Grand Jury County of Nevada Eric Rood Administration Center

Recommendations 12

• R0
  SEANM ETROKA, PresidingJ udge · Courl ExecullveO fficer 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 (530) 265-1311 July 11, 2013 Grand Jury, County ofNevada Attn: Keith Overbey, Foreperson 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Mr. Overbey: As requested in the 2012-2013 Nevada County GrandJ ury Reporto n the subject of the Nevada County CourthouseH oldingF acility, the following responsei s submitted.
• R1
  The Jury recommendsw hen future changes in rates or service levels are approved, the County and WM should identify procedurest o better inform the public and prepare for the volume of customer calls anticipatedw ith the experienceg ained from this change. Responses None Required 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury Page5of12 Attachment 1 Residential Service Fee Changes Service Type Before July 1, 2012 After July 1, 2012 Residential MSW Service 20 gallon can/cart $13.15 $13.26 35 gallon can/cart $17.58 $16.94 2-32 gallon cans $25.03 $0.00 64 gallon cart $25.03 $24.27 96 gallon cart $36.52 $36.39 Residential Yard Waste Service 64 gallon cart $3.86 $5.11 96 gallon cart $4.05 $5.30 Residential Recycling Service All sizes with trash service $0.00 $0.00 1 -35 gallon (no trash service) $2.17 $7.50 1-96 gallon (no trash service) $7.50 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury Page6 of12 Attachment 2 Commercial and Multi-Family Fee Changes ~ Service Type Before July 1, 2012 After July 1, 2012 ~ Commercial and Multi- ,~. , family Bin Service -2- yard bin ~ One collection/week $249.61 $249.61 ~ ~ Two collections/week $426.51 $426.51 ~ Three collections/week $613.83 $613.83 ~ ~ Four collections/week $806.37 $806.37 (tit\ Five collections/week · $995.75 $995.75 ""' ~ Six collections/week $1,187.29 $1,187.29 f'!'l'i ~ ~ Commercial and Multi- family Bin Service -3- ~ yard bin ~ (9\ One collection/week $319.86 $319.86 ~ 'Two collections/week $544.16 $544.16 iei ~ Three collections/week $775.74 $775.74 ~ Four collections/week $1,001.08 $1,001.08 ~ ~ Five collections/week $1,225.55 $1,225.55 ,9' Six collections/week $1,470.53 $1,470.53 tit\ 1111'\ ~ ~ ~ ~ 19\ 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury /ti'\ ~ of12 Commercial and Multi- family Bin Service -4- yard bin One collection/week $408.97 $408.97 Two collections/week $706.49 $706.49 Three collections/week $1,042.71 $1,042.71 Four collections/week $1,371.60 $1,371.60 Five collections/week $1,704.66 $1,704.66 Six collections/week $2,019.00 $2,019.00 Commercial and Multi- family Bin Service -6- yard bin One collection/week $504.63 $504.63 Two collections/week $870.09 $870.09 Three collections/week $1,275.04 $1,275.04 Four collections/week $1,712.21 $1,712.21 Five collections/week $2,075.50 $2,075.50 Six collections/week $2,472.12 $2,472.12 Commercial and Multi- family Can Service 1-32 gallon can $17.22 NIA 2-32 gallon cans $24.58 NIA 35 gallon cart $17.22 $17.22 96 gallon cart $36.67 $36.67 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury of12 2-yard bin, semi-weekly collection $190.65 $190.65 ... Commercial Recycling All sizes with trash $0.00 $0.00 service Temporary Bin and Debris Box Service 2-yardb in -refuse $71.37 $71.37 3-yard bin -refuse $91.21 $91.21 4-yard bin -refuse $115.44 $115.44 6-yard bin -refuse $149.50 $149.50 20 to 40-yard bin -refuse $230.80 $230.80 20 to 40-yard bin C&D $230.80 $230.80 20 to 40-yard bin - metals $202.84 $202.84 20 to 40-yard bin -wood $202.84 $202.84 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury of12 Attachment 3 Mccourtney Road Transfer Station Fee Changes Service Type Before July 1, 2012 After July 1, 2012 Trash Only 2cans $~.00 $6.00 3 cans $6.50 $6.50 4cans $7.00 $7.00 5 cans $7.50 $7.50 6cans $8.00 $8.00 Per Ton $70.00 $70.00 Trash Only -Non County Resident Per Ton $140.00 $140.00 Trash Containing Recycling 2cans $10.00 $10.00 3 cans $10.50 $10.50 4cans $11.00 $11.00 5 cans $11.50 $11.50 6cans $12.00 $12.00 Per Ton $80.00 $80.00 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury of12 C&D Per Ton . $59.50 $59.50 Tires Up to 16" without rim $2.00 $2.00 17" to 17.5" without rim $6.00 $6.00 Up to 16" with rim $9.00 $9.00 17" to 17. 5" with rim $18.00 $18.00 Tires greater than 17.5" can be recycled at Les Schwab White Goods Refrigerated $20.00 $30.00 Non- refrigerated $0.00 $25.00 Yard &Wood Waste Cubic Yard $3.38 $9.25 Minimum Charge $4.75 $10.75 Mattresses/Furniture Single/Double without box spnng $6.00 $6.00 $7.00 $7.00 Single/Double with box 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury of12 spring Queen/King without box spring $6.50 $6.50 Queen/King with box spring $8.00 $8.00 Couch $7.00 $7.00 Hide a bed $7.50 $7.50 Propane Tanks Less than 5 gallons $0.00 $0.00 5 to 25 gallons $10.00 $10.00 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury of12 County Government 2012 Nevada County General Election Nevada County Grand Jury Report with Responses 2012-2013 November 2012 Pr~sidential General Election in Nevada County
• R2
  The Chief Executive Officer of the Superior Court should ensure that all personnel receive formalized security awareness training. Responses Nevada Com1ty Sheriff: Date: July 30, 2013 Nevada County Superior Court: Date: July 30, 2013 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury of3 -----------------------------·-•···-- .. ,~.'. .T. ,~t-~,,.~ ,. NEV ADA COUNTY KEITH ROYAL. SHERIFF"S OFFICE SHERIFF/CORONER PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR -----------------------------,., .. .. --· ., June 18, 2013 The Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury 201 Church Street Nevada City, Ca. 95959 RE: Response to 2012-2013 Nevada County Courthouse Holding Facility Grand Jury Report Dear Honorable Judge Anderson: In response to the Grand Jury Report dated May 28,-2013 on the Nevada County Courthouse Holding Facility. FINDINGS: 1. The sally port is now being properly used by staff. Agree The sally port is being used to transport prisoners safely and securely from law enforcement vehicles to the interior of the courthouse holding facility. 2. Staff is now clearing individuals from hallways when inmates are moved to and from 19t. courtrooms. ~ Agree Sheriff's Office personnel ask all non-essential personnel to clear the hallways when m~ving inmates to and from the courtrooms. 3. The cost of installing additional surveillance cameras is justifiable when personal safety is at risk. Agree Added Surveillance cameras on the exterior of the building could assist Sheriff's Office personnel in monitoring the area outside of the courthouse facility. 5. The inability to monitor all sections of the parking garage endangers those using the garage. Partially Agree MAIN OF'RC~ 950 MA/OU A VE ANIMAL CONTROL: 14619 MCCOURTNEY RD CORRECTIONS: P.O. BO)( 928 TRUCKEE: 10879 DONNER PASS RO NEVADA CITY. CA 95959 (530) 205-1411 GRASS VALLEY, CA 95~9 (530) 265-1471 NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 (530) 265-1291 TRUCKEE, CA 96181 (530) 582-1838 Grand Jury Response June 18~2 013 Page2 While the ability to visually observe the parking area would increase the security of the garage, the area is accessed through security roll up doors and that access is maintained by the courthouse staff .. Should funding become available in the future, the· Sheriff's Office would consider working with the AOC in a cost sharing upgrade and/or installation of security cameras. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The Nevada County Sheriff's Office should promptly coordinate with the Nevada County Superior Court to provide additional surveillance cameras in the parking garage. When a funding source becomes available through the AOC, the Sheriff's Office will work with courthouse personnel in the feasibility and installation of surveillance cameras in the courthouse parking garage. The Sheriffs Office would like to thank the members of the 2012-2013 Grand Jury for their participation and effort in preparing their reports. We are committed to providing the highest level of safety and security to our employees, the public, and inmates. Sincerely, KeithR oyal Sheriff-Coroner SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Nevada CANDACES . HEIDELBERGER, 0. SEANM ETROKA, PresidingJ udge · Courl ExecullveO fficer 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 (530) 265-1311 July 11, 2013 Grand Jury, County ofNevada Attn: Keith Overbey, Foreperson 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Mr. Overbey: As requested in the 2012-2013 Nevada County GrandJ ury Reporto n the subject of the Nevada County CourthouseH oldingF acility, the following responsei s submitted. Findings
• R3
  Ensuring positive charter school atmospheres, each charter school should ensure that staff is trained and ready to respond to new charter school proposals ( see Appendix, #8)
• R4
  Parents should thoroughly investigate and compare charter schools to ascertain what best suits their children's needs
• R5
  Parents need to be aware that due to flexible core class curricula, changing from a charter school to a traditional school might prove challenging to a transitioning student. Charter Schools - What Are They? . Responses None Required
• R6
  Voting Equipment that had actual technical malfunctions was replaced by the FED or the Elections Office as necessary. Agree
• R7
  Jury membersf ound that inadequates paceh amperede fficient operationsi n severalp olling places. Agree
• R8
  The Jury found the lengthy interval between Election Day and the actual mailing date of the poll workers evaluations urveyss ent out by tfie ElectionsO ffice was too long to ensure accurate results. Agree
• R9
