Grand Jury Report 2002-2003

I, (Sheriff Gary T. Carlson) along with Assistant SheriffrMark Pazin and Correctional Administration, met with representatives of the Merced County Sheriffs Employee Association and discussed the issues at hand. We agreed on a course of action that met both of our concerns and subsequently the Writ ofMandate has been withdrawn. This matter will be worked out in upcoming MO U's with Merced County and the Merced County Sheriff "s Department Policies and Procedures. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Merced County Sheriff's Department-Complaint Number 01-02-24 Grand Jury Recommendation #1 The County, including elected officials, needs to apply county rules and policies in a fair and equitable manner, regardless of the person's position. 2002-2003 GrandJuryReport -53- Response Every member of County Government is required to apply all laws, rules, and regulations and policies in afair and equitable manner, regardless of a person's position Anything less is unacceptable. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #2 Since there is no policyfor disciplinary action against elected employees, the County needs to develop and enforce a mechanism to protect the employees and itselffrom sexual harassment issues. Response, The Sheriffs of this State are held to standards much higher than other positions within the County or State. The Peace Officer's Code ofEthics spells out standards. The Grand Jury can be impaneled to check on the Sheriff's actions and the State Attorney General oversees the various Sheriff's conduct. Please let's not forget secret ballot elections and the ability of the voters to decide if a person gets thejob or retains it. Last, but not least, the ability of the voters to recall an elected ofcial . Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #3 The county's F.F,OC officer should be able to seek legal opinions outside of County Counsel so the employee's complaint does not present a conflict of interest with county liability. Response The duties of the County Counsel include representing the county against claims of liability and providing legal advice to the Board of Supervisors, the ChiefExecutive Officer, all department heads and elected officials. In that capacity, the County Counsel is the only authorized legal advisor to the county's Equal Employment Opportunity Officer. There is no conflict of interest, as a matter of low, because the mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer and the County Counsel are the same : to assure that the county, its officers, employees and departments comply with the law. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #4 The Sherif's Department needs to enforce policies for investigation of wrongdoing by officials in the department so they do not end up investigation themselves. These 2002-2003 Grand Jurv Revort -54- procedures should include employingprivate outside investigators to conduct independent investigations. Response We have and do retain outside investigative services to deal with sensitive or high profile matters occurring within the department. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #5 The Sheriff's Office must actively enforce the zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment. Response The Sheriff adheres to the Zero Tolerance Policyfor sexual harassment and has all complaints investigated and matters referred to the F.F,OC Officer and County Administration. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. 2002-2003 GrandJuryReport

The facility is clean, modern, and well equipped. • This facility provides Medi Cal covered mental health services as mandated under the California Welfare and Institutions Code. Services include assessment, treatment for acute psychiatric problems, and brief total psychiatric care . Under 2002-2003 GrandJuryReport California Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 a person may be detained involuntarily at this facility for 72 hours for evaluation and treatment of mental disorders. • The staff consists of nurses, mental health workers, counselors, a social worker, a contracted doctor, and the site coordinator. • Five nurses work on various shifts in a twenty-four hour period. • Extended inpatient care is contracted with Merced Manor and a California State Hospital for individuals with serious mental illness . • No patient deaths have occurred at this facility. • Food is _prepared at the Sandy Mush Correctional facility and transported to the center. • The patients' clothes are laundered on site . Children's System of Care • This department moved in January of 2003 from a facility (located at 380 E . 13' Street in Merced) that provided outpatient services for both adults and children. That facility now serves outpatient adults only. The move was primarily due to overcrowded conditions but also served to separate the location of services for outpatient adults and outpatient children. The facility at the new location is clean, provides privacy for client consultation, is adequate for the number of clients currently served, and is located in close proximity to a Merced County Transit has stop. • Clients continued to be served during the time the facility at the new location was being organized and readied for staff • The Children's System of Care provides mental health services for Medi-Cal beneficiaries as mandated by the California Welfare and Institutions Code . A small percentage of the clients served have private insurance. Ages eligible to be served at this outpatient facility are birth to 21 . Average ages served are nine through sixteen. Eight hundred clients are served yearly. Inpatient care for children is contracted with a Group Home pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code 5670-5676.5. • Services available include assessment ; individual, family, and group therapy; case management, medication support, and Therapeutic Behavior Services (T.B.S.) which is a short term one-on-one service for fully covered Medi-Cal beneficiaries. 