Mendocino County Grand Jury • 1998-1999

1998-1999 Final Report

Published: June 30, 1999 100 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.

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F12

Findings 21 findings

Contractor provides a program manager who is a Registered Nurse (RN) 40 hours per week, 24-hour coverage by a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN), a psychiatric technician for 20 hours per week, a physician for12 hours per week (on call 24 hours per day) and a psychiatrist (on call 24 hours per day). 2. Contractor staffing is adequate to meet requirements of the contract and, according to professional standards, the staff is qualified. The work load varies from relatively light to heavy but does not, according to respondents, become overwhelming. 3. The 1997-98 Grand Jury report called for an increase in physician coverage from three to five days a week, to meet CMA standards. Since then, CMA standards for physician coverage have been reduced. Contractor meets the new standard. However, Sheriff’s Department and Public Health Department officials have recommended that coverage be increased. 4. Interviews of Contractor staff indicate that morale appears to be good and the individual workers are pleased with the jobs they do. Medications Finding Questions arise about medication. Procedures are in place which would seem to ensure that prisoners needing medication do, in fact, get what they need, but prisoners continue to complain about the lack of or delays in receiving medication. Contractor gives assurances that they make all possible efforts to determine what medications prisoners require, either by noting what they have on their person when booked, by contacting personal physicians or by calling pharmacies. Contractor does comply with legal restrictions on delivery of certain drugs to known drug abusers, assuming the possibility of potential abuse or use of the drugs as currency; that is possibly a factor in some of the complaints received.

Between January 1997 and July 1998, MH Board members did not regularly attend meetings. • Only four meetings had a quorum (nine members). • Overall average MH Board attendance was 34%. • Only three of 15 MH Board members were present at the January 1998 meeting. January is the month for the election of officers.

Under new leadership between September 1998 and December 1998, members of the MH Board regularly attended board meetings. Meetings were conducted in a business-like manner and conformed to the published agenda. • All MH Board meetings had a quorum. • Overall average MH Board attendance was 77%. Board Autonomy The MH Board has a history of being manipulated and intimidated by the MH Department. There were attempts to manipulate and mislead the Grand Jury’s oversight investigation. The MH Department provided fabricated documents to the Grand Jury and failed to fully disclose essential information relating to this investigation.

The Animal Control Director stated that a goal of the department is to license dogs and ensure rabies vaccinations, not collect penalty fees. He stated that he has no record of what penalty fees might be due the County.

Laytonville High School submitted no roster and no certification forms, but sent a declaration stating that "Non-credentialed coaches receive regular supervision at practices and home games to assure proper practice and good game management." There was no mention of tuberculosis testing.

Round Valley High School submitted incomplete certification forms. There was no roster, only spotty documentation and no mention of tuberculosis testing.

There is no standard certification form being used by all districts.

The project does not conform with Section 18.72.050 of Fort Bragg Municipal Code: "The height of buildings and structures shall be measured vertically from the average ground level of the ground covered by the building to the highest point of the roof."

No variance was ever applied for to increase the height limitations.

F10

Evidence is lacking that the past City Planning Commission knew the details of what it was approving: ie. height.

F11

The 1996 hotel plans did not in any way resemble the original 1992 approved plans. There were also a new owner, a new architect, and different plans.

F13

There was no easy way to read indication of height on the plans.

F14

The architect for the project acknowledged in an open meeting that the project was at least 44 feet high; the architect has a responsibility to know the codes that would limit the height to 35 feet.

F15

At least one member of the Planning Commission knew the same to be true. At least some past and present members of the City Council consider this "minutia" and have various rationalizations regarding the project.

F16

Information supplied by the City Planning Director to various involved agencies was in many cases insufficient and inaccurate, thereby significantly contributing to the current maelstrom.

F17

The Coastal Commission never reviewed the 1996 plans because the Planning Director decided the design change was "minor."

F18

At least one planning commissioner believes they were intentionally "misled."

F19

In May 1998 when problems with the project surfaced, the City Manager hesitated and did not issue a stop work order. Pressure from the developer is alleged.

F20

The City Attorney July 8, 1998 memo to the developer noted problems and advised the developer that if he chose to continue construction, he would be liable for expenses.