  The Jury believetsh at includingt he poll workerse valuations urveysin the set-upp ackagesa nd requiringp rompt completiona nd return would result in more useful data. Agree
• R10
  In following up on the 2010-11 NevadaC ounty Grand Jury Final Reportt he current Jury found • Instructions have been included in the Sample Ballot for replacemento f spoiled or lost Vote-by-Mailb allots for those instancesw heni t is too latet o ·uset he U.S.P ostaSl ervice, • Instructionsh ave been included for Vote-by-Maivl oters on how and where to vote in person, • The phone number of the ElectionsO ffice has been included on the Vote-by-Maile nvelope Agree RECOMMENDATIONS: R.1: The NevadaC ountyC lerkR ecordeSr houldD irectS taff to: R.1.1. Identify a larger venue to more efficiently accommodatet he number of trainees per training session. The recommendation will be implemented, beginning with the June 201.4 Poll Worker Training. R.1.2. Increaset he number of training classesg iven to the poll workers with fewer Numberso f trainees In each dass. 11le recommendation will not be implemented because it is not wa1T11ntedo r is not reasonable. By securing a larger fadllty to accommodateo ur training needs we hope to deaease the number of classesa nd increase the number of trainers at each dass to ensure effective training. R.1.3. Requiret he instructorst o verify with each precinct team that they can demonstratet heir competencein setting up the equipmentb efore leaving the training dass. The recommendation will be Implemented, beginning with the June 2DJ4 Poll Worker Training. R.1.4. Make every effort to relocate those precincts with crowded conditions to a location with more floor space before the next election. The recommendation will be imp/e11111qtefdo r the June 201.4 Election. R.1.S. Include poll worker evaluations urveysw ith the precinct kits and require completionb y the end of their shifts. The recommendation will be implemented in June 2014 Election. Sincerely, • ~~-{}~ NevadaC ounty Oerk-Recorder/ Registraro f Voters ,.,.,, Law Committee Nevada County Courthouse Ho.lding Facility Nevada County Grand Jury Report with Responses 2012-2013 Nevada County Courthouse Holding Facility Summary The replacement/remodel of the Nevada County Courthouse in Nevada City has gone from being an approved project to being placed on indefinite delay. The California Penal Code requires the Nevada County Grand Jury to annually inspect the holding facility located in the Nevada County Courthouse as to its condition and management. Although the holding facility was determined to be adequate, the Nevada County Grand Jury found two areas of concern regarding safety of inmates, court and county employees, and independent contractors. A previous Nevada County Grand Jury report issued in 2010-11 identified the need for additional surveillance cameras in the parking garage of the facility. The response to that report stated the California Superior Court did not have the funding to accommodate the recommendation. The 2012-13 Nevada County Grand Jury has determined the cost would be minor, given the need to protect those using the facility, and the cost would be shared by Nevada County and the California Superior Court. The Nevada County Grand Jury also found that no formalized security training is provided to court and county personnel. The Nevada County Grand Jury recommends that these areas of concern be addressed promptly by both the Nevada County Sheriff and the Nevada County Superior Court. Reasons for Investigation California Penal Code Section 919(b) requires: "The grand jury sliall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county." The Nevada County Grand Jury (Jury) defines public prisons as any adult or juvenile correction or detention facility within the county.
• R89
  ~ submitted, Jake Jacobsen, , Mystic Mine Road Community Service District. ~,. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Special Districts ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Nevada County Consolidated Fire District ,--, Board of Directors ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,A\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,. , Nevada County Grand Jury Report with Responses ~ ~ 2012-2013 ~ ~ ~ ~ i4IIII\ NEV ADA COUNTY CONSOLIDATED FIRE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Summary The Nevada County-ConsolidatedF ire District is an independent special district responsible for fire protection and emergency medical services in the unincorporated areas in and around Grass Valley, California and Nevada City, California. The Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District is governed by a Board of Directors elected by the district's voters. Toe Nevada County Grand Jury received three citizen complaints regarding the Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District. In the process of investigatingt hese complaints, the Nevada County Grand Jury found the Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District Board of Directors, both collectively and individually,h ave fallen woefully short in their roles and responsibilitiesa s board members of a public agency and failed to follow or voluntarily chose to ignore their internal policies and procedures, as well as California's open meeting laws, known as the Ralph M Brown Act. The Nevada County Grand Jury found the Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District Board of Directors is dysfunctional and is wracked by discord, acrimony, back-biting, and mistrust among Board Members. As such, the meetings of the Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District Board of Directors are acrimoniousa nd lack professionalism,c ivility, and respect between Board Members. Additionally,_th e Board has exhibited a lack of civility, decoruni, and respect toward some employees of the Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District. The Nevada County Grand Jury found there is an expectation of a higher standard of behavior by the Nevada County ConsolidatedB oard 9f Directors as individuals elected to positions of public trust by the citizens of the Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District. The Nevada County Grand Jury found there is a complete breakdown of organizationala nd chain-of-commands tructure within the Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District. The Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors has undermined the authority of the Fire Chief as the Chief Executive Officer of the Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District and inserted themselves into a managementr ole in violation of internal by-laws and policies and procedures. The Nevada County Grand Jury found the Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District's lack of executive leadership and micromanagementb y the Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District Board of Directors fostered an unhealthy working environment for administrative staff. This led to.personal hostility among administratives taff, the Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District Board of Directors, and the Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District employees. This unhealthy environmentl ed to the physical separation of administratives taff, resulting in additional time and effort being expended to provide administratives ervices. 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury pages The Nevada County Grand Jury found the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District lacks a comprehensive administrative policy and procedures manual. Currently, th~ numerous and various codes, by-laws, policies, rules, and ordinances promulgated by the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District are inadequate, vague, often in conflict, and contain provisions . allowing the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors to "pick and choose" the governing rules it wishes to follow and those it wishes to ignore. The Nevada County Grand Jury found the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors failed to utilize the services of legal counsel to provide advice to board members. The Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors repeatedly entered into financial agreements which are inadequate, incomplete, unwritten, and lack protection for the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. These actions, in turn, caused excessive and unexpected expenditures by the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. The Nevada County Grand Jury found the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors failed to take appropriate action in response to allegations of employee and Board violations of internal rules, regulations, policy, procedures, and ordinances. The Nevada County Grand Jury found the credibility to negotiate collective bargaining agreements by the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors is questionable, due to close personal relationships between some directors and the leadership of the Nevada County Professional Firefighters, Local 3800 of the International Association of Fire Fighters. The Nevada County Grand Jury recommends the members of the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors attend training regarding the roles and responsibilities of board members in a special district. The members of the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors should conduct themselves, collectively and individually, in a manner expected of persons elected to positions of public trust. The Nevada County Grand Jury recommends the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors should work with the Fire Chief to develop a comp;rehensive policy and procedures manual. This policy and procedures manual should