2002-2003 GrandJuryReport • The staff consists of one child psychiatrist, one nurse, two psychologists, ten clinicians, ten mental health workers, seven clerical support employees, one educational psychologist (contracted through the Merced County Office of Education), two probation officers (contracted through the Merced County Probation Department), one child welfare social worker, two managers, and the coordinator. • The caseload for each clinician is fifty to seventy-five clients. These caseloads are shared by the mental health workers who do the field work (home and school visits). • Children are referred. by schools within the county, the Merced County Probation Department, and the Merced County Department of Human Resources . • Children's System of Care partners with schools, Child Protective Services, Merced County Probation Department, Central Valley Regional Center, and Family Service Center. • The allocation for children's services is approximately 25% of the Merced County Department of Mental Health budget. Grant monies in the amount of $400,000 accounted for about one fourth of the 2002-2003 budget for Children's System of Care. COMMENDATION The staff at Children's System of Care is commended for the capable handling of client services during the process of organizing the facility at the new location . The facility is well organized for the efficient use of available space . 2002-2003 Grand JuryReport MERCED COUNTY OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER INTRODUCTION The Grand Jury has the discretionary responsibility to review county facilities and departments. The facility under review in this report is the Office of the Public Defender, 2150. M St., Merced. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 9/5/02 The committee met with a client of a contract public defender. 10/3/02 The Grand Jury Law committee visited and toured the office of the Public Defender. The Public Defender led the tour. 10/15/02 The committee met with a Deputy Public Defender regarding contract public defenders. 5/1/03 The committee met with the Public Defender in his office for an interview . Another tour of the facility was given immediately following this interview. FINDINGS • The Public Defender's Office has 13 attorneys and three clerical staff An additional half-time staff member is assigned to the Los Banos Office of the Public Defender (not reviewed). Two private investigators and three part-time jail interviewers are on staff • Contract public defenders are not managed by the Public Defender's Office . • Contract public defenders are hired by the Merced County Executive Officer (CEO) or his designee. • Concerns exist regarding the hiring of unqualified contract public defenders. • The total cases per year handled by the Public Defender's Office is between 9,000-10,000. The number of cases in one year peaked over 12,000 . Each attorney handles between 800-900 cases per year depending upon the balance between misdemeanor and felony cases. This caseload is monitored by the Public Defender. 2002-2003 GrandJuryReport • The facility at 2150 M St., Merced, is conveniently and appropriately located near the courts. • The facility is over-crowded and inappropriate for a professional legal office. Many of the attorneys share office space. Most of the walls do not go to the ceiling, many offices double as walkways to other offices, and insulation is poor if it exists, making privacy and confidentiality nonexistent. • The carpeting is well worn and dirty, as are the seat covers on chairs in the waiting area. Dirt and dust is apparent behind the doors . The break room, which doubles as the library, has visible marks on the ceiling from an upstairs toilet, which has a history of overflowing. • It was reported by the Public Defender that the assignment and review of facilities is the responsibility of the Merced County CEO . • It was reported that the CEO has never visited this facility . • It was reported that three members of the Merced County Board of Supervisors visited t4e facility five years ago.

Therefore this complaint will be forwarded to the 2003-2004 Grand Jury for consideration. #02-03-17 The complainant was advised that other avenues of resolution were available and that the Grand Jury would take no action. #02-03-18 This complaint was anonymous and no action was taken. #02-03-29 The complainants were advised that court cases are not within the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. 2002-2003 Grand Jurv Report RESPONSES TO THE 2001-2002 GRAND JURY REPORT Merced County Department of Public Works, Road Division Grand Jury Recommendation #1 In order to prevent the costly reconstruction of roads, it is imperative that funding resources be explored which can provide the revenue necessary for a maintenance program to preserve the 1,100 miles ofroads which exist in this county. It is recommended that all agencies work cooperatively and that revenue be shared in the best interest ofprotecting the public's investment in the existing road system. Response We could not agree more with the Grand Jury's recommendation. Additionalfunding sources are continually being investigated by this Department to help meet the huge shortfall of current road maintenance costs compared to current revenues. The Road Fund received $150, 000 in General Fund support in Fiscal Year 2001/2002 and the Department has requested an additional $150, 000 in the 20Q212003 budget from the Board ofSupervisors. We are also working with the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) to seek additional revenue sources, including their upcoming 1/2 cent sales tax measure, Measure M, which will go before Merced County voters in November to fund Countywide transportation needs, and has a significant amount dedicated to road and street maintenance. We also intend to continue to petition the MCAG Governing Board to release another portion oftheir "Regional Choice "funding, as allowed by SB-45, for road and street preservation needs. Lastly, the Department remains active in .ef, forts to seek greater equity in the distribution ofgas tax revenues between urban and rural counties in California. Current distributionformulas are greatly weighted towards the more highly urbanized counties. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #2 Policies andprocedures regarding the collection ofImpact Fees must be developed and put into place immediately. It is recommended that a set schedule for the timely notice of all delinquent fees be included and that a copy of such notices be sent to the Planning Department. It is strongly recommended that the Conditional Use Permit Agreement be revised to include an audit provision. All Conditional Use Permit Agreements must be signed by the applicant. Response We also agree with the Grand Jury in this regard and have implemented the attached policy to assure that road impact fees are collected and accountedfor on a timely basis. This policy also addresses a procedure relative to delinquent fee payments, up to and 2002-2003 Grand Turn Report including revocation of the project's use permit if necessary. Language will be added to future road impactfee agreements that describes the consequences involved ifpayments are not made timely. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #3 In consideration of safety and county liability, careful thought must be given to more appropriate supervision of the work-in-lieu prisoners . Response The Public Works Department will continue to explore this issue with the Sheriffs Office to provide a level of supervision and training commensurate with the safety and liability risks involved. In general, we havefound the work-in-lieu trustees to be hard working, safety conscious and a great benefit to our roadside refuse collection and maintenance efforts. We would use more of these workers but there is competipion for them from other local public agencies. The Sheriffs Office has been most cooperative with regard to the occasional trustee who did not d4play a good work ethic . Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Merced County District Attorney Grand Jury Recommendation #1 The Board of Supervisors should consider evaluating the need tp consolidate the offices of the District Attorney or possibly including the department in a court complex. Response There was no response received from the Board of Supervisors. Grand Jury Follow-up This issue will be referred to the Grand Jury, 2003-2004, for consideration. Grand Jury Recommendation #2 The Board of Supervisors should evaluate the need to add another general-purpose investigator. Response There was no response received from the Board of Supervisors. Grand Jury Follow-up This issue will be referred to the Grand Jury, 2003-2004, for consideration. 2002-2003 Grand Jurv Rei,ort Grand Jury Recommendation #3 The Board of Supervisors should address the need to raise the salaries of the investigating officers to the Seven County Survey Average (a Merced County salary survey which compares salaries in seven surrounding counties) as soon as the budget allows. Response There was no response received from t1e Board of Supervisors. Grand Jury Follow-up This issue will be referred to the Grand Jury, 2003-2004, for consideration. Merced County Juvenile Detention Center Grand Jury Recommendation The GrandJury recommends that the County give priority to the scheduled building of the new Juvenile Hall facility. Response Regarding the Grand Jury's recommendation "that the County give priority to the scheduled buildingofthe new Juvenile Hall facility" this writer is happy to report that ground breaking on the new facility took place on July 9, 2002. Construction is underway with a scheduled completion date ofDecember 2003. Planning is also underway for the programs that will be put in place when thefacility opens. Occupancy is anticipated to occur in the first quarter of 2004. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Los Banos Police Department and City Jail Grand Jury Recommendations The Grand Jury had no recommendations. Response No response received. Grand Jury Follow-up No fellow up was necessary. 2002-2003 Grand Jurv Report Merced County Sheriff's Department Main Jail and Sandy Mush Facilities Grand Jury Recommendation #1 The Counhats yann obligation to create new detention facilities to ensure the safety of its residents. Response f We obviously agree with the above and although, over the years this has been discussed with the Board ofSupervisors by past Administrations, concrete commitments and action must be made to ensure that we protect the general public. Our department will, in the very near future, establish a committee much like the one we experienced with the Juvenile Hall new construction to identify a location, establish the amount of beds needed to house the criminal element and secure the funding for building and staffing. This is a much-needed project. (Note: We have made adjustment with the approval ofBoard of Corrections and increased our inmate capacity at Sandy Mush from 445 to 508 in custody over the last year.) Grand Jury Follow-up 9/20/02 The Grand Jury toured the Main Jail at 700 W. 22nd St., Merced and the Correctional Center at 2584 W. Sandy Mush Rd., Merced. (See findings and recommendations of Mandated Inspection in 2002-2003 grand Jury Report.) 