload assignments guidelines to be completed by February 2001. Not applicable. X RECOMMENDATION ALREADY EST. DATE OF NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES the County. 4. All managers and supervisors should clearly demonstrate their ability and willingness to address existing problems between staff and management. 5. MCDSS should ensure that managers and supervisors of all levels receive training and counseling in the areas of favoritism, confidentiality of personnel and clients, leadership techniques, avoiding burnout, and recognizing achievements, 6. Recommend that the department continue to take the Multi-faceted Action Plan of August 17, 1999 seriously, maintaining the letter and the sprit of the Plan. 7. Employee surveys should be conducted with no names, or identification of employees, to ensure that there is no animosity or reprisal, directed toward individuals. Training: X January – December 2001 Training & Follow-up: MCDSS has developed a process to clarify roles and responsibilities among managers and supervisors and to assure accountability. This includes review of job expectations, performance reports, as well as training. Project was begun in November 2000 and will be completed by December 2001. On-going January – December 2001 X X The MAP is being progressively implemented from September 1999 – December 2001. X Anonymity in employee surveys was implemented in 1992 and will be continued. RECOMMENDATION ALREADY 8. MCDSS should implement an effective, realistic, nonself-serving evaluation of supervisors and managers, to include employee moral issues and concerns. 9. Management should ensure that trainers are competent, qualified, and properly supervised. 10. New employees should receive instruction in job expectations including work ethics, teamwork, mutual respect, and recognition of the problem and concerns of MCDSS. Existing employees should receive regular refresher training. 11. Fewer meetings for supervisors would enable them to spend more time on-site. Use of teleconferencing to save time should be explored. 12. The Grand Jury strongly recommends that departing employees continue to be given exit interviews. These interviews should be conducted by the County Human Resources Department instead of the MCDSS internal H R U it EST. DATE OF December 2001 X NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES Revision of supervisor and manager evaluation process to be implemented by December 2001. Development of a format for feedback to supervisors from those supervised is underway. Review of trainers to be implemented on an on-going basis. July 2001 – December 2001 July 2001 Revised and expanded new employee orientation to be implemented by July 2001. Refresher training for existing employees to be implemented by December 2001. Specific topics are included in current new employee orientation and Communication and Harassment Prevention Training for all staff as of February 2001. Video-conferencing equipment was approved in the 00-01 County budget and will be purchased by July 2001. Revised exit interview format to be implemented by February 2001. Statewide Social Services Departments have developed a standard exit interview. MCDSS will utilize revised format beginning April 2001. RECOMMENDATION ALREADY EST. DATE OF NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES Human Resources Unit. MENDOCINO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION: 1. Develop a better procedure to keep absent parents informed about what is necessary to preserve their rights, privileges and duties, so that they may petition the courts in a timely manner. On-going X MENDOCINO COUNTY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: 1. 2. The District Attorney should assume a proactive leadership role in developing county-wide domestic violence policies and procedures. All members of the criminal justice community should not only participate, but accept active roles in the Council on Domestic Violence. Advantage should be taken of the Media/Community Education Committee to inform the citizenry of the roles and accomplishments of the law enforcement. On-going X On-going X
R2
Page 1

The processing time for obtaining approval for change in hours of service should be within two weeks. 3. The client should be seen as often as the situation warrants. 4. The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors should make fingerprinting and background checks mandatory. These should be paid for by Mendocino County and processed by the California Department of Justice for all current and future providers. All clients must be notified of the results. 5. 6. 7. If a client wants to hire a provider with a criminal background, the client should be requested to sign a waiver stating that he/she has received the background information and wished to hire the person anyway. ALREADY NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES X X January 2003 X The IHSS program should work in cooperation with the local educational institutions to provide training programs for providers. At a minimum, providers should be trained in CPR and Basic First Aid. A new provider should have a follow-up review in three weeks. EST. DATE OF Revisions of the current procedures to be implemented by April 2001. June 2001 X State approval granted in March 2001. To be implemented by July 2001. Twelve week curriculum developed through Mendocino Community College; classes begin March 7, 2001
R3
Page 1