include thorough review of all financial agreements to protect the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District from excessive expenditures. Additionally, the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors should actively seek out the advice and expertise of legal counsel as required in the policy and procedures manual. The Nevada County Grand Jury recommends the Fire Chief should have clear authority to implement the newly developed policy and procedures and to manage the day-to-day operations of the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. Conversely, the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors should respect the organizational structure and chain of command structure and not interject themselves into the management of the day-to day operations of the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury pages The Nevada County Grand Jury recommends the members of the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors maintain a professional relationship with the leadership of employee bargaining units to ensure there is no perception of impropriety and undue influence on decision making. The Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors should improve existing policies to facilitate open communication among the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors, staff, and the public. Finally, the Nevada County Grand Jury recommends the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Board of Directors, the management, and staff work together to restore the public trust and rebuild the public image of the Nev~a County Consolidated Fire Protection District. Reasons for Investigation In 2012, the Nevada County Grand Jury (Jury) received three citizen complaints regarding the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District (NCCFD). The complainants requested the Jury review the actions of the NCCFD Board of Directors {Board) for failures· in following prescribed rules, regulations, and ordinances. The complainants also alleged possible violations of open meeting laws by the Board. The Jury has the authority to investigate special purpose assessment or taxing districts, including those commonly known as special districts, in Nevada County. Background Special districts are a form of local government created by a community to meet a specific need. Most of California's special districts perform a single function such as sewage, water, fire protection, pest management, or cemetery management. There are approximately 2,300 ~ independent special districts in California, each governed by an independent board of ~ directors elected by the district's voters or appointed to a fixed term of office by either a city ~ council or a county board of supervisors. There are twenty-four independent special districts in Nevada County. ~ ~ The NCCFD is an independent special district supported by public funds. The NCCFD is ~ made up of approximately thirty-two full-time personnel. The NCCFD budget for 2012- ~ 2013 is approximately $5,300,000. The NCCFD is responsible for approximately 150 square miles of western Nevada County and serves an estimated 35,_000r esidents. ~ f.!9\ The NCCFD is governed by a seven-member Board elected by district voters. The Board is ""' responsible for setting policy and general administrative procedures. The Board meets in regular session every month. These meetings take place at 7 :00 pm on the third Thursday of ~ each month and are open to the public. ~ ~ ~ ~ 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury pages !'!!It\ ~ In the general election of November 2012, two new members were elected to the Board. One incumbent Board member was returned to office by district voters. Procedures Followed The Jury interviewed 20 individuals including members of the staff of the NCCFD; the NCCFD Board; the Nevada County Professional Firefighters Union, International Firefighters Association, Local 3800 (Local 3800); the Nevada County Board of Supervisors; and the public. The Jury also reviewed related documents including Board Meeting Agendas and Minutes, material from the NCCFD website, NCCFD staff reports, NCCFD governing documents, e-mails, written documentation prepared by Board members, quotations of Board members in the media, and audio recordings of Board Meetings. The Jury's investigation focused on the time period ofNovember 2011 through the pre~ent. Facts General F.A.l. The NCCFD is governed by a seven-member Board elected by registered voters of the NCCFD during the general elections held in November. The members of the Board serve four-year terms. F.A.2. The past Chairperson served until January 1, 2013. F.A.3. The Board selected a new Chairperson, effective January 1, 2013. The new Chairperson served until March 15, 2013, when he resigned as Chairperson. The resignation was accepted by the Board on March 21, 2013. A new Chairperson was appointed by the Board on March 21, 2013. F.A.4. The California Special Districts Association provides education and information to board members and staff of special districts in California on their roles and responsibilities. F.A.5 . . The Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) provides education and information to board members and staff of special districts in Nevada County on their roles and responsibilities. F.A.6. The NCCFD budgets monies for the education and training of Board members. F.A.7. All members of the Board completed ethics training in coµipliance with the state requirements for local officials. 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury pages F.A.8. Some members of the Board stated they knew of other educational and training opportunities but chose not to attend. F.A.9. California Government Code section 54950 et seq., commonly known as the Ralph M Brown Act (Brown Act), is the California state law which outlines the responsibilities and requirements of open public meetings held by the governing board of a public agency, including • defining a special district as a public agency, • defining a meeting of a governing board of a public agency to include any gathering of a quorum of its members to discuss or transact · business under the governing board's jurisdiction, • requiring a public agency to notice the public of the agenda of a regularly scheduled meeting of the governing board of the public agency at least 72 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting, • requiring a public agency to notice the public of the agenda of a special ;meetingo f the governing board of the public agency at least 24 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting, • requiring the public agency to notice the public of the agenda of an emergency meeting of the governing board at least one hour in advance of the scheduled meeting, • allowing the governing board of a public agency to enter into closed or executive session regarding specified agenda items, • requiring the governing board to report in open session any action taken on specified agenda items in closed or executive session. F.A.10. The firefighter employees of the NCCFD are represented by a labor organization, the Nevada County Professional Firefighters, Local 3800 of the International Association of Fire Fighters (Local 3800). F.A.11. The Presi9ent of Local 3800 is an employee of the NCCFD. F.A.12. Referring to a NCCFD employee, a Board member stated in an open meeting, "We ought to fire the son of ab .... right now''. F.A.13. The Jury has observed Board members, during an open meeting, engaging in a personal discussion and disparaging each other regarding fire stations named after each Board member. F.A.14. A Board member, during a public meeting, belittled and disparaged advice given to the Board by NCCFD staff. F.A.15. A Board member has filed a complaint with the Nevada County District Attorney, alleging misappropriation of.public funds by employees of the NCCFD. 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury pages A Board member has filed a complaint with the Nevada County District F.A.16. Attorney's Office, alleging extortion and conspiracy by two other Board members. F.A.17. During an open, public meeting, a Board member referred to the Brown Act as "a roadblock to getting anything done". Administration of the NCCFD ~ . F.A.18. The Nevada County Consolidated Fire District By-Laws (By-Laws), section ,-... 6.3(b), titled Duties of the Fire Chief, states, in part, ,-.. "The Chief has the responsibilityf or the overall re-. management of all operations of the District." ~ F.A.19. The Fire Chief is in charge of day-to-day operations of the_N CCFD. ~ ~ F.A.20. The Board formally placed the Fire Chief on administrativel eave on April 19, ,-.. 