2/13/03 A Grand Jury subcommittee revisited the Correctional Center to interview Commander Bill Atkinson regarding report recommendations . The Grand Jury received and reviewed a report, Staffing Analysis, Merced County Sheriff's Department, Jail Operations Division, prepared by the California Board of Corrections, March 2003. This report supports the Grand Jury's concerns regarding staffing. Grand Jury Recommendation #2 The County must budget for more correctional officers to be in compliance with Title 15 and to ensure the safety of the employees of the Sherifls Department as well as the inmates they house. Response Agree. We will be bringingproposals to the Board of Supervisors during the next budget hearings. It must be noted that the last year has put a drain on all public safety in the aftermath ofSeptember 11th. We had operational and correctional personnel called to active duty along with job injuries and extended leaves due to medical conditions and pregnancies. Our agency has had to expend a substantial amount ofovertime to keep up with the minimum requirement of the day-to-day operations of the Correctional Facilities. Our staff has done an exemplary job making ends melt every day. Our Board of Supervisors and County Administration have been strong supporters of our law 2002-2003 Grand Jurv Report enforcement mission and Ifeel confident that together with our employee organizations, the Board of Supervisors, County Administration and Board of Corrections, we will identify the needs and handle this particular problem. Grand Jury Follow-up See, Follow-up of#1 above. The Grand Jury, 2002-2003, reviewed Grand Jury Reports concerning the Correctional Center going back 11 years. Eight of those 11 yearly reports noted inadequate staffing numbers. Grand Jury Recommendation #3 The Sheriff's Department should explore the benefits of hiring additional officers and its results in reducing overtime costs. Response This issue was addressed in part in 2. a In addition the hiring ofadditional staff would reduce overtime expenditures, use of sick leave and increase morale. The increased staffing would promote officer safety and public safety. Grand Jury Follow-up See Follow-up of #1 and #2 above. Grand Jury Recommendation #4 The Sheri, ff`''sDepartment, along with the County, should immediately look into the feasibility and implementation of similar programs like Placer County's as new revenue sources. Response Agree. This recommendation will be looked into by Sherif f's CorrectionalAdministration. Grand Jury Follow-up See Follow-up of #1 above. Grand Jury Recommendation #5 The County shouldform a committee to propose a measure to fund new construction of detention/justice facilities. The Grand Jury should review this committee's implementation and progress. Response Already addressed in this report, refer to 2. a. Grand Jury Follow-up See Follow-up of #1 above. 2002-2003 Grand Jurv Report Grand Jury Recommendation #6 The County should budget for a sole grant writer to be dedicated to Merced County's law enforcement agencies. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Report Response We currently have aposition within the department that has been vacant due to recruitment problems to find a qualified person for that position . The past position was filled by a person that went to Fresno County for better pay and benefits. Grand Jury Follow-up See Follow-up of # 1 above. This recommendation has not been implemented. Grand Jury Recommendation #7 The County needs to create a long-term detention facility plan. Response We have submittedproposals in a studyform in the past and will continue to re-evaluate andfurther study the issue using all available resources and Sheriffs Correctional Administration. Grand Jury Follow-up See Follow-up of#1 above. Grand Jury Recommendation #8 The County needs to create a long-term staffing plan for the Sheri's Department . Response This has been addressed in 2a. Grand Jury Follow-up See Follow-up of #2 above. Grand Jury Recommendation #9 Automating the phone system in the Sherift's Department would free up the Security Systems Operators to concentrate on Minute Order updates, accuracy, releases, etc. Response The Main Jail Facility currently has an automatedphone system and our Merced County Adult Correctional Facility will have the system in the near future. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. 2002-2003 Grand Jurv Report Grand Jury Recommendation #10 A simple automated LD. reader system to checkfor warrants would streamline and expedite the current manual process, providingfor greater accuracy. Response We are constantly exploring a better way, be it through CAL LD or LiveScan, to quickly provide positive identification ofpersons entering into our Justice System. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #11 A video camera focused on the front door of administration at the Sandy Mush Facility would ensure the safety of staff during nighttime releases. Response We already have a camera at that location, however it does not rotate. We will look into upgrading that particular camera. Grand Jury Follow-up See Follow-up of #1 above. Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #12 An automated front door for the Security Systems Operator to open at Sandy Mush Administration would help improve safety of staff during nighttime releases. Response It would be a nice feature to have, but it is not our top priority qt this time. We will look into it in the future. Grand Jury Follow-up See Follow-up of#1 above. Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #13 The front desk area of Sandy Mush should be made bullet prooffQr the safety ofstaff and inmates alike. Response We will look into getting this security issue addressed in our upcoming budget hearings . Grand Jury Follow-up See Follow-up of#1 above. Response accepted. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Report Grand Jury Recommendation #14 The Sheriffs Department needs to implement a policyfor housing two-officer inmates on the groundfloor cells to provide for officer safety. Response This will be part of our staffing study. We hope to incorporate the expertise of the Board of Corrections with this study. Grand Jury Follow-up See Follow-up of #2 above. Grand Jury Recommendation #15 The Sheriffs Department needs to implement a policy that dictates how many inmates one officer can transport back andforth from Sandy Mush to the Main Jail Response This will be part of our staffing study. Grand Jury Follow-up See Follow-up of #2 above. Grand Jury Recommendation #16 Only trained Correctional Officers need to be used to handle every aspect of inmate supervision. Response Correctional Officers are neededfor any and all direct contact With inmates. We need to assure that our Security Systems Operators are not required to have direct contact with inmates without a Correctional Officer present. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #17 Budgeting must be made so an additional Correctional Officer can be added to the kitchen area to ensure everyone's safety. Response This will be looked at in the Needs Assessment of Staffing Study. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Report Grand Jury Recommendation #18 It is recommended that the Sherff's Department look into the feasibility of having a safety consultant review all aspects of the department. Response We will contact the Board of Corrections to see if they can assist in this area. Grand Jury Follow-up See Follow-up of #2 above. Response accepted. Atwater Police Department-Complaint Number 01-02-01 Grand Jury Recommendation #1 The Atwater Police Department should immediately correct on the website the inaccurate personal information on missing person Anthony Bass. Response The Atwater Police Department's website regarding partial misinformation about Anthony Bass was corrected on the date it was brought to our attention by members of the grandjury. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #2 The Atwater Police Department should establishprocedures jor posting, investigating, and monitoring missing person cases and information. Response The Atwater Police Department has had in place, for over ten years a Standard Operating Procedure for handling and investigating Missing Persons. If the GrandJury found that the Atwater Police Department did not comply with it's own procedures in handling Missing Persons regarding the Anthony Bass case, then where are the facts indicating our non-compliance with our own SOP. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. 2002-2003 Grand Jury Report - 4-Ci4ty of Atwater and Chief of Atwater Police-Complaint Number 01-02-02 Grand Jury Recommendation #1 The bylaws of the PAL organization and the Atwater Police Assignment Description should reflect how the two documents interface with regard to the hiring andfiring of the Executive Director and the director's role and responsibilities to each organization. Response The Bylaws and the Assignment Description for the A twater Potioe Activities League Executive Director are in the process of being interfaced so as they will not be in conflict with each other. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #2 ChiefMoore must ensure he has the legal right to seize property before doing so. Response I never seized anyproperty belonging to the Atwater Police Activities League. The keys mentioned in the 2001-2002 Grand Jury Report were never turned over to the police department. Minutes, records and check books were turned over to the PAL auditor by the President of the PAL board and not to the police department. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #3 ChiefMoore must ensure he has the right to submit a list of new board members to a non-profit organization even if it is sponsored by the Atwater Police Department . Response The list ofpotential new board members that I submitted was at the request of the City Council and the existing PAL board at that time. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #4 The City Council and Mayor should restrict their comments and recommendations to the limit of their legal power. It is not the City Council or the Mayor's place to determine who should or should not run a non-profit organization. Response No response received from either the Atwater City Council or its Mayor. 2002-2003 Grand Jurv Report Grand Jury Follow-up No action taken. Grand Jury Recommendation #5 The contract between the PAL organization and the City ofAtwater to lease the kart facility should be honored as a legitimate contract free f om threats, as would occur with any other profit or nonprofit business. Response No response received from the City of Atwater. Grand Jury Follow-up No action taken. Grand Jury Recommendation #6 ChiefMoore must not interfere with node profit business affairs. Response What I have learned out of all this is at that particular point in time, I did not have the authority to interfere with the PAL organization as it was a non-profit organization or make recommendations on behalf of the PAL. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. City of Livingston-Complaint Number01-02-05 Grand Jury Recommendation The monthlyf nancial reports should be clarified as to the actual cash balances of each account versus the fund balances. This will make clear the question of interest bearing and non-interest bearing accounts and actual balances. Response No response receivedfrom the City of Livingston. Grand Jury Follow-up No action taken. Planada School District-Complaint Number 01-02-07 Grand Jury Recommendation #1 The Board of Trustees must realize that they cannot hire, promote or contract for services of their immediate families during their terms as trustees . 2002-2003 Grand Jurv Report Response The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented within ninety (90) days. The Governing Board will schedule a conflict of interest seminar with its legal counsel and/or the Merced County Office ofEducation. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #2 Hiring procedures should be reviewed andpossibly revised. Every effort should be made to draw the largest number of applicants for a given position. Response The recommendation has been implemented. By reference to this recommendation, the Governing Board hereby directs District staff to seek the largest number of applicants for a given position, within the confines of existing collective bargaining agreements . Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #3 It is recommended that the Planada School Board requests education in the Brown Act from the County Schools Office. It is vital that small school districts have access to the laws regarding their decision-making. Response The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented within ninety (90) days. The Governing Board will schedule a conflict of interest seminar with its legal counsel and/or the Merced County Office ofEducation. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #4 Board members-elect should be in-serviced in their responsibilities under the law before assuming office. Response The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be before a newly-elected board member takes office. After each regularly scheduled governing board election, and before board members take office, the Merced County Office of Education provides an all day training workshop for newly-elected board members . Newly elected board members will be highly advised to attend this workshop. 2002-2003 Grand Jurv Report Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #5 The Brown Act is a method of conducting business that results in fairness to all . The of Grand Jury feels strongly that the Board Trustees must operate within the rules and regulations of the Brown Act. Failure to do so may result in continued investigation of the School Board by future Grand Juries. Response This recommendation has been implemented. The Governing Board believes that it has diligently complied with the Brown Act and will continue to do so. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Merced County Management Services-Comp'aint Number 01-02-10 Grand Jury Recommendation #1 Management Services must develop and implement a testing procedure for clerical-skill applicants. Response The report also recommends Management Services develop andimplement a testing procedure for clerical-skill applicants. Clerical testing is still used by some employers. While once done by the County, it was abandoned many years ago as not being a time/cost effective qualifying tool. Many County departments do include skill testing as of part their hiring interviews. This is acceptable and encouraged if the department feels such testing is necessary to ensure success in a position. Clerical positions vary greatly in the skills they require and the degree to which such skills are needed in proportion to of the overall responsibilities the job. To impose a rigid testing standard might serve to exclude some applicants who would otherwise possess the skills to be successful in some positions. f3rand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #2 of In order to recruit a fair selection qualified applicants, Management Services must implement a procedure to ensure proof of all educational and training documentation. Response The Grand Jury further recommends a procedure be established to ensure proof of all educational and training documentation Within the scope of County service, there are 2002-2003 Grand Jurv Report positions which require very specific credentials, licenses, certfcates, etc. Departments are expected to verify such credentials prior to hiring for those positions. Other positions require experience within a range ofpossible alternatives and staff must interpret whether each candidate's experience/education meets the minimum qualifications . It is our policy to "widen the circle" rather than to restrict it. Therefore we give the applicant the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Grand Jury Recommendation #3 Management Services must honor its own guidelines offair employment recruitment. Response Approximately 25, 000 applications are processed each year and very rarely does it occur that an employee falsifies information. To implement a standard procedure which would require staff time be taken with verifying education or other credential documentation on each application would not be cost effective. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Merced County District Attorney-Comp'aint Number 01-02-13 Grand Jury Recommendation Police ChiefMoore should make sure he has legal authority to seize property before doing so. Response No response received from the Merced County District Attorney. Grand Jury Follow-up No action taken. Atwater Police Department-Complaint Number 01-02-14 Grand Jury Recommendation #1 Any and all violations and/or incidents involving any citizen should be treated equally according to the law. Grand Jury Recommendation #2 ChiefMoore shouldfollow established procedures for voiding a citation. 2002-2003 Grand JurvRevort Grand Jury Recommendation #3 The Atwater Police Department should have a written policy antiprocedure for voiding tickets and require there be written documentation that the policy was followed. Response The Atwater Police Department is in the process of establishing written policy and procedures for voiding citations. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Atwater Police Department-Complaint Number 01-02-15 Grand Jury Recommendation Filing a complaint with the Police Department is the proper procedure to follow . This gives them the opportunity to act on the matter . The GrandJury can then investigate after this has occurred. Response The respondent agrees with the findings. Grand Jury Follow-up Response accepted. Atwater City Planning Commission-Complaint Number 01-02-16 Grand Jury Recommendation #1 Civil office appointments in question for the City ofAtwater must befullyreviewed by legal counsel and Atwater City Council members before being voted upon and granted . Response No response received from the Atwater City Planning Commission. Grand Jury Follow-up No action taken.