F21

It appears the original Coastal Permit 10-92 was in conformity with the City LCP.

F22

The hotel as ultimately constructed is not in conformity with the City LCP.

Recommendations 9

R1

The PD must comply with all relevant Labor Code requirements. 2. The District Attorney should investigate the improper filing of workers compensation claims by the PD. Overtime Requirements
R2

The Board of Supervisors should order a report on licensing procedures from the Animal Control Director and amend the County Code. Comment The 1991 Grand Jury reported on the lack of a policy and procedures manual and recommended that one be written. The 1992 Grand Jury noted that Animal Control was in the process of developing a manual. It now appears that nothing has been done in regard to this manual since 1992. "Advisory Committee"
R3

The cost to property owners has ranged from $280 to $1,000 per lot (lots average 6,000 square feet in size). The BTCSD encourages land owners to contract privately for the work but in about 25% of the cases, work has been put up for public bid because nothing has been done. Greenbelt Areas
R4

Resolve all complaints in 90 days or less. Additionally, the uneven and inconsistent application of local and state statutes leaves any attempt at enforcement easily challenged and leaves the County vulnerable to litigation. Environmental Health Specialist The EHD relies upon two Environmental Health Specialists (EHS), six Registered Environmental Health Specialists (REHS) one of whom is a supervisor. The job description for each of these positions states that they receive "...supervision within a broad framework of standard policies and procedures." The EHS and REHS are assigned to a specific geographical area of the county. According to the EHD their activities include oversight of permitted uses such as building, construction and food handling concerning public health matters. They are also responsible for the inspection, follow-up, and resolution of the citizen complaints, including legal action if warranted, in their assigned geographical area.
R5

The Grand Jury directs the District Attorney to investigate the Environmental Health Division complaint process.
R6

The BOS should direct the Public Health Department to revise the position descriptions of Environmental Health Specialist I, II, and IV to more accurately reflect the responsibilities, duties and training as actually practiced by the division.
R7

The BOS should direct the County Administrator to provide a written report, quarterly, on the status of citizen complaints filed by all County departments. This must be institutionalized by the BOS through policy and procedures, using the Public Resources Council recommended guidelines. Response required Response requested Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mendocino County Public Health Department Mendocino County District Attorney Mendocino County Public Health Advisory Board How to Build a 55-foot-high Hotel in a 35-foot-high Zone in Fort Bragg On August 19, 1992, the City of Fort Bragg (City) approved the issuance of Coastal Permit 10-92 for demolition of an existing restaurant and the construction of a 40-unit resort hotel between Highway One and the Pacific Ocean adjacent to the north end of the Noyo River Bridge. The project site slopes steeply downward toward the Noyo River from the approximate level of Highway One at the north end of the site to approximately 55 feet below Highway One at the southern limit of construction. The elevation of the roof of the hotel as approved by the City in Coastal Permit 10-92 stepped down so as to follow the ground level. At its highest point, near the north end of the Noyo River Bridge, the hotel roof height was to be 55 feet above grade, 24 feet above Highway One. As approved in 1992, the southern most approximately 100 feet of the hotel was never to be more than 24 feet above grade and never above the level of the Noyo River Bridge. In addition, on August 19, 1992, the City approved the issuance of a scenic corridor review permit No. 2-92 (Corridor Permit 2-92) which was required by the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for projects in particularly sensitive view corridors. The project as approved in the corridor permit is identical to that approved in the coastal permit. On February 14, 1996, upon request of the developer, the City approved an amendment to Corridor Permit 2-92. The project approved in Corridor Permit 2-96 was significantly different from that approved in Coastal Permit 10-92 and Corridor 2-92. The building plan was changed from the multilevel stepped plan to a more rectangular shape with a more uniform height. The height of the hotel roof on the southern end of the building was increased to 55 feet. The hotel was constructed during 1997 and 1998. The finished hotel, however, did not comply with the terms of Coastal Permit 10-92. Reason for Review The Grand Jury reviewed this issue as one of significant importance confronting the citizenry. Method of Review The Grand Jury questioned past and present planning commissioners, board members, City Manager, and City Planner, either by interview or by letter. The Grand Jury reviewed much of the material contained in the chronology prepared by the Assistant City Manager. Interviews also included concerned citizens.
R8