2012. ~ F.A.21. A temporary Division Chief was named by the Board on March 23, 2012 to ~ fulfill the duties of the Fire Chief. ~ r--. F.A.22. The By-Laws, Section 3.2(b), titled Board of Directors, General Powers and ,-.. Duties, states ,-... "The Board has the responsibilityt o establish the overall ,-... policies of the District regarding the scope and level of service to be provided, and should not direct day-to-day management ~ ,-.. of the District." ~ F.A.23. A Board member has publicly stated, "They [s taff] weren't following ,-... instructions. They wanted to confuse the issue. We [the Board] are the ones in charg;e,t hey are supposed to follow our orders." (1AI ,-. F.A.24. Under the NCCFD organizational structure, the Finance Manager and the ,-.. Finance AdministrativeA ssistant report directly to the Fire Chief ,-. F.A.25. A member of the administratives taff refused to comply with a request from ,-... the temporary Division Chief to produce NCCFD documentation. ~ F.A.26. Due to personal conflicts, financial and administrativee mployees are ~ physically located in two separate locations, approximatelys ix miles apart. r--,, ,-.. ~ 2012-2013N evada County Grand Jury pages F.A.27. The Finance Manager/Office Manager and the Finance Administrative Assistant are located at 10135 Coyote Street, Nevada City, California. F.A.28. The Fire Chief, the Division Chief, a Battalion Chief, the Human Resources Administrator, the Board Secretary, and the Operations Services Specialist are located at 11329 Mccourtney Road, Grass Valley, California. F.A.29. Members of the NCCFD staff stated they were fearful of and intimidated by the mismanagement and micromanagement by the Board. F.A.30. Members of the NCCFD staff stated they feared employment termination because of intimidation by the Board. F.A.31. Members of the Board stated they were aware of the perceived hostile work environment at the NCCFD. Policies and Procedures F.A.32. The NCCFD does not have a comprehensive policy and procedures manual. F.A.33. The NCCFD has various rules, resolutions, policies, and ordinances regarding various subject matters. F.A.34. Section 4.13(d) of the NCCFD By-Laws, titled Transactionso f the Board, states "By a majority vote, and for good cause shown, the Board of Directors may approve a variance from the strict application of District ordinances, resolutions, and policies." F.A.35. Section 1.1.1 of the Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District Personnel Code, titled "Purpose of this Code 11 states, in part, " ... The small number of employees of the District, however, requires that management be allowed considerable flexibility in the application of these policies." Underutilization of NCCFD Legal Counsel F.A.36. The Board has contracted with a private attorney to provide legal counsel to the Board and to NCCFD staff. 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury pages F.A.37. The Board met, in either regularly scheduled meetings or in special meetings, on 33 occasions between January 20, 2011 and March 21, 2013. F.A.38. The Board Agendas and Board Minutes indicate the Board discussed and/or took action on numerous agenda items, in both open and closed sessions, without the benefit of legal counsel being present, including in part • Review Complaints Against a Public Employee, • Conference with Labor Negotiators, • Public Employee Release, • Conference with Real Property Negotiators, • Anticipated Litigation, • Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation, • Public Employee Evaluation, • Public Employee Matter, . • Public Employee Personnel Matter. F.A.39. The NCCFD's legal counsel was present on three of the 33 occasions between January 20, 2011 and March 21, 2013, according to Board Minutes. Special Tax Assessment Election of 2012 F.A.40. In the fall of 2011, the Board determined the cost of providing emergency services was increasing while the NCCFD' s revenues were not keeping pace, due to the economic downturn. · F.A.41. The NCCFD website states that during the economic downturn the Board had • reduced overhead and administrative costs by not filling employee positions that were vacated through attrition, • not provided NCCFD employees with cost-of-living salary increases for the previous four years, • negotiated a 7% salary decrease for NCCFD firefighters, • negotiated with all NCCFD employees to have employees pay a portion of their medical insurance premiums, • closed three fire stations, on a rotating basis, to reduce costs. F.A.42. The NCCFD' s website stated funding received from the special tax measure would ensure the NCCFD • keep all existing fire stations open and stop station closures on a rotating basis, • preserve rapid emergency response time to all emergency calls, • preserve local emergency medical services and rescue services, 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury pages • maintain current protection from wildland fires, • prevent the layoff of critically needed firefighting personnel, • spend all funds to maintain emergency services. F.A.43. At the Board's regularly scheduled meeting on November 17, 2011, the Board decided to hold a vote-by-mail election to seek approval of a special tax _measureo n properties located within the NCCFD. F.A.44. The Board chose not to utilize the Nevada County Elections Office to administer the election as the Board did not want to wait for the scheduled primary election in June 2012. F.A.45. The NCCFD's website indicates the timeline for the vote-by-mail election. • The ballots would be mailed to registered voters on February 6, 2012. • The completed ballots were to be returned to the NCCFD by March 6, 2012. • The election result would be announced at the regularly scheduled Board meeting on March 15, 2012. F.A.46. At the Board meeting on March 15, 2012, the Fire Chief announced the special tax measure had passed. Letter of No-Confidence F.A.47. On February 21, 2012, Local 3800 prepared a letter to the Board stating the members of Local 3800 had," ... NO CONFIDENCE in the abilities of [the Fire Chief] with matters regarding collective bargaining, management, leadership and integrity." F.A.48. This letter was presented to the Board Chair and a Board member on February 24, 2012 by the President of Local 3800. F.A.49. The Board Chair and Local 3800 President did not present the no-confidence letter to the Board because both felt it could possibly affect the on-going special tax measure election. F.A.50. On Saturday, February 25, 2012, the Board Chair sent a copy of the no confidence letter to two Board members by electronic mail ( e-mail). F.A.51. On Monday, February 27, 2012, the Board Chair spoke to all Board members individually by telephone regarding the no-confidence letter. F.A.52. On Monday, February 27, 2012, the Board Chair and two Board members met with the NCCFD's legal counsel regarding the no-confidence letter. 2012-2013N evada County Grand Jury pages F.A.53. On Monday, February. 27, 2012, the Board Chair and two Board members met with the Fire Chief regarding the no-confide~ce letter. F.A.54. On Monday, February 27, 2012, the Board Chair sent an e-mail to all Board members, stating the Board Chair and two Board members, acting as the "Ad Hoc Committee on District Restructuring" would "deal with" ~e issue of the no-confidence letter. F.A.55. Section 5 .3 of the NCCFD By-Laws, titled Duties of Board Officers, states "( a) The Chairman The Chairman shall preside at Board meetings and generally perform such other duties as directed by the Board. The Chairman shall have authority outside of regular meetings to make decisions concerning the following: (1) Procedural issues relating to meetings such as the agenda, noticing, time and place, etc., (2) Providing the Chief with guidance as to the ,..., interpretation of Board action." F.A.56. Section 5.5 of the NCCFD By-Laws, sub-titled "Committees" states ~ ,-.. "The Board may, from time to time, form other t-,. committees as are necessary." ,_,.. ,-... F.A.57. A Board member was asked, by the Jury, why the Board Chairman had unilaterally established a committee in violation of NCC FD By-Laws, he ~ replied, "The By-Laws do not say the Board has to vote on it." ,.,... F.A.58. On Wednesday, Februacy 29, 2012, the Board Chair sent an e-mail to all ~ Board members, which reads, in part, t-.. ~ "Let's be very aware of the Brown Act in our communications. t-,. A "give and take" in email can and likely would be construed as a violation of the Act. These are questions that we can resolve ~ in other ways. ~ ,-... If you have any questions that need attention, please send them to Directors [Board Member], [Board Member] or myself, and ~ we will do our very best to integrate your concerns into our ~ ongoing discussions. The Ad Hoc committee has be (sic) ability ~ to work on this and then report back to the whole Board, where we can have further discussions in non-public session ~ concerning protected employee issues. Please understand, any ~ questions you may have, or suggestions are very important to ,-... us, so do not fail to share concerns and questions with the Ad ~ 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury pages Hoc committee; I will guarantee that they will be seriously considered. It is just the discussion among Board members that may result in subsequent decisions are prohibited." F.A.59. A majority of the Board members stated they responded to the Board Chairman's e-mail regarding the no-confidence letter. . F.A.60. The Opinions of the Attorney General of California (84 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen . 30 (2001)) states·amajority of the governing board violates the Brown Act if the members e-mail each other regarding current issues under the governing board's jurisdiction. F.A.61. On Thursday, March 1, 2012, the Ad Hoc Committee on District Restructuring and the Board's legal counsel met with representatives of Local 3800 regarding the no-confidence letter. F.A.62. There are no agendas or minutes of any scheduled regular meeting or special meeting of the full Board between February 16, 2012 and March 15, 2012. NCCFD Board Meeting of March 15, 2012 F.A.63. At the regularly scheduled Board meeting on March 15, 2012, the Board met in closed session to "Review Complaint against a Public Employee." F.A.64. In the closed session, the Board voted 7-0 in an affirmative vote of confidence in the Fire Chief. F.A.65. The Board was notified by the representative of the Fire Chief that the Board was required to report the action in open session. F.A.66. The Board told the Fire Chief and his representative that they would not report the vote in open session. F.A.67. A Board member reported, in open session, the Board had "directed the Chairman how to proceed, and he will be following up in the next couple of days." F.A.68. After the Board meeting, there was an alleged physical altercatjon between the Fire Chief and a NCCFD employee. F.A.69. A representative of Local 3800 telephoned a Board member to report the alleged altercation between the Fire Chief and the NCCFD employee that same night · 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury pages F.A.70. The Board member contacted was a Reserve Deputy Sheriff with the Nevada County Sheriff's Office (NCSO) at the time of the telephone call. F.A.71. The representative of Local 3 800 requested the Board member investigate the alleged altercation in the Board member's capacity as a Reserve Deputy Sheriff of the NCSO. F.A.72. The Board member declined to intervene and directed the representative to report the altercation to th~ NCSO. F.A.73. The representative then reported the alleged altercation to the NCSO. An on duty Deputy Sheriff responded and took a report. F.A.74. The NCSO forwarded an investigative report to the Nevada County District Attorney's Office (NCDA) for review. After revie~, the NCDA declined to file any criminal charges in the matter. Lack of Fiduciary Responsibility -Employee Concessions F.A.75. .on November 17, 2011, the Board decided to seek voter approval ofa special tax measure. F.A.76. At a special meeting of the Board on December 1, 2011, the Board approved Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District Resolution Rl 1-17, entitled ResolutionA uthorizing Execution of Memoranda of Understanding Concerning Compensationa nd Benefits with the ClassifiedD istrict Employees (Resolution 11-17). F.A.77. Attachment "A" of Resolution 11-17 is entitled, Memorandumo f UnderstandingB etween Nevada County ConsolidatedP rofessional Fire.fightersI, AFF Local 3800 December 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012 (MOU). F.A.78. Section 5, also known as Clause 5 of the MOU, entitled Salary Schedule, states, in part, "(b) The EMPLOYEES and the DISTRICT have agreed to postpone merit increases for the term of this MOU ... Merit increases shall take place on the employee's next evaluation date in Calendar year of 2013 and will not be retroactive back to the 2011-2012 Fiscal Year." F.A.79. Section 13, also known as Clause 13 of the MOU, titled Holidays, states, in part, 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury pages "(d ) The EMPLOYEES and the DISTRICT have agreed to postpone the.h oliday pay... This section will be reinstated . on January 1, 2013 and will not be retroactive back to the 2011-2012 Fiscal Year." F.A.80. On March 15, 2012, it was announced the special tax measure had passed. F.A.81. At the regularly scheduled Board meeting on September 20, 2012, the Board met in closed session for "Conferen~ew ith Labor Negotiators." F.A.82. The Board Minutes of September 20, 2012, states, in part, " ... Director [Board Member] made the following motion in Open Session: MOTION: To reinstate all Local 3800 members merit increases Section 5 Article B, and Holiday Pay Section 13, Article D, retroactive to July 1, 2012. This motion will not change any members hire date, evaluation date, or scheduled merit date. In the future, all Local 3800 employees shall receive merit and other wage and salary · increases pursuant to the MOU, not withstanding the ~ Concession Side Letter of Agreement dated December 1, 2011. ~ 19\ Director [Board Member] seconded. MOTION ~ unanimously carried after a roll call vote." ~ F.A.83. At a regular meeting of the Board on November 15, 2012, the Board approved 1\111\ Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District Resolution RI 2-25 (Resolution 12- ,1'lt\ 25), titled ResolutionA uthorizingA Side Letter of Agreement Between The ~,._ Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire ProfessionalF irefighters,I AFF Local 3800 And The Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire District. ~ F.A.84. Resolution12-25 states, in part, ~ "WHEREASt,h e BOARD and the EMPLOYEES have agreed to ~ reinstate the current MOU that is in full effect from December 1, ~ 2011 through December 31, 2012, and which reinstates Merit ,,4l.!l,\ Step Increases outlined in clause 5(b) and reinstates Holiday Pay as outlined in clause 13(d), retroactively to July 1, 2012;. .. " ~ F.A.85. The Board approved Resolution 12-25 on a 6-1 vote. /-91\ ~ of 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jwy 23 pages of F.A.86. The NCCFD estimated the cost of the reinstatement merit step increases and holiday pay to NCCFD :firefightersw as approximately$ 20,000 for the period of July 1, 2012 through December, 2012. Lack of Fiduciary Responsibility -Employee Health Savings Accounts cpectelods s of our entire seniorl eadershipi,n cludingo ur FireC hief,t wo BattalionC hiefsa, DivisionC hief,t he HumanR esourceDs irector,a nd the BoardS ecretaryt,h at the Districtw asi n a severec risis. The Boardi s troubledb yt he statementt hat "there hasb eena complete breakdowno f organizationasl tructure andc haino f command•. / ' whichc ompletelyi gnorest he very crediblej ob that has been done by all firefighterst hat haves tepped into leadershipr oles becauseo f the departure of the entire cadreo f seniorl eadersh1Jpn t he last two years. ThrsD istricth asn ot falteredi n its missionb ecauseo f the quality of NCCFDfi refightersw ho are still deliveringi ncrediblee mergencys ervicet o our constituents,s avingl ives,d eliveringb abies,e xtinguishrngw ildfiresw ith the confidenceo f excellentt raininga nd well seasoned experience.T he GrandJ ury d~s a grave disservicew ith the wording of this Findin&w herebyc reatingu nnecessardy oubt in the mindso f our communitya bout our firefighters'a bllity to deliverq uality emergencys ervicesw hen needed. Finding1 .8. The Boardh asu ndenninedt he authority of the FireC hiefa st he ChiefE xecutiveO fficer of the NCCFO. Respons1e. sT. he Boardd oesn ot agreew ith Finding1 .8a. si t makesi t soundl ike the entire Boardo f Director:sse t out on a purposefulm issiont o underminet he authority of the Fire Chief.T his is not the case. For manyy ears the Boardh ad respected the chaino f commanda nd permitted the leadershipt o handie its Internali ssuesw ithout undo interference. Byl ate 2012,a fier the resignationo f the FireC hief and further efforts by the Boardt o understandt he internalw orking of the District,b ecame apparentt hat significante mployeei ssuese, ven conflicts,h ad long gone unattended,p oorly addresseda nd/or Ignored. In addition,t here had been no quality successionp lanninga nd developmentatl raining implemented.T he leadershipv acuuml eft was difficult to fill. Therew as a crisisa t hand and the levelo f existinge xpertisew as insufficientt o meet the needso f the District Findingr .9 The NevadaC ountyC onsolidatedF ire DistrictB oardo f Directorsh asa nd assumedt he role in violationo f internal by-lawsa nd policiesa nd procedures. Respons1e.9 The Boardd oes not agreew ith Finding1 .9. As an oversightB oard,n o Member is on site observinge mployeea ctivitieso n a day to day basts,a nd if Issuesa re not clearlya nd quicklyb roughtt o the BoardM eeting in fonnal Staff Reports,i t is difficultto see how relevanti nformationc an be relayedt o a Boardt hat is maintainingt he chaino f command. In a situationw here temporary leadershipl acks,s omeo f the experience necessaryt,h e Boarda cknowledgesth at Individualsfr om the Boardm ayh ave provideda n unprecedentedle velo f support, advice,a nd direction tin attempts to fill the perceivedl eadershipv acuum. Event oday, it is safet o savt hat no BoardM ember knowst he full story. The Boardo f Directorsi sv ery cognizanta nd sensitivet o the impactt his unfortunate chaino f eventsh ad on the District'se mployeesit,s constituents,a nd even to the Boardi tself. · Finding1 .10 The NevadaC ountyC onsolidatedF ireD istrictl acksa comprehensivep olicya nd proceduresm anual. TheN evadaC ountyC onsolidateFdi reD istricBt oardo f Directorsa greesw ith thisF inding. Finding1 .11 Many of the codes,b y-fawsp, olicies,r ules,p roc~dures,r esolutions,a nd ordinancesa re inadequatev, ague,a nd in conflict. The NevadaC ountyC onsolfdatedF ireD lstrrctB oard of Directorsa grees with this Finding. Finding1 .12.T he conflfctsi n the of the codes,b y-laws,p olicies,r ules,p roceduresr, esolutions,a nd ordinancesa llow the Board to "picka nd cho~e" the policiesa nd procedures the Boardw ishest o follow and those it wantst o ignore. ,-... Response1 .12T he NevadaC ounty ConsolidatedF ireD istrictB oard of Directorss tronglyd isagreesw ith t~is Finding. Existingo perationals tructuresa re a legacy of the consolidationp rocesso ver the years. The Boardf ormaflyr ecognizedth is ·issuein late 2012a nd begana ddressingt his issuei n February2 013 purchasing a n e xternals oftware packagea nd servicet o more fullye nsurec omplJancew ith FederatS, tatea nd local regu1ations.W hen futly developed, probablyi n 2014,t he District Policiesa nd Proceduresw ill more closelya lign to "best in class"p ractices. • Page4 ThisB oardis a damanti n itsd esiret o createa Districtth ati st ransparentto ourc onstituenatsn dc ommunitya,s wella sf aira nd supportiveo f our employees. Flndlngl.13 The Boardf ailed to seeka dvicef rom and utilize Itsc ontractedl egalc ounselr egardingp otentiallyl ltJglousis sues. Respons1e. 13T he NevadaC ountyC onsolidateFdi reD istrictB oardo f Directorsa greesw ith theseF fn dlngs. The Boarda cknowledgesth at this had beent he generalp racticew ithin the Districti n the past. However,b eginn1nwg ith the "No Confidence"v ote issued iscusseda boveI n 2012,t he Districth as usedL egaCl ounseml uch more frequentlyt o avoid potentialp roblems,l iabilitya nd/or conflicts. SinceM arch 2013,L egalC ounsehl asb eena part of all BoardM eetings,in cluding reviewingB oardA gendasc, umulatingw ith a formal vote to haveC ounselp resenta t all BoardM eetingsi n June2 013. Findingr. The Boardh ass hown its lacko f fiduciaryr esponsibilityb y repeatedlye nteringi nto financiala greementsw hich lackp rotection for the NCCFDa nd fail to meet the requirementso f their own rules,r egulationsp, olicies,p roceduresa nd ordinances. Response1 .14.T he NevadaC ountyC onsolidatedF ire Disbict Boardo f Directorsd isagreesw ith these Findings.