4. 5. 6. 7. The cross training between Project Sanctuary and the District Attorney should be expanded to include all Deputy District Attorneys who may prosecute domestic violence cases. This training program should be formalized and include regularly scheduled training sessions. Budgeting of overtime and staffing decisions should give fair and thorough consideration to the training of all peace officers in the county. ALREADY The District Attorney should follow the spirit of the law by vigorously prosecuting domestic violence offenders. NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES Subject to Project Sanctuary availability. X X To minimize the delay in entering both restraining and stay-away orders into CLETS, procedural changes should be implemented to permit direct electronic entry by the courts or the bailiff. Open dialogue between the District Attorney and law enforcement must be established and become commonplace. Decisions to reject or dismiss a case should be discussed with the arresting law enforcement agency before they become final. EST. DATE OF X X X
R6
Page 1

The Grand Jury recommends that Probation Department continue to be aggressive in collecting this revenue form parent who are required to pay the costs of their child being incarcerated. ALREADY EST. DATE OF NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES X Not feasible due to space limitations. X MENDOCINO COUNTY OFFICE OF THE ALTERNATE DEFENDER: 1. The BOS should consider funding one additional Deputy Alternate Defender. 2. The BOS should review the County attorney salary structure. 3. The County should install a security counter between the public area and the secretary’s desk. 4. A current policy and procedures manual needs to be developed. 5. The BOS should reconsider elevating the Office of the Alternate Defender to Department status, which would permit performance reviews of the Alternate Defender and let the Alternate Defender go directly to the BOS when needs arise. 6. The Sheriff should meet with the Alternate Defender and the Public Defender to determine a rapid response procedure that will guarantee that attorneys are X November 2000 January 2002 X X RECOMMENDATION ALREADY EST. DATE OF NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES released from the interview room in a more timely manner at the Jail. MENDOCINO HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD: 1. 2. Residence eligibility to serve on the MHRB could be expanded to include an area outside of the Historic District. This would provide larger pool from which to select board members. Proximity to the Historic District would assure that they would have a vested interest in the historical preservation of the town. At least some MHRB members and/or staff should have some expertise in architecture, historic preservation or other related fields. Professional staff should be better utilized to advise the MHRB in reaching decisions. X X The Board agrees that it would be beneficial for MHRB members and/or staff to have some expertise in architecture, historic preservation or other related fields. However, the Board also concurs with the Department that the more important attributes are that MHRB members and/or staff: a) have an intimate knowledge of the Town and its history, b) have the ability to read architectural drawings, c) have a passion for and a track record in historical preservation, and d) be familiar with the Design Guidelines. The Board also agrees that staff should have good meeting facilitation RECOMMENDATION ALREADY EST. DATE OF NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES and public speaking skills, and be familiar with local, state and federal laws pertaining to historic preservation. The Board believes that these qualities do exist within the current members of the Review Board and its staff support. 3. Notices should be mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. X The Board disagrees with this recommendation. As explained by the Planning and Building Services Department, fees have been recently reduced on the belief that it will result in fewer violation cases and will facilitate the timely maintenance of historic buildings. Because of the small parcel sizes in the town of Mendocino, a 300 foot mailing would create additional cost for the applicant and would be time consuming for clerical staff. Increasing costs may result in increased application fees and over the past several years there has been tremendous emphasis on reducing fees for processing MHRB applications. Notices of Coastal Development Permit applications are mailed to neighboring properties for any major projects that include intensification of land use or a new structure. The Board concurs with the Planning and RECOMMENDATION ALREADY EST. DATE OF NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES Building Services Department’s recommendation for improving the public noticing to include: • Notices posted are produced on heavier card stock poster paper (to resist wind and rain damage) in bright orange or pink. • “OFFICIAL NOTICE – DO NOT REMOVE” shall be added to agendas posted around the town. • Staff will post all project sites rather than the applicant, which has been past practice, to ensure postings are in the most visible location available to the public. Staff will include Planning and Building Services internet site on the letterhead of the posters so that interested parties can view and print copies of the MHRB agenda for themselves 4. The process for dealing with code violations should be revised and The Board agrees with this recommendation and has approved RECOMMENDATION ALREADY EST. DATE OF simplified. Issues that require code enforcement should be handled in a more expeditious manner. Computer technology, which is available to all County Departments, could be employed by generating compliance letters automatically. 5. Real estate agencies and property owners that list properties for sale in the Historic District should be required to inform potential buyers, in the form of a disclosure, or the historical preservation requirements which exits. A positive effort must be made to notify property owners of the historical preservation requirements in the Historic District. 1998 – 99 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT RESPONSE REVIEW: NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES an additional Planner position for the Fort Bragg Office in the 2000/01 Final Budget. The Board further agrees with the improved code enforcement activities in the Town of Mendocino. As noted in the Planning and Building Services response, all known MHRB violations have been documented and owners have received notices that include remedies to correct violations, and time frames to achieve compliance. Recipients that do not respond to the notice within the specified time frame will have their case forwarded immediately to Code Enforcement for further action. January – February 2001 The Planning and Building Services Department has scheduled this issue for further discussion and direction by the Board of Supervisors on February 13, 2001. By letter dated October 3, 2000, Planning and Building Services requested that local title companies and the Coastal Mendocino Board of Realtors comment, no later than November 17, 2000 on the Grand Jury’s recommendation. RECOMMENDATION ALREADY EST. DATE OF Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT): 1. The BOS should review with the Treasurer the current procedures and determine if they are adequate to insure compliance January 2001 NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES
R7
Page 1