Board members are active and very dedicated to the Hospital's success and survival as an independent entity.
R9

The Board gave itself very low marks in its 1997 self-evaluation, especially in the areas of Board knowledge, Board review and evaluation of itself and the CEO, Board meeting effectiveness, and Board teamwork. No self-evaluation was conducted in 1998. Board and Administration

Conclusions 1

CL1

The EHD is falling short of meeting its stated goals and vision. The Grand Jury is concerned that in regard to citizen complaints concerning liquid waste, the EHD does not adequately protect the public health. It does not adequately use its enforcement powers to protect the public when it clearly has the authority. Citizen complaints of environmental hazards are, for the most part, processed in a haphazard and unfocused manner without any guidelines. This failure to adequately document, review and otherwise manage complaints prevents, for the most part, any follow up enforcement action. Furthermore the uneven and at times arbitrary application of law, ordinances or other regulations by the division leaves the County vulnerable to citizen lawsuits. The EHS job descriptions do not accurately reflect the training and duties of the EHS. They must operate without any written guidelines and receive inadequate on-the-job training contrary to EHD stated policy and contrary the EHS job descriptions. The Grand Jury was unable to find any significant evidence, written or in testimony, that the EHD measures its performance relative to its stated goals and vision or in any other way measures its performance.

Comments 26

CO1

The Grand Jury found Jail personnel at all levels to be cooperative and helpful. The Jail staff appears to be competent and generally well-trained. However, it is not acceptable for the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors to operate a Jail which does not meet minimum standards for correctional institutions.
CO2

Understaffing is the cause of many of the problems found at the Jail. Understaffing creates a toll on correctional deputies, inmates, and the County as a whole, which no community can endure for long. It is time for the Sheriff and Board of Supervisors to take whatever steps are necessary to bring the Jail at least up to and preferably above minimal standards. Bringing staffing to full level would improve working conditions, reducing or eliminating mandatory overtime and stress, thus helping to eliminate staff turnover. 3 The Grand Jury is concerned that the Board of Supervisors, Sheriff, and CAO appear to use the budget as a public relations document to minimize public criticism of their failure to adequately staff the Jail. They quickly forget or choose to ignore commit-ments made to the citizens of Mendocino County. This conduct causes the Grand Jury to question their sincerity and commitment to achieving a solution to the staffing crisis. 4 The Grand Jury wishes to impress upon the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff that they have a responsibility to protect and maintain the citizens' property, in this instance, the Jail. To allow the Jail to deteriorate into its current condition makes the Grand Jury question if the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff fully understand this responsibility. 5 See separate report on medical care at the County’s detention facilities. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mendocino County Sheriff Response Requested General Services Director Mendocino County Juvenile Hall Administrative Practices Juvenile Hall, under the direction of the Department of Probation (DOP), provides for the physical and emotional care of incarcerated youth in Mendocino County pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Juvenile Facilities (Title 15) and Building Standards (Title 24). The Grand Jury focused on certain administrative practices which affect the well-being of the youth held in that facility. Reason for Review The Grand Jury conducted an oversight investigation of the administration of Juvenile Hall. Method of Investigation Methods included site visits, interviews with the Chief Probation Officer, Superintendent of Juvenile Hall, staff, and a private consultant, as well as review of pertinent state regulations, reports, budgets, and policies. Housing
CO3

Title 15 Article 6 Section 1370 notes that the County Board of Education or the chief probation officer may provide classes in: a. victim awareness b. conflict resolution c. anger management d. parenting skills e. juvenile justice f. self-esteem building g. effective decision making skills; and h. vocational education and pre-vocational skills. There are no specific classes offered by the school on these subjects though some are addressed peripherally.
CO4

Information technology is changing rapidly, posing a challenge for traditional library operations. Electronic devices are replacing not only the old 3X5 card file systems, but printed books as well. The County Library Director is aware of the issue.
CO5