· The Boardd isagreesw ith this finding as this finding usest he term "repeatedly"w hen suggestingth at NCCFDei ther entersi nto financlala greementsw hich lack protectionf or the Districto r fail to meet the requirementso f its own rules,r egulationsp, olicies, proceduresa nd ordinances.H owever,t hat data IsI ncompletea st he findingsp rovidings upportingd ate for only four issues. The Boardw ould like to addresst he three issuesin detail: 1) the contractuals uspensiona nd reinstatemento f "merit Increases",2 } the hiringo f an privatei nvestigatorw ithout publiclyp ostingt he opportunity and entertainingm ultiple candidatesto investfgatea l fegedv iolation of district rulesa nd allegedc riminalc onductb y a district officer, 3) and the hiringo f a district contractora sa permanent,p art time employeea gainw ithout publiclyp ostingt he opportunity and entertaining multipfec andidates. 1} In late 2011,t he Districtw as sufferingf rom a verys evereb udgets hortfalld ue to the cumulativee ffectso f the economic downturn that beganf n 2008. Many costc uttinge fforts had alreadyb een taken,i ncludingr eductiono f safetyt raining, postponemento f buildinga ndv ehiclem aintenancea nd travel. Re-evaluatingth e budgetf or 2011-2012t,h e Districtc oulds ee that ft wasf acedw ith an unsustainablefi nancia1s ituation;a nd that, by the end of the fiscaly ear, in July2 012,t he Districtw oufd haves pentd own its entire financialr eservesa nd leavingt he Districti n debt. Furthermorep, rojectinge xpectedt ax revenuesfo r the budgety ear 2012-2013,t he District,w ithout reservesa nd owning budgetd eficit, would faced rasticc utst o its servicesto Its stakeholders.A t minimum,t he Districtw ould havet o Jayo ff sixf irefightersa nd permanentlyc losea t leasto ne fire station. Any unforeseench angesin the Districtw ould meanf urthers ervicec uts. ThisI st he basisf or the 2012T axI nitiative. However, carefula nalysisin dicatedt hat evenw ith all the reductionsa lreadym ade, the cost of runningt he electionw ould dissipateD istrictr eservess o fast that it would be in the hole longb efore the end of the fiscaly ear, and additionals avingsh ad to be found that would keep NCCFDso lventu ntil the outcomeo f the electionc ould be determined. Thus,i n late 2011,L oca3l 800 agreed to suspend" meritr aises"f ora ny indMdualst hat earnedt hem. It must be dear that merit raisesa rea n integralp art of a flrefighter'sc areer. Eliminatingt hem would completelyr estructurea ll agreementsw ith the firefighters,a nd that, evenw hen In placef or a short period of time, suspendedm erit increasesc ans ignificantlyim pacta firefightersc areer compensationa nde ven their retirement program. · Duringt he first six monthso f 2012,e ight firefighterse arnedm erit increasesb, ut as per the MOUt hesee ight individualsd id not. receivet hem. Thiss avedt he Districta bout $25,000b y the end of the fiscaly ear;a nd after borrowingf rom restrictedf und, NCCFOfin ishedt he 2011-2012fl scaJy ear with only $15,000i n its account. In July,o nce the Districtk new it couldc ount on the fundsg eneratedb y the TaxI nitiative,t he Boardd iscussedth e unfairnesso f letting theses ix individualsb e deniedt heir earnedm erit Increasesw hile other Districte mployeesh ad not mades imilar sacrifices.T he Boarda ctedt o reinstatet hesee mployeesm erit increasea s of July1 , 2012 rather than waiting until January1 , 2013 as indicatedI n the MOU,e nsuringt hat their compensationw as only delayedb y sixf l'.l()nthsT. hisd ecisionw as reportedi n the pressw ithout-it ever beingn oted that there were only six individualsi mpactedb y the action,n or wast here any comment • Page5 aboutt he unfairnesosf the originaalg reementT. heD istricot wesa debto fg ratitudeto these sixf irefightersI.t w ast heir sacrificet hat permitted~_C CFOto end the 2011-2012f iscaly ear solvent. The Boardb elievesth at the earlyr einstatemenot f merit increasesw, hen fundsb ecamea vailablew, asa fair, open and honest way of demonstratingo ur appreciationfo r thefr individuals acrifites,a nd restartingt heir careert racks. 2) In Marcho f 2012t,h e memberosf an ad hoc BoardC ommitteei ncludingt he BoardC hairb ecamea wareo f allegedv iolation of district rulesa nd allegedc rimfnacl onductb y a districto fficer. TheB oardC hairi mmediatelyc ontactedD istrictC ounsetlo determinet he best wayo f addressingth is eventt o protect the rightso f the partiesr nvolveda nd the District'sin terests.I t was determinedt hat in order to proceed,t he Districth ad to moveq uicklyt o obtain an externali nvestigatioonf the Incident. A SpecialM eetingo f the Boardw as held on ThursdayM, arch2 0, 2012a nd,i n ClosedS essionto "RevfewC omplainAt gainsAt PublicE mployee,a" ndt he Boardd eterminedt hat the ad hoc committees houldp roceedw ith an investigationa, ndg ranted permissionfo r the committeet o find an Investigatotro Independentlyin vestigateth e incidenta nd providea report for Board discussiona nd action. It wasr eportedo ut of closeds essiont hat the ad hoc committeew oufd follow up on the compraint.T o protect the privacyo f the employeesin volved,a nd tQ proceeda sr apidlya s possiblet o determinet he riskt o the District,t he normalp rocessf oro btainingc ontractorsf or the formal investigationw as not foHowedT. hef uUB oarda pprovedt he contractf or the investigationa t the next regularB oardM eeting. It is importantt o note that this investigationc ostt he District$$ 936.84, and our PersonneCl odes pecificallys tatest hat. ''Thep urchasingo fficerm ay,w ithout biddingo r prior Boarda pprovalm, ake singlep urchasesn ot to exceed$ 5000.PT he Boardb elievest hat this exemptiona ppliest o the Boarda sw ell. 3) In Marcho f 2012,a fter reviewing.thec ontracto f a part-timec ontractor,t he DeputyC hiefd eterminedt hat this contractor's statusm ight be approachingth e statem andatedl imits for considerationa sa "temporary''e mployee.H owevers, incet he Administrations taff hadr ecentlyb eenr educedb y half, ands incet he knowledgea nd skillp ossessebdy the "temporary'; employeec oufdn ot easilyb e replaced,i t would be bestf or the Districtt o employt he contractora sa permanenet mployee, savingc osts,t raininga nd time at a moment whent he District'sc lericanl eedsw ere critical.T hisp roposawl asa pprovedfo r theser easonsb y the Board. It is the Board'sI ntentiont o follow all of the District'sp rocessesa nd proceduresw heneverp ossible, but the Boarda lsor ecognizesth at thosep oliciesa nd proceduresd o not covera ll the exigencietsh at mayo ccur. We will always reservet he right to respondto unusual,t imely circumstanceass necessartyo protect the District.T he Boardw ill alsos eekl egal advicef rom DistrictL egaCl ounsewl hen necessartyo avoidp otentialp roblemsl,i abllft iesa nd conflicts. · Findlngl.1S. The Boardh ass howni ts lacko f fiduciaryr esponsibilityb y enteringi nto employeec ollectiveb argaininga greementsw hichf ed to excessivea nd unexpectede xpendituresb y the NCCFD. · Response1 .15.T he NevadaC ountyC onsolidatedF ireD istrictB oardo f Directorsd isagreesw ith this Finding. The GrandJ ury hasa ccuratelyp resentedt he faas in the caseo f the EmployeeH ealthS avingsA ccounts( HSA)b, ut has incorrectlyi nterpretedt hose facts. HSAa ccountsa re uniquelyb eneficiatlo employeesw ith certains pecificm edfcalin surance needs,a nda lsop rovidea uniquec osts avingsto the districto ver the cost of traditionalM edicalI nsurancep rograms.T hesef acts and benefitst o both the emplqyeea nd the Districtw ere thoroughlyd iscussedb efore Resolutfon1 1•17w asp asseda, nd during the re-approvaol f thosec ontractsi n 2012f or the current year. Duet o the timingo f requiredp aymentsfo r the HSAcontracts, individualtse rminatingt heir servicew ith N~CFDm ay" appear' to receivea n undeservedc ashp ayment. Thiso ccurredf or the first time in 2012,a nd future negotiationsw ith servicep rovidersa ndc ollectiveb argaininga greementws ill attempt to addressth is perception,b ut the overallc ost savingst o the districto f HSAa ccountsf ss till substantial.T heB oard standsb y its decisiono n this issue;e >ependlturewse re neither unexpectedn or excessive. Finding1 .16. The lacko f executivel eadershipo f the NCCFDan d the micromanagemenotf the NCCFDby the Boardh avec reateda nd fostered an unhealthyw orkinge nvironmentf or adminlstratives taff, leadingt o hostilitya nd mistrusta mongt he administratives taff,t he Board,a nd NCCFDem ployees. · • Page6 Respons1e, 16.T heN evadaC ountyC onsolldateFd ireD fstrictB oardo f Directorsa greesw ith theseF indings. The Boardr ecognizesth at the losso f seniorl eadershipa nd financialh ardshiph avet aken a toll on the workinge nvironmentf or all Districte mployeesa nd to an over involvemento f the BoardI n Districto perations. In April,2 013t he Boarda uthorizedt he searcha nd acquisitiono f an Interim Chiefw hen DJvlsionC hiefc hoset o retire. The new InterimC hiefw as hired on June2 6, 2013. The Interim Chiefw ass pecificallyg ivent he task of r~establishingt he appropriate chaino f commandi n anticipationo f acquiringa permanent FireC hiefw ithin 90 days. The newly hired Rre Chieft ook office on August5 , 2013. ~ Flndlng1 .17. ~ The atmosphereo f hostilitya nd mistrusth asc aused the physicasl eparationo f administratives