8. 9. ALREADY BOS should establish a time line for the implementation of the Criminal Justice Facility Master Plan which consolidates Probation Department services in one location. NOT The CPO will address the issue of an Assistant CPO with the Board during the 2001/02 budget conferences/hearings. X On-going X 10. BOS, with Court approval, should include the CPO in its annual evaluation of County Department Heads. X 11. An independent evaluation of the wisdom of arming DPO’s should be made. X 12. The Probation Department Administration Manual should be updated and made into an active, EXPLANATION/NOTES Board of Supervisors adjusts Capital Improvement Plan annually and uses Criminal Justice Facilities Master Plan as a component. X CPO should consider filling the allocated position of Assistant Chief Probation Officer as a solution to the problem of CPO’s outside obligations. The operation of the Probation Department should always be the primary focus of the CPO. Priority should be given to team building that would include all department employees. Management should place department morale as an important objective. EST. DATE OF RECOMMENDATION ALREADY useful handbook well known to the staff and used for the training of new employees. Section duplicating the County manual should be deleted. Detailed job descriptions should be added to the job standards. Each page should bear a revision date. EST. DATE OF NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES June 30, 2002 MENDOCINO COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES EMERGENCY RESPONSE UNIT: 1. Core training in CWS should be mandatory for all SWs involved in ER. 2. The Grand Jury commends the ER Unit for recently staffing the screener position with fully qualified SWs who perform these duties on a rotating schedule. 3. On-going training in the use of the CWS/CMS computers system is necessary. It would be desirable if the statewide system were more user-friendly. MENDOCINO COUNTY COUNSEL: June 2000 – June 2001 Contracted with UC Davis for basic CWS training January – December 2000. Ongoing training provided by unit supervisors and training supervisors. ER staffing with Social Workers implemented by May 2000. X January – June 2001 Ongoing training provided by unit supervisors, training supervisor, and CWS/CMS help desk staff person.
R8
Page 1

9. Cite Hearing, when used, should be structured to keep the victim and the batterer separate, as indicated by expert testimony. Victims should be accompanied by an advocate at these hearings. The District Attorney should continue to tract individuals offered Cite Hearings for recidivism. ALREADY NOT X In conjunction with law enforcement, the District Attorney should implement a follow-up system that tracts cases rejected for insufficient evidence. When law enforcement is unable to obtain the evidence needed for prosecution the Sheriff or the police department should notify the District Attorney and indicate the reasons involved. 10. When cases are rejected for interest of justice, mutual combat, cite hearing and similar causes, the District Attorney should be open to feedback from law enforcement concerning valid arguments for reconsideration. Law enforcement agencies should be encouraged to offer background information not evident in the case file to the District Attorney. EST. DATE OF X X EXPLANATION/NOTES
R11
Page 1