The Grand Jury commends the BOS for increasing the funding of the Library.
CO6

The Grand Jury is impressed with the direction the Library is going and the efforts of the Director, staff, and volunteers. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Medical Services at the Mendocino County Adult Detention Facility The law requires counties to provide medical, dental and mental health care services to the inmates of adult detention facilities (Jails). The County has a ten-year contract with a private firm (Contractor) to provide these services according to California Medical Association (CMA) Standards.. That contract, which expires in 2001, will pay the Contractor $700,000 in 1998-99 out of which Contractor must pay for all equipment, supplies and services provided, retaining the remainder as profit. Reason for Review The Grand Jury received complaints about medical and mental health care at the Jail. The Grand Jury investigated these and reviewed Contractor’s performance as part of a review of Jail operations. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury reviewed documents from the State, the Sheriff’s office, the California Medical Association (CMA), the Board of Supervisors, inmate and former inmate jail files and material from interested citizens’ groups. The Grand Jury interviewed Contractor principals and medical staff, corrections personnel, inmates, County Health Department personnel and interested citizens. The Grand Jury also made several visits to observe Jail operations.. Contractor Staffing
CO7

In December 1998, the Board approved the use of not more than $400 to have a dinner for employees and guests. The actual dinner cost about $314. The Grand Jury believes that this was an appropriate use of this much money.
CO8

Mendocino County's "Special District Handbook" has not been updated since 1984 and is not widely available. The Board of Supervisors should provide for the revision of the "Special Districts Handbook" and should sponsor a training day for all Special Districts in the County using the expertise available in the various departments. Response required Millview Water District Board of Directors Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (regarding “Special District Handbook” and training) An Investigation of a Police Shooting of a Mentally-ill Citizen On July 16, 1998, a Ukiah Police Department (UPD) officer shot and fatally wounded a Conditional Release Program (CONREP) client of the Mendocino County Mental Health Department (MH Department). There were five primary elements considered in this investigation: (1) the MH Department client himself and his history of mental illness; (2) the MH Department and its involvement with the client; (3) the incident; (4) the police, their training and their actions; and (5) the legal document, California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150 (5150), that the police relied upon to authorize their confrontation of this mentally-ill man. Reason for Review The Grand Jury investigated this incident in response to citizens' complaints. One of the issues raised in the requests for this investigation was that of a racial bias. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury reviewed all documents and evidence held by the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office pertaining to its investigation of the incident; Policy and Procedure Manuals of UPD and the MH Department; the State Commission on Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) manuals pertinent to issues raised by this incident. The Grand Jury interviewed personnel from the UPD, Mendocino County Sheriff's Office, MH Department, Protection and Advocacy, and POST. Historical Perspective of the Mentally-ill Client The client had been found not guilty by reason of insanity for a 1981 felony false imprisonment and rape of his wife, with a special allegation of using a shotgun in the commission of a crime. He was diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic:chronic and served time in Napa and Atascadero State Hospitals before being released into the community July 18, 1986, as part of a CONREP, an outpatient treatment program administered locally by the MH Department. According to Court records, the original felony act in 1981 was the only previous violent or criminal behavior exhibited by the client. Mental Health Involvement
CO9

The 1991 Grand Jury reported on the lack of a policy and procedures manual and recommended that one be written. The 1992 Grand Jury noted that Animal Control was in the process of developing a manual. It now appears that nothing has been done in regard to this manual since 1992. "Advisory Committee"
CO10