taff, leadingt o additionalt ime ~ and effortb einge xpendedt o providea dministratives ervices. ~ Response1 .17.T he NevadaC ountyC onsolld~~eFd ire DistrictB oard of Directorsd isagreesw ith this Finding. f!9\ Ass tated,t his finding, buildingo n Finding1 .16c, learlys uggestth at the movemenot f somes taff to remoteo fficesw asa resulto f ~ the lack of executivel eadershipa nd Boardm fcro~managemenTth. isw as not the case. PreviousD istrictl eadershipa, t a time when a majorityo f the current Boardw as not eveno n the Board,c hoset o separatea dministratives taff asa wayo f soMng ~ personneli ssues.I t is clear,i n hincfsightt,h at that decisionw asa poor one, the legacyo f which hasf urther exacerbatedD istrict ~ issues.N ew executivel eadershiph asa ddressedth e issue.T he administratives taff is no longerp hysicallyse parated as of August 8, 2013.A lla dministratives taff is locateda t Station9 1, 11329M cCourtneyR oad,i n GrassV alley. ~ Frndlng1 .18S. omem emberso f the Boardh ave exhibiteda lacko f civilityd,e corum,a nd respectt oward the employeeso f ~ NCCFD. ~ Response1 .18. TheN evadaC ountyC onsolidatedF ireD istrictB oardo f Directorsd isagreesw ith this Finding. ~ The Boardh asn ever hearda formal complaintf rom anye mployeeo f the Districti ndicatinga BoardM emberh asa cted l9t\ improperlyt oward an employee. The Boardd isagreesw ith this finding becauseit feelsi t cannott ake anyr esponsibilityfo r an (:tit\ Individua_l BoardM ember'sd emeanor. Finding1 .19. ~ Boardm emberss houldb e held to a highers tandard of behaviord ue to their electionb y citizenso f the NCCFDto positionso f """ publict rust. ~ Response1 .19. TheN evadaC ountyC onsolfdatedfi re Distri(tB oardo f Directorsd isagreesw ith this Finding. """ BoardM embersa re electedo fficials,a nd as sucha re not subjectt o Boards anction,d iscfpllneo r punishment. In addition,e ven ~ healthyB oardd iscussionsm ay becomeh eatedw hen divergentp erspectivesc omei n conflict. Our democraticp rocessd oesn ot ~ regulates peech,o nly actions. While the Boardr ecognizesit s collectiver esponsibilityI,t hasn o authority to imposea ny "standard"o n an individualm ember. ~ , Finding1 .20. ~ The Boarda nd NCCFOad ministrationh avef ailedt o investigatea nd adjudicatea lregationso f employeev iolationso f the NCCFD ~ rules,r egulations,p olicy,p roceduresa, nd ordinances. Respons1e. 20. The NevadaC ountyC onsolidatedF ireD istrictB oardo f Directorsd isagreesw ith this finding. The NevadaC ountyC onsolidatedF ireD istrictB oardo f Directorsc an find no statemento f facts in the GrandJ ury Reportt hat Indicatest he Boardo r the NCCFDad ministrationh avef ailed to investigatea nd adjudicatea llegationso f employeev lolatfonsa s indicatedi n this Finding. It is impossibleto determinew hat is beingr eferencedi n this Finding,T he Boardm ust disagreew ith - thisF indingb ecauseit is vaguea nd unsubstantiated. • •Page7 Finding1 .21. Thec losenesso f the personalr elationshipb etweens omeB oardm embersa nd the administrationo f Local3 800p lacest he Board'sc redibilityi n questiond uringc ollectiveb argainingw ith Local3 800. Response 1.21. The Nevada County ConsolidatedF ire DistrictB oard of Directorsd isagrees with this Finding.T he Nevada CountyC onsolidatedF ireD istrictB oardo f Directorsd isagreesw ith this Finding.T hisi s a very smallc ommunity;a ~ the Fire ServiceI n general is an even smallera nd tighter communityw ith similari nterests and opinions. Duringth e recent interviewing processe, ssentiallya ll of the candidatesh ad beenU nionm embersi n their career,a nd severalh ad beenU niono fficers. Nearlya ll of our BoardM embersh aveb eenm emberso f the Fireo r Polices erviceo r both, and severahl aveb eenB oard membersf or manyy ears. Friendshipis not a viabler easonf or doubtingt he Board'sc rediblhty.W hat Is Importanti s how a friendshipw ith ·aU nionm embero r a membero f the AdministrationI sm anagedb y the individualB oardM ember. Again,t he Boardh asn o authorityt o manageo r regulatet hat friendship. · Finding1 .22. Not only is the circulationo f raciallyo ffensivem aterial by the Local3 800 Presidentin violationo f the humanr elationt enets promulgatedb y the Internationala ssociationo f FrreF ighters,i t is alsoi n direct conflictw ith the NCCFDpe rsonneclo de. Response1 .22.T he NevadaC ounty ConsolidatedF ire DistrictB oardo f Directorsa greesw ith this Finding. AllT he Boardm embers have all attendedt rain;nga nd are willingt o receiveo ngoingt rainings o as to benefit the Boardi n fulfilling its duties and responsibilitles. GrandJ ury Recommendations 1. All memberso f the Boards houlda ctivelys eeko ut and attend training regardlesso f the·rolesa nd responsibilitieisn Special Districts. Response: Trainingc ontractorsh aveb eeni dentified.A ppropriatet raining will be identifieda nd be madea vailablet o all boardm embersi n the next ninety days. 2. The Boards houldw ork with the FireC hieft o developa comprehensivep olicya nd proceduresm anualc onsistentw itb existing federal,s tate, and locall aws. Response: The NevadaC ountyC onsolidatedF ireD istrictB oardo f Directorsf ormalJyr ecognizedth e needf or improvedp olicya nd proceduresin January2 013. The Boardh asa lsoa uthorizedt he purchasea nd implementationo f LexipoCl omprehensive EmergencyS ervicesP oHcMy anual. The Lexipola ddressesis suesr elated to riskm anagementl,i ability,s afetya nd bestp ractices for emerg~ncys ervices upplfers.I t will help the Districtc omplyw ith current statutory laws,s tay abreasto f court decisionsa nd keepu p with the evolutiono f best practices. A committeec onsistingo f a BoardM ember, Districta dministratorsa nd Laborr epresentativesh as begunw orkingt hrough all the details.toe nsuret hat criticali ssuesr elevantt o the Districta re fully integratedi nto the system. Oncet his complexw orki s · completedi n 2014,t he finishedp roduct will be submittedt o both the Boardo f Directorsa nd localb argainingu nitsf or approval and implementation. 3. The Boards houlde nsuret he policiesa nd proceduresm anuali ncludest horoughr eviewo f all contractsa nd agreementsto protect the NCCFDfro m unexpectedu, nnecessarya,n d excessivee xpenditures. Response: The NevadaC ountyC onsolidatedF ireD istrict Boardo f Directors recognizest he needf or reviewa nd updateo fficial policiesa nd procedures.T he Boardh asa lreadyi nitiated work with the DistrictA dmfnfstratfonto reviewe xistingp oliciesa nd processest.t Is expected that thls effort will integrateb est practicesf or financialm anagemenat s developedin cooperationw ith District • Pages Auditors,a nde nhancef inancialt ransparency.T hJse ffort willt akea significanatm ounto f work by an administratiothna ti s currentlyw orkingo n a significantn umbero f criticali ssues.T hew ork will be addresseda s part of the policya ndp rocedurew ork in recommendation2 . 4. The Boards houlda ctivelys eekt he advicea nde >epetcht at our new permanentF ireC hiefw ill ensuret hat organizationarlo lesa re fully respected. 7. The Boards houldd evelopa nd implementp olicyt o facilitateo pena ndo ngoingc ommunicationw ith NCCFDpe rsonnel. Response: The previousG randJ uryR ecommendation~ earlyi nsistst hat the Chiefb e recognizeda st he personr esponsiblefo r all day-to day operationsa t NCCFOB. eVondth at, any citizeno r emproyeeo f the District undert he BrownA ct, is free to addressth e Boarda t the appropriatet ime in anvf ormal BoardM eeting. Facilitating"o pena nd ongoingc ommunicationsw ith NCCFDpe rsonnel beyond that allowedi n publicm eetingsm ight quite easilyb e interpreteda s "subvertingt he NCCFDor ganizations tructurea nd chaino f command." It is thereforev ery dlfficultto understandw hat the GrandJ ury is proposingb y imposingth is recommendationo n the Board. Fort his reason,n o further action wHIb e takeno n Recommendatio7n will not be implemented. 8. The Boardm embers·s houldc onductt hemselvesin a mannerc onsistenwt ith the public'se xpectatlono f personse lectedt o positionso f publict rust. (A.. ~ ~ ~ Response: ~ It is apparently not cleart o the GrandJ uryt hat the behavioro f individuaBl oardM embersi s not somethingt hat can be ~. mandated by the Boardo f Directorso f NCCFDo r even by the GrandJ ury. As indicatedi n Recommendation1 . The Board,a sa n entity,c an and will affirmt hat the appropriatec ivilitya nd decorumb e maintaineda t all timesa nd all emplove~sp, articipating ~ citizensa ndf ellowB oardM embersa re treated with respect;f t will also ensuret hat Boardm embersr eceiver elevantt rainingo n ~ the responsibilitieso f SpecialD istrictB oardM embers. Butr tm ust be clearlyu nderstoodt hat the Boardc annot take responsibilityfo r the comments,d emeanor,o r actfonso f any specificB oardM ember. Thisr ecommendationw ill not be ~ implemented. ~ 9. The Boards hould maintaina professionarl elationshipw ith Local3 800t o ensure there is no perceptiono f undue influenceo n ~ decisionm akingb y the Board. ~ Response: ~ To start with,T he NevadaC ountyC onsolidatedF ireD istrictB oardo f Directorsb elievest hat thfs recommendationi s badly worded,a nd therefore It is uncertaina s to what is actuallyb eingr ecommended.P erhapsi t shouldr ead "undue influenceo n ~ decisionsm ade by the Board." ~ The Boardc an onlya ssumet hat the GrandJ uryi s makingt his recommendationi n referencet o FindingI . 