The District Attorney should consult with probation officers, the prosecuting attorneys, investigating detectives, and Victim/Witness advocates when making or reversing prosecution decisions. 12. All cases of domestic violence, when the evidence is adequate, must be prosecuted. Plea agreements to lesser charges and using violation of probation should be avoided unless the reasoning is compelling. 13. Batterers program facilitators and curricula should be closely monitored by the Probation Department and re-certified each year. ALREADY NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES X X X 14. The Probation Department should initiate a system of tracking domestic violence offenders for recidivism including those who elect or are sentenced to jail time in lieu of probation. 15. When it is clear to probation court officer that a convicted batterer has an addiction or problem with drugs or alcohol, the suggested terms of probation recommended to the court should include a dependence rehabilitation program as well as EST. DATE OF Not recommended at this time. X X RECOMMENDATION ALREADY EST. DATE OF NOT EXPLANATION/NOTES mandatory batterers counseling classes. 16. The District Attorney plays a pivotal role in the criminal justice system’s response to family violence. The District Attorney must, through his actions, make it known to the community that domestic violence will not be tolerated in Mendocino County. MENDOCINO COUNTY GRADING ORDINANCE: 1. The Grand Jury urges the BOS to review and act on the Humboldt County draft ordinance with the 30 to 60 day time frame. The Grand Jury strongly suggests that the BOS encourage Trinity County to complete their ordinance quickly, so that its features can be considered and incorporated, if found appropriate. X Discussion and direction for grading regulations was provided by the Board if Supervisors on January 23, 2001. Per Board direction, a “Grading Committee” compromised of numerous stakeholders will review grading regs and make recommendations for Mendocino County ordinance to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. MENDOCINO COUNTY IN-HOME SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM: 1. The system should be put in place to avoid fraud on time sheets, which should include regular verification of client signatures. X Additional revisions to be made in April 2001.

Comments 12

CO1

Penal Code §5010(a) states: “The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the predominant purpose of exercise in correctional facilities should be for the maintenance of the general health and welfare of inmates and that exercise equipment and programs in correctional facilities should be consistent with this purpose. The Legislature further finds and declares that in some cases it may be beneficial to provide access to weights for therapeutic or rehabilitative reasons under a doctor’s order or for certain vocational activities such as firefighting.” [Emphasis added] Subsection (b) of §5010 directs that weight equipment be removed or restricted when safety is a concern. Subsection (c) directs CDC officials to establish regulations governing access to weight equipment. It is clear that CDC chose to remove weight equipment from all correctional facilities rather than implement regulations for weight equipment access. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 52 Because conservation camp inmates are minimum risk, stable, non-violent offenders, the CDC should reconsider the beneficial vocational aspects of a weight training program for inmates in conservation camps. Response Requested California Department of Corrections California Department of Forestry Response (California Correctional Center) We are in receipt of your Grand Jury Report dated June 14, 2001, involving Chamberlain Creek Conservation Camp (CC #17) and Parlin Fork Conservation Camp (CC #6). I agree with your assessment, and am pleased the Mendocino County Grand Jury members found that two of our camps in Mendocino County were “highly functional, well-organized facilities, providing beneficial programs for the County and State.” We strive to place qualified staff in positions that can accomplish that mission, as well as provide the inmates a chance to develop vocational skills and a sound work ethic, which will; hopefully, help them become more productive citizens when released back to society. The comment concerning use of weights by inmates at conservation camps is certainly valid and deserving of further clarification. Our institution, and all others in the State of California, were directed in a memorandum dated January 29, 1998, by David Tristan, Deputy Director, Institutions Division, that all weightlifting equipment would be removed from all institutions/facilities operated by the California Department of Corrections. It was noted, “no exemptions to this policy have been granted. This includes the camps, minimum support facilities, ranches firehouses, etc.” This mandate was a direct result of Administrative Bulletin 98/01, dated January 2, 1998, signed by Gregory W. Harding, Chief Deputy Director, Support Services, in response to new legislation outlined in Penal Code (PC) Section 5010. PC 5010 goes on to mention numerous valid reasons why the Department took the position to remove weights from all facilities. The California Department of Corrections (CDC) is also in agreement with the Grand Jury report, which notes that inmates need to maintain a proper level of physical fitness in order to be prepared for the strenuous working conditions encountered when responding to emergencies. Therefore, CDC has a rigorous physical fitness program in place for inmates preparing to go to a conservation camp. When inmates arrive at camp, they are provided an exercise room equipped with pull-up bars, dip bars, abdominal boards, incline benches, etc. There are also hiking trails and a quarter-mile track for running. Further aerobic conditioning can be experienced by use of the basketball court, tennis, baseball field, and handball areas. Additionally, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Captains continually train their crews physically and mentally to be prepared for any type of emergency. Physical conditioning is an extremely important factor of 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 53 our inmate firefighting force; however, since the removal of the weightlifting equipment, we have found no correlating drop in the inmates’ ability to complete the essential functions of firefighting. Also of note is the significant reduction of physical injuries associated with weightlifting equipment. It is the intent of this Administration to obey the law and live up to the wishes of the voting public, while keeping our inmates physically fit, healthy, productive, and ready to perform the demanding task of wildland firefighting. I hop this information is helpful in understanding the Department’s position on weightlifting for inmates in camp, and I would like to thank you for your support of Chamberlain Creek and Parlin Fork Camps. Sincerely, R.A. Castro, Warden 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 54 City of Fort Bragg Public Safety Police and Fire Protection Police and fire protection services in Fort Bragg have not been reviewed by the Grand Jury in over ten years. The Grand Jury reviewed these services and found serious problems that should be addressed. Police and fire protection for the incorporated City of Fort Bragg (City) is provided by a City operated and managed police department and a volunteer fire department. Method of investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the City Manager, the Fire Chief, an interim Police Chief, and Police and Fire Department officers. The Grand Jury toured the Police and Fire Department facilities and reviewed financial records, policies and procedures, contracts and agreements, and other documents from both departments and the City. Police Protection Background information The Police Department (PD) is currently operating under the supervision of an interim Chief of Police (Chief) who in turn answers to the City Manager (Manager). The PD consists of 11 officers and a support staff of four. The PD patrols in three shifts, each under the command of a sergeant, 24 hours per day, seven days per week.
CO2