The County must maintain the current separation between the Public Defender and the Alternate Public Defender. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mendocino County District Attorney Mendocino County Auditor-Controller Response Requested Mendocino County Public Defender Mendocino County Chief Administrative Officer Mendocino County Personnel Director Citizen Complaint of the Environmental Health Division The Environmental Health Division (EHD) is a division of the Public Health Department (PHD). The EHD stated mission is to safeguard the public from diseases, health hazards and lack of well-being related to air, water, food, sewage, hazardous materials, solid waste and other environmental factors. It does this by investigating and reporting on violations, real or alleged, which come to its attention. Violations can be corrected by the authority the Division has and if necessary through court action by the County Counsel and or District Attorney. The stated vision of the EHD is that the public understands and supports environmental compliance. In order to do this, there must be a fully staffed division functioning as a team. This team relies on education and/or its power of legal enforcement in order to protect the health and well-being of the citizens of Mendocino County. Where observed violations lie outside the purview of the Division, they are obligated to refer the problem to appropriate agencies. Reason for Review The Grand Jury investigated the complaint resolution process of the EHD as a result of receiving a complaint from numerous individuals in a neighborhood. Method of Investigation In order to determine the effectiveness of the complaint handling procedures utilized by the EHD the Grand Jury focused its inquiry on complaints involving liquid waste which are representative of all complaints. Interviews were conducted with the Environmental Health Director, Environmental Health Specialist (EHS), and the complainants. Liquid waste complaints received by the EHD for the years 1978 through 1998 were reviewed. With a detailed review of unresolved complaints for the year 1997 and through October 1998. The Grand Jury reviewed working documents of the Public Resources Council (PRC) relating to the proposed county wide standard complaint process for public health and safety issues. The Grand Jury conducted four site inspections in Fort Bragg and Willits. EHD and Citizen Complaints During 1997 and through October 1998, the EHD received a total of 908 citizen complaints, 226 remain open, uncompleted and unresolved. Of this total 197 complaints involved liquid waste and 49 remain open. Many complaints remain unresolved, one for as long as ten years and another one for over 20 years. In each of these two instances, there is documentary evidence in the files of activity as recently as 1998.
CO11

It will take courage for the Board of Supervisors to act in adopting a grading ordinance because there are many special interest groups that have blocked past efforts in this direction. Should the Board of Supervisors fail to take action on a grading ordinance, the citizens have the right to amend the General Plan through the initiative process. Response required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors. Jail Staffing and Facilities The Grand Jury’s review of the Mendocino County Adult Detention Facilities (Jail) revealed continuing deficiencies in staffing levels, with consequences as noted. Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury conducted an oversight review of County detention facilities. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed personnel and conducted site visits of the Jail in Ukiah, Fort Bragg Sheriff’s substation and holding facility at the Courthouse. The Grand Jury also interviewed members of the Sheriff’s command staff, Corrections Deputies and supervisors and other County officials and reviewed Jail and Board of Corrections (BOC) documents, including Jail inspection reports. Staffing
CO12

The new addition to Juvenile Hall has the potential to alleviate some of these problems, but it will be the responsibility of the administration to provide direction to these youths and not just detention. Code III Recreation and Exercise
CO13

Juvenile Hall is negotiating with a private provider for hair care. Response required Response requested Board of Supervisors Department of Probation Mental Health Services Funding
CO14

Adoption of the above recommendation, would make $45,990 available for Juvenile Hall to use for its own programs. Pay Telephones
CO15

Youths should be able to be in contact with their families without their families being penalized by high telephone rates. Inspection Reports Title 15 Section 1313 requires that "on an annual basis, each juvenile facility administrator shall obtain a documented inspection and evaluation from the following:" (a) county building inspector (b) fire authority (c) health administrator (d) county superintendent of schools, and (e) Juvenile Justice Commission. "(a) County building inspector or person designated by the Board of Supervisors to approve building safety;"
CO16

The coordination between departments to correct deficiencies has begun. "(b) Fire authority having jurisdiction, including a fire clearance;"
CO17

The Grand Jury feels it inappropriate that a teacher inspect his own program. Response required Response requested Mendocino County Board of Education Department of Probation Mendocino County Superintendent of Schools "(e) Juvenile court and/or the Juvenile Justice Commission."
CO18

The Grand Jury recognizes the necessity of inspections by both the Juvenile Justice Commission, and the Grand Jury, to ensure appropriate facilities for youths. State Board of Corrections Inspection
CO19

