📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2009-2010

El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 El Dorado County Juvenile Hall Case No. Gj 09-009 Reason for Report California

Published: November 11, 2009 3 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 12 findings

F1
The facility has a new digital video security system. Specific time frames can be downloaded if necessary. This is an upgrade that had been recommended by a previous grand jury.
F2
Procedures are in place to handle complaints and are posted in common areas. Complaints are resolved in a timely manner.
F3
The Department of Education determines the appropriate level of instruction needed for each ward and prepares individual study plans. All educational materials are contemporary and some are tailored to be used in juvenile correctional facilities. Students who successfully complete a high school education program get a full diploma from a high school that cannot be identified as being part of a detention program. Educational staff are appropriately credentialed and accredited for their positions.
F4
Medical facilities are efficient and modern.
F5
Wards have access to medical professionals at all times.
F6
Food is nutritious and prepared on site.
F7
The Board of Supervisors has failed for more than four years to construct or otherwise acquire a permanent Animal Control Shelter for the West Slope even though the County purchased the 10-acre parcel in 2006 for $450,000, and hired an architect, at a cost not to exceed $574,400, to design the building (a significant portion of which was spent). An additional $6 million in the Capital Improvement Budget has been set aside for the Animal Control Shelter.
F8
The Board of Supervisors' decisions regarding the selection of the location for the Animal Control Shelter and the method of construction were strongly influenced by one Supervisor. According to authoritative sources with direct knowledge, that Supervisor "drove the bus". Nonetheless, all members of the Board of Supervisors share responsibility for approving the purchase.
F9
The Board of Supervisors failed to make diligent inquiries into the usability of the entire 10-acre parcel, failed to ask important questions about the costs of improvements specified in the purchase agreement, and failed to negotiate a fair cost- sharing agreement with the Sellers for the costs of the improvements.
F10
The Department of General Services, and the CAO, failed to provide the Board of Supervisors with all pertinent information concerning the costs of the improvements to be made by the County as described in the purchase agreement for the 10-acre parcel.
F11
The County Counsel's office, who prepared the purchase agreement for the 10- acre parcel, made a glaring omission by neglecting to insert an "escape clause" that would permit the County to avoid making the specified improvements if the Animal Control Shelter were not actually constructed on the l C-acre parcel. Even if the County received a lower price for the 10-acre parcel because it agreed to build the road and make other improvements, any difference in price did not justify the County being left "holding the bag" or having a costly contractual obligation for the required improvements.
F12
It was determined that an employee was allowed to reside for years on GVFPD property at no cost and without a written agreement containing health, safety, tax and other appropriate provisions. This presents a potential liability to the District and its taxpayers.

Recommendations 8

Commendations 1