The Grand Jury applauds the citizens who make the District possible through volunteer labor. Response Required Redwood Coast Fire Protection District Board of Directors 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 67
CO3

Environmental Health Department Septic System Complaint Process The investigation of a problem with a septic system revealed that although the Mendocino County Environment Health Division (EHD) is moving towards timely processing and resolution of citizen complaints, complaint problems prevail in the system. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the EHD Director, an EHD Environmental Health Specialist, and complainants. The Grand Jury reviewed the 1998-1999 Grand Jury report "Citizen Complaint of the Environmental Health Division," and responses by the Board of Supervisors (BOS), EHD and the Mendocino County Public Health Advisory Board (PHAB). The Grand Jury reviewed the "Audit Report on the Complaint Process within the Mendocino County Division of Environmental Health," a document authored by an audit committee of two PHAB members, a private business owner, and representatives from the County Administrator’s Office, the County Department of Planning and Building Services, and the Mendocino County Employers Council. The Grand Jury reviewed EHD Policy 48.02.01 "Complaint Acceptance,” EHD Policy 48.02.02 “Complaint Processing,” EHD Policy 48.02.03 "Minor and Nuisance Complaints,” EHD Policy 48.02.04 "Complaint Confidentiality,” and the EHD Complaint Flowchart. The Grand Jury reviewed EHD form letters used for routine responses to complaints. The Grand Jury visited the site of an open septic tank and faulty septic system. Background Information The “Conclusion” of the 1998-1999 Grand Jury Final Report stated, “The EHD is falling short of meeting its stated goals and vision…in regard to citizen complaints concerning liquid waste.” The 1998-1999 Grand Jury Final Report included the following recommendations: (cid:1) Timely acknowledgement of complaints (cid:1) Progress reports to the complainant and the County Public Health Department (cid:1) Complaint management escalation with complaint age. (cid:1) Resolve all complaints within 90 days. The audit committee “Audit Report on the Complaint Process” included the following recommendations to EHD: (cid:1) Technology should be used for efficient tracking of deadlines and identification of patterns. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 69 (cid:1) Add the statement “provide complainants with an outcome/results of investigation” after second paragraph, EHD Policy 48.02.01 “Complaint Acceptance.” (cid:1) Provide time estimates to a complainant as to when a response from EHD can be expected. (cid:1) Communication to complainant by EHD should include options for action, related state agency contacts, and pertinent phone and fax numbers within the County.
CO4

The EHD acted promptly to resolve one case after the Grand Jury inquiry. The County should have a way for complaints to be resolved uniformly without Grand Jury intervention. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 78 Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Environmental Health Department Mendocino County Public Health Advisory Board 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 79
CO5