The Grand Jury finds it a poor use of both a costly computer program and support contract for Juvenile Hall to have been unable to access JALAN for four years. Final Comments Based on projections of an increase in violent offenders, a new Intake Center with a special isolation cell, medical examination room, visiting and interview rooms, and a 12-bed wing for serious violent offenders is under construction. Two double-bunk rooms will be included in the new Intake Center. Ground breaking occurred in December, 1998, with completion scheduled for November, 1999. As part of a violent-offender grant, the State Department of Corrections provided $1,572.345 from federal funding and the County provided $174,705 for the facility expansion based on projections of increases in juvenile arrests between 1990 and 1997. Between 1988 and 1997 violent crimes (assault, rape, robbery, and murder) increased from 29 to 74 per year while bookings remained fairly constant during the same period, 586 to 546 per year. The County needs to have effective outreach programs to give youth a proper direction in life. It is clear we will need a new Juvenile Hall facility for the future that will provide space for comprehensive internal programs. Juvenile Hall should offer more than just detention.
CO20

The Grand Jury reviewed a report from the Public Health Officer, "Response to the Board of Supervisors’ Jail Ad Hoc Committee." The report made several observations about Contractor performance and recommended options for the Ad Hoc Committee’s consideration. In spite of the fact that the Ad Hoc Committee originially asked for the report and straff dedicated time and resources to its preparation, the Ad Hoc Committee never acted on it. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mendocino County Sheriff Mendocino Coast Health Care District The Mendocino Coast Health Care District (District) was created by voters in 1967. Its boundaries encompass the Fort Bragg Unified and Mendocino Unified School Districts, stretching from Bear Harbor to Elk as far east as Orr Springs. It is governed by an elected five-person Board of Directors (Board). The District owns and operates the 51-bed Mendocino Coast District Hospital (Hospital) which opened in 1971. With nearly 300 employees, the District is one of the largest employers in the County. Reason for Review The Grand Jury investigated the District as part of its oversight responsibility.
CO21

An issue was raised regarding California Government Code Section 66006(b) which requires that any fee imposed in connection with a development project must be deposited into a separate capital facilities account. This is to assure that fees are not commingled with other revenues and funds. The District asked its attorney for an opinion as to whether it was subject to this code in its handling of these funds. The opinion provided was that the code does not apply since neither the service connection fee or the water delivery fee are imposed "as a condition of approving a development project." Insurance Payments
CO22

Accurate and timely financial data are essential to the efficient operation of any business. Board Consideration of the Public California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. (Brown Act) states that "the people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created" and also "the legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body."
CO23

The Grand Jury recognizes the difficult job that peace officers have in the performance of their duties and that their lives are frequently in danger. However, these officers elected to follow their profession and we in the community they serve expect them to keep themselves polished by constantly upgrading their skills and to respect the sanctity of human life. We expect their chiefs and captains to create an environment which encourages officers to excel in all aspects of their jobs and to take advantage of all training available to them. It is disheartening to the Grand Jury to learn that the Chief of Police indicated additional training probably would not have changed this incident's outcome. The Grand Jury urges the UPD to use this incident in training, focusing on how to prevent any such incident in the future. Response Required Response Requested Ukiah City Council Ukiah Police Department Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mendocino County Department of Mendocino County Sheriff Mental Health Investigation of a Complaint Filed Against the Fort Bragg Police Department and the Mendocino County District Attorney’s Office The Fort Bragg Police Department (Police) responded to a criminal complaint filed by a citizen (Complainant) seeking return of property stolen from him and then sold. A Deputy District Attorney (DDA) investigated the case. Most of the property was either returned or paid for, with the exception of a painting which had sentimental value. Complainant knows who has the painting (Possessor) and where it is, but has been unable to regain possession. Reason for Investigation The owner of the stolen property filed a complaint with the Grand Jury against Police and the District Attorney’s Office for not adequately investigating the complaint and securing the return of his property. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed police officers who were involved in the investigation, the DDA, a party to the sale of the property (Party) and other persons with knowledge of the events. The Grand Jury also reviewed police and the DDA reports of the crime. Events Leading to the Grand Jury Complaint In September, 1997, Complainant filed a crime report with Police, alleging that persons renting a house from him had sold a number of items belonging to him which had been in the house. Police spoke to the tenants and confirmed that they had sold the items. The tenants cooperated in retrieving much of the stolen property; they pled guilty to felony charges and are now incarcerated. An item that was sold separately was a 4'x8' painting, which by accounts was sold by the tenant's nephew (Party) to a buyer (Possessor). Possessor, allegedly after learning the painting was stolen, then affixed the painting to his expensive cedar wall with screws and a strong adhesive. At different times, the Police and the DDA visited the home of Possessor and observed the painting on the wall. A police report along with a written statement from the complainant states that Possessor had purchased the painting from Party. Party's name was mentioned a total of eight times in reports and statements, but he was never questioned regarding this incident by anyone except the Grand Jury. In January, 1998, the DDA charged Possessor with a felony and ordered him to appear in court. Possessor's attorney contacted DDA and requested a conference; in the meantime, Possessor twice failed to appear in court and a bench warrant was issued for him. The DDA had the warrant recalled and set a March arraignment date. The attorney contacted the DDA, saying Possessor wanted to avoid an arraignment and suggesting that the DDA go and view the painting. The DDA, accompanied by Complainant, did so. The DDA had the arraignment put off until April 27, 1998. A week before the scheduled arraignment, the attorney wrote the DDA asking him to drop the charges and allow the incident to be handled as a civil matter. An April 24, 1998 letter from the attorney confirmed a conversation with the DDA in which the DDA agreed to dismiss the charges on April 27, 1998. On April 27, 1998, the charges were dismissed on the DDA's motion. Complainant thereupon filed a civil suit and was granted a writ for recovery of painting. Possessor has said he will return the painting if Complainant will pay for damage to his wall resulting from the removal process.
CO24