21. above. Ift his is so, ~ then the Board,a s an entity can and wmst rivet o developa nd maintaina strong,c ooperativeo, pen, and professional relationshipw ith Loca3l 800. If, however,t he GrandJ uryi s suggestingth at anyi ndividuaBl oardM emberr efrainf or developing ~ or maintainingc losep ersona'lr elationshipws itha Loca3l 800m ember or officer, or a dose personalr elationshipw ith anyo ther ~ member of the communityt,h en this Boardc an onlys tate that such a recommendationw ill not be implemented.. ~ 10. The Board,m anagementa nd staffs hould forge an activep artnershipI n the rebuildingo f NCCFOp'su bllci magea nd should ~ activelyc ommunicatew ith their constituentst o restorea nd maintaint he public'st rust. ~ Response; ~ TheN evadac ounty ConsolidatedF ire DistrictB oardo f Directorsb elievest hat it has alreadyt aken significanstt eps to identify and remedya itical issuesw ithin the District. It has engageda nationallyk nowne xpert consultantt o assesst he Districts managementn eeds, developeda job descriptiont hat providesf or the meeting of those needs. Thfsp rocessp roduced·an outstandingg roupo f managementc andidatest o run the District.C onsequentlyt,h e Boardo btainedt he serviceso f an ,..,, experiencedF ireC hieft hat Hasd emonstrated his abilitiesa s both an effectivem anagera nd leader. It has developeda partnershipw ith local 3800 on the implementationo f a much more comprehensivese t of policiesa nd proceduresu singt he Lexiposly stemt o ensure clear operatingp rincipalsi n the future. AndI t has workedw ith our Joint OperationalA reap artnerst o ensure that the existingc ooperativea greementsc ontinuet o developa nd maintaine xistingc ost-effectivee mergencys ervicest o our community. Althought he Boardd id not agree with many of the findingsf istedi n the GrandJ ury Report,t he Boardi s committedt o provldlng qualitys ervicea nd wilit ake the appropriationa ctlonsn ecessaryto move forwardi n a positivem anner. Thisi s just the beginning of the new NevadaC ountyC onsolidatedF ire Districta, nd we believei t willo nlyg et better. For: NevadaC ountyC onsolidatedF ireD istrict Boardo f Directors •Page10 · ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · Special Districts ~ ~ ~ ~ ,41111\ Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District ~ ~ ,-, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Nevada County Grand Jury Report with Responses ~ 2012-2013 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TRUCKEE-DONNER RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Summary The Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District is an independent special district responsible for providing recreation and park programs in and around Truckee, California since 1963. The Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District is governed by a Board of Directors elected by the district voters. The Nevada County Grand Jury received a citizen's complaint regarding the Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District. In the process of investigating this complaint, the Nevada County Grand Jury found the Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District failed to consistently follow their policies, procedures, rules and regulations stated in the Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District Handbook. The Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District Board of Directors should update existing policies and procedures, rules and regulations stated in the Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District Handbook, including oversight. Reasons for Investigation The Nevada County Grand Jury (Jury) received a complaint about issues relevant to the operation of the Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District (IDRPD). The Jury has the authority to investigate special purpose assessment or trucing districts, including those commonly known as special districts, in Nevada County, pursuant to the California Penal Code. Background Special districts are a form of local government created by a community to meet a specific need. Most of California's special districts perform a single function such as sewage, water, fire protection, pest management, cemetery management, or park management. There are approximately 2,300 independent special districts in California, each governed by an independent board of directors elected by the voters of their district or appointed to a fixed term of office by either a city _councilo r a county board of supervisors. There are 24 independent special districts in Nevada County. The TDRPD is an independent special district supported by public funds. The TDRPD is governed by an elected Board of Directors (Board). The Board is responsible for setting policy and general administrative procedures. The Board meets on a monthly basis for regular meetings. The TDRPD has 16 facilities and parks including the recently completed Community Recreation Center. The Community Recreation Center was completed at the end of 2010 and staff occupied the building at the beginning of 2011. There are numerous programs offered by the TDRPD that provide recreation and services to kids, teens and adults. Some of the newer programs include a climbing wall, girls' volleyball and an adult softball league. Procedures Followed The Jury interviewed Board Members, TDRPD staff, staff of the Nevada County Audi~or Controller and members of the public. The Jury also reviewed various documents received from the TDRPD, Nevada County and the public. Facts Governance/A dministration F. A.1. The TDRPD is governed by a five-member Board elected by the Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District voters. The members of the Board serve four-year terms. F. A.2. The Board does not have by-laws. F. A.3. The Board meets in regular session every month. !h,ese meetings take place at 6:00 p.m. on the fourth Thursday of each month and are open to the public. F. A.4. All scheduled Board agendas and meetings are in compliance with California GovernmentC ode section 54950 et seq., commonly known as the Ralph M Brown Act (Brown Act). F. A.5. During the monthly Board meetings, members of the staff, including the management team are present according to minutes of the meetings. F.A.6. The Board is responsible for setting policies and general administrative procedures. F.A.7. The TDRPD has a policies and procedures handbook entitled~ Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District Policy Handbook (Handbook). F.A.8. Some sections of the Handbook have been updated. The majority of the sections have not been updated since September 1995. F.A.9. The General Manager (GM) is the executive officer of the TDRPD. F.A.10. The GM is selected and appointed by the Board and is accountable to the Board. F. A.11. The GM, under the direction of the Board, is responsible for the day to day operations of the TDRPD. F.A.12. The GM is responsible to administer the policies and procedures of the TQRPD as set forth by the Board. F.A.13. According to the TDRPD organizational chart, the administrative management staff (management) consists of a "General Manager, a Park Superintendent, a Recreation Superintendent, a District Clerk/HR Director, an IT Administrator/Safety Officer, and a Bookkeeper." F. A.14. The administrative management team meets once a week to review operations of theTDRPD. F.A.15. As of February of 2013, TDRPD had 25 full-time employees and approximately 130 part-time and seasonal employees. F.A.16. There is a TDRPD full-time employee with the title, District Clerk/HR (HR Director). F .A.17. In the duties of an HR Director, said employ~e has limited authority. F.A.18. The HR Director is the spouse of another TDRPD manager .. Community Center Security System . F.A.19. The construction plans for the Community Center included costs for a security and alarm system. ~ F .A.20. The alarm system was installed and functional when the Community Center was completed in 2010, but was not being used as all employees were not trained in its ~ use. ~ ,-.. F.A.21. The alarm system and the external surveillance cameras were not fully operational f'1"", in the Community Center until the last quarter of 2012. ~ F .A.22. The Community Center is unoccupied several hours during the night. Unlawful Harassment F .A.23. Section 227 .30 of the Handbook portion entitled UnlawfulH arassment states: "If an employee believes he/she has been unlawfully harassed, ~e/she may provide a written complaint to their supervisor, or the General Manager as soon as possible following the incident. His/her complaint should include details of the incident or incidents, names of the individuals involved and names of any witnesses. Supervisors will refer all harassment complaints to the General Manager. The District will immediately undertake effective, thorough and objective investigation of the harassment allegations." F.A.24. The TDRPD staffre~eives annual training regarding workplace harassment. F.A.25. In December, 2010, a TDRPD manager overheard comments, perceived to be harassment. F.A.26. The manager shared this information with another member of management. F.A.27. The incident was verbally reported to the GM. F.A.28. Approximately 30 days after the incident was reported, there was a meeting between the GM and the subject of the complaint. F .A.29. A verbal warning was given to the subject of the complaint. F.A.30. There is no record of any interviews or statements taken from any of the witnesses to or victims of the alleged harassment. F.A.31. The subject of the complaint then personally contacted the alleged victims of the harassment. F.A.32. Approximately 90 days after the initial verbal complaint of sexual harassment, the suspected harasser filed a written complaint of harassment against the employee that initiated the verbal complaint with the member of the management team. F .A.33. The GM reviewed the written complaint and met with all involved parties. F.A.34. The GM acknowledged to the Jury that the matter of perceived sexual harassment should have been addressed more promptly. F .A.35. The GM did not advise the Board of either harassment complaint. TDRPD Park Maintenance Facilities F