The Noyo Harbor District The Noyo Harbor District (District) is a well-managed and effective entity. Issues concerning the future development of the Noyo Harbor need to be addressed. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed a member of the Noyo Harbor Commission (Commission), the Harbor Manager, the Harbor Secretary/Treasurer, a representative of the U.S. Coast Guard facility at the harbor, a land manager and businessman from the harbor, two land owners in the harbor area, a Fort Bragg City Council (City Council) member, a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee that participated in the Coastal Conservancy proposal for the future of the harbor, and two boat owners/fishermen who have boats moored in the harbor. The Grand Jury attended a regular Commission meeting. The Grand Jury reviewed the following documents: minutes from 1/11/01, 1/26/01, and 2/8/01; the development proposal for the Noyo Harbor, Noyo Harbor Plan (Plan): the budgets for the present and past two years; the most recent audit; and berthing policy and vessel mooring contract documents. The Grand Jury inspected the harbor facilities. Background Information The District is a designated port district that receives its authority from the Harbors and Navigation Code of the State of California. The District is a geographical area for tax revenue base and encompasses approximately ten square miles bordered by Pudding Creek on the north, Jughandle Creek on the south, and the coast. The District is governed by the appointed five-person Commission: two appointments by the City Council, two appointments by the County Board of Supervisors (BOS), and one appointment by consensus of the City Council and the BOS. The Commission is charged to organize, fund, build, administer, and maintain the Noyo Harbor. The Commission has the authority to pass and enforce ordinances but operates within the confines of ordinances and regulations of 16 other federal, state, and local agencies. The District also has the authority to operate the harbor area as a business in the interest of the public good. The District employs 3.5 full-time employees: a Manager (formerly known as Harbor Master), a Secretary/ Treasurer, a full-time maintenance person, and a half-time maintenance person. The District retains an advisory attorney. District Operation
CO6