The Grand Jury believes that the failure of the Board of Supervisors to bring the Jail to full staffing contributed significantly to this incident. (See "Overview of Mendocino County Detention Facilities.") Response Required Mendocino County Sheriff Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Administrative Officer Mendocino County Mental Health Department Contractor Transient Occupancy Tax Mendocino County started collecting a tax in 1965 on all room rentals under 30 days within the unincorporated areas of the County. Responsibility for tax collection rests with the Tax Collector- Treasurer. Reason for Review The Grand Jury examined the collection of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) as part of its oversight responsibility.
CO25

The Grand Jury identifies several factors leading to its findings and recommendations. The fact that these departments are headed by elected officials prevents the BOS from providing meaningful oversight. As elected officials, they may desire a low, “friendly” profile that makes them vulnerable to glib or stubborn violators. Since County Counsel can only act on cases brought to it, and there is no County process for identifying potential need for action, Department Heads are the main players determining whether or not timely action is taken; there is a wide disparity in the manner and effectiveness of County Counsel utilization. All departments bemoan their limited staffing, saying this is why they cannot follow through better; if someone else collected the data they would use it, but they are too busy to gather it themselves. Also, most TOT units are on the Coast, far away from Ukiah offices, making it harder for staff based in Ukiah to address the problem. Finally, the BOS recognized in September, 1997, the need for “maximum coordination” between departments: this is a case in point. Mendocino County: Injured Employees In Mendocino County, there are 100 open workers compensation claims for workers injured on the job who have lost at least three days of work. The workers compensation system was developed to assist injured workers with medical expense and to provide income while recovering. The County Department of Risk Management is responsible for employee safety and for assisting workers through the workers compensation system. Numerous studies give indication that, with proper training and a proper work environment, work-related musculoskeletal disorders, now a leading cause of lost workdays and workers compensation costs, can be prevented. Returning an injured employee to work quickly with either a modified job or light-duty under the auspices of a return-to-work program not only benefits that employee, but reduces workers compensation costs to the employer. Reason for review The Grand Jury conducted an investigation in response to citizen complaints. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed County employees, County department directors, union representatives, attorneys, and complainants. The Grand Jury reviewed pertinent documents and conducted a Department of Social Services (DSS) and Sheriff's Office employee survey. Workers Compensation System
CO26

DSS contributes a large number of claims made for workers compensation. Most of these injuries are preventable with appropriate ergonomics assessments and accommodation of injured workers. If the DSS Director is reluctant to institute modified or light-duty for injured workers, then it is the responsibility of the BOS, through Risk Management, to give clear direction to DSS and all department heads that injured workers are valued and will be provided work.

No Responses Found 3

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

Brooktrails Township Community Services District Special District

Mendocino County Auditor-Controller Elected County Office

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office