The Grand Jury commends the cooperative attitude of the Risk Management Department. Response required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final 94 Mendocino County Promotional Alliance Since 1998, public funds have been allocated under contract to the Mendocino County Promotional Alliance (Alliance). Although the Alliance has fulfilled all of the terms of the contract, the contract itself is flawed in that it does not require evidence of measurable outcomes or return on investment. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors (Board) cease funding the Alliance at the completion of the current contract. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed two County Supervisors, the County Administrator, the Tax Assessor, the Executive Director of the Alliance, an Economic Development Specialist, and employees from County Administrative Offices in four comparable counties. The Grand Jury reviewed County Code, section 5.17.060, websites from the California tourism board, the job description for the County’s Economic Development Coordinator, notes from Board meetings concerning the Alliance proposal to the Board, the current contract between Board and Alliance, Alliance press packet, recent newspaper articles regarding the Alliance, a Joint Tourism and Agricultural Promotion Feasibility Study, Alliance financial statements prepared by their accountants, Alliance marketing activities for the first quarter of 2000-01, Alliance incorporation papers, by-laws, financial statement, three-year plan, and history of the organization. Background Information In 1996, a private organization promoting the wine industry met with an ad-hoc committee of lodging operators to create a promotional partnership between the wine and tourism industries. The committee’s goal was to obtain public funding to promote tourism and agriculture within the County. In 1997, the Board obtained grant funding from the United States Department of Forestry to study ways of softening the financial effects of the economic downturn in the timber industry. The then County Economic Development Coordinator was charged with the preparation of the grant proposal, which eventually led to a consultant-prepared study titled Mendocino County Joint Tourism and Agricultural Promotion Feasibility Study (Study). As a part of the Study, a twenty- person advisory committee (Committee), including 13 participants representing the wine and hospitality industries, created a proposal to the Board to create a public- private partnership. Response (Mendocino County Alliance): We agree that the winery and lodging industries began to organize the Alliance in 1996. But the goal was not to obtain public funding, it was to create a marketing partnership between those industries. There were only 8 wine and hospitality industry representatives on the Advisory Committee – not 13. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 95 Before the winery and lodging industries began organizing the Alliance in 1996, the first step towards creating the Alliance occurred in 1995 when the “Mendocino Winegrower’s Alliance” (MWA) set a goal of creating such a promotional partnership. Before 1997 the County was not involved in these efforts. Two things in that year involved the County. First, in 1997 the first of two ballot initiatives involving the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate was on the ballot. A County sponsored ballot initiative to maintain the TOT rate at 10% failed and the rate was reduced to 8%. County officials asked the groups that were creating the Alliance and other business associations to organize a campaign to increase the rate back to 10%. These groups organized “Citizens for Measure G” and provided nearly all the funding and organization for the campaign. Measure G won. If the rate had not been raised to 10%, the County wold have received about $800,000 less TOT during the 2000-2001 fiscal year. The industries that created and supported the campaign do not feel that the success of that campaign created any entitlement to TOT funding. Also during 1997 the County and two private sector sponsors obtained federal funding to conduct the Study described by the Grand Jury above. (See Finding 1 below) The private groups organizing the Alliance and the County realized they were addressing many of the same issues. They agreed to meet together by forming the Advisory Group for the Study. Shortly after the completion of the Study several private sector associations completed the organization and incorporation of the Mendocino County Promotional Alliance, which operates as the “Mendocino County Alliance”. The Study recommended that the Board accept the Committee’s proposal to create a public-private partnership, between the County and the Mendocino County Promotional Alliance, a non-profit corporation, to promote tourism and agriculture for the County. The Alliance’s original mission statement, included in the proposal, stated, “The mission of the Mendocino County Promotional Alliance is to: (cid:1) Promote the broad categories of high quality goods and services produced in Mendocino County for which the concept of Mendocino County as origin adds value; (cid:1) Promote such Mendocino County products that are sold to consumers living outside the County; (cid:1) Develop and promote a general image of Mendocino County that enhances the marketing ability of all Mendocino industries with compatible products; (cid:1) Promote the use and cross marketing of local products by our local industries and consumption of local products by local consumers; (cid:1) Emphasize promotions which can lead to significant growth in jobs and private earnings and increase the tax base, particularly the Transient Occupancy Tax, Sales Tax, and Property Tax; (cid:1) Operate as a private-public partnership based on the real commitment of significant resources from both the public and private sectors. The Alliance will not: 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 96 (cid:1) Duplicate the mission of the Economic Development and Financing Corporation or other economic development entities by financing or promoting new firms or industries or product categories in the County; (cid:1) Promote products made outside of the County except as it helps to enhance the image of Mendocino County; (cid:1) Assist any individual firm, but rather will concentrate on industry and countywide promotions.” The Alliance received $277,000 from the County general fund for the 1998-99 fiscal year. The funding was increased to $421,000 the following year. During the 2000– 2001 budget hearing, the Board rejected Alliance’s request to increase funding to $683,000, and kept funding at $421,000. The Alliance continues a contractual relationship with the Board. Included in the contract is Exhibit A. Exhibit A lists 17 intended programs and four goals. The four goals are, “Further develop accounting programs for tracking private sector participation in MCPA programs; Develop further private sector financial support for the Alliance; Remit payment of Mendocino County’s fees for Redwood Empire Association membership; Develop a County wide Calendar of Events.”
CO7

When granting contracts, the Board and the County Administrator ensure that more oversight power is written into contracts. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Promotional Alliance 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 109
CO8

Certification of Part-time Coaches Certification of part-time coaches in Mendocino County schools is important to the safety of our students and required by Education Code 5593. Based on a Grand Jury survey and responses received, the schools are in compliance. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury mailed requests to superintendents of the nine Mendocino County school districts that have high school athletic programs. The Grand Jury received and read copies of every certification record of each part-time coach employed for the academic year 2000-20001 and checked the information against the rosters received. Background Information Part-time coach certification requires that anyone so-employed will be qualified to instruct students. Furthermore, the certification also attests that the coaches have been tested to be free of tuberculosis and have no criminal record. The obvious benefits of this certification are beyond question. Finally, Education Code 5593 requires certification. It is the law.
CO9

The Grand Jury is pleased to report that certification is the best this year than at any time during the three years of inquiry. The Grand Jury commends people who have worked to improve the procedure year after year. Response Required None 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 111
CO10

Mendocino Unified School District Board of Trustees The Mendocino Unified School District Board of Trustees (Board), an elected five- member school board has had a troubled previous year with numerous Brown Act violations and turmoil surrounding personnel decisions. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed Board members, Mendocino Unified School District school administration staff and District area citizens. The Grand Jury attended a community town hall meeting in October 2000, two Board meetings in January of 2001, and three public forum meetings. The Grand Jury examined financial records, contracts, Board policy and procedure manuals, meeting agendas, minutes, and other documents. Background Information The Board is responsible for a unified school district encompassing the Town of Mendocino and surrounding areas, including Comptche and Elk. The Grand Jury received several complaints alleging that during 2000, the Board had violated the Brown Act relating to board meeting agendas, posting of notices, and reporting of meeting actions. The complaints also included charges that the Board had not followed proper hiring and management procedures. The Brown Act states in part: The public commissions, boards and councils and other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the peoples business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them, the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. (Govt. Code §54950) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting and be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public. (Govt. Code §54954.2) All actions taken in closed session, when final must be reported publicly together with specifics on which members voted which way. Documents 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 113 embodying agreements reached in closed session must be released to the public, either immediately after the meeting if requested in advance, or by the end of the next business day. (Govt. Code §54954.3)
CO11

The Grand Jury recognizes and supports the Board for the initial steps they have taken to work more closely with the local community. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 115 Response Required Mendocino Unified School District Board of Trustees 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 116 Mendocino-Lake Community College Board of Trustees The Mendocino-Lake Community College Board of Trustees (Board) governs Mendocino College (College), balancing the needs of the community, the advice of the College President/Superintendent (President), and the mandates of the State. Areas of concern include the Board’s lack of understanding of its responsibilities to direct rather than follow the President, incomplete information the Board receives, an inadequate grievance process, a lack of public and constituent participation in the Board process, and Brown Act violations. With a new President, the Board has the opportunity to consider new approaches to communication with its constituents and staff. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed all seven members of the Board individually and as a Board, the College President, Academic Vice-President, Financial Vice-President, Deans, Faculty Senate President, and faculty members. The Grand Jury reviewed the College Board Policies and Administrative Regulations, Handbooks for each of the bargaining units, Mendocino College 2000 (MC2000), the California Community College League Board of Trustees Handbook, the California Education Codes relating to Board responsibilities, and the Brown Act, California Government Code §54950 et seq. The Grand Jury reviewed grievance procedures from Contra Costa and Foothill-DeAnza Community Colleges. The Grand Jury also reviewed files of claims against the College from 1990 to March 2001 and Board agendas for the corresponding time periods. The Grand Jury reviewed Board Agendas, Minutes, and Reports from August 1999 to April 2001. Representatives of the Grand Jury attended Board meetings between September 2000 and May 2001, and toured the Ukiah campus. Background Information The Board has seven representatives elected from geographical areas in Mendocino and Lake Counties. Board Policy 001 states, “The supervision of the College’s program and centers of this District shall be conducted by the Board of Trustees.” The Board hires a President to serve as chief school officer and Secretary to the Board. The President administers all College programs and staff. In January 2001, the current President announced that he would retire this summer. The Board is currently in the process of selecting a new President and is scheduled to make a decision in August. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 117 The Board meets on the first Wednesday of each month and at other times as necessary. The Board receives official reports and information at Board meetings from the following: a. President’s Report b. Staff Reports c. Faculty Senate Minutes and the Faculty Senate President d. Student Representative Board Member e. Classified Staff Report f. Management/confidential Staff Report g. Financial information from Financial Vice-President h. Other reports as necessary by Administration or requested by the Board. In addition, there is a public participation item on each agenda and the public may speak on other agenda items.
CO12

Mandatory dog licensing with required rabies vaccination helps to prevent the spread of rabies among pets and humans. The Grand Jury commends the Animal Control Director for pursuing an amnesty period and hopes that the County publicized the amnesty with information stating why, how, and where to obtain dog licenses. Response Required None “Transient Occupancy Tax,” 1998-99 The Treasurer-Tax Collector stated: “The 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report, as a hold over from the 1998-99 report, recommended that the Board of Supervisors review with the Treasurer the current procedures for identifying facilities required to pay the TOT, for collecting taxes from the identified facilities and for enforcing compliance. At the time of the issuance of the Grand Jury report the procedures for enforcement of the TOT Ordinance were unwritten procedures which had evolved over time within the office and were primarily handled by one particular staff member at any given time, but were also known by all other members of the office due to cross training procedures in existence within the office. In compliance with the Grand Jury recommendation the following written procedures were compiled using the many years of experience dealing with TOT collections by staff within the Treasurer-Tax Collectors Office. I am sure that these procedures will change with time and as new sources of advertising the availability of short term rental facilities evolve.” (To the Board of Supervisors for the March 13, 2001 Board Meeting) 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 143

No Responses Found 1

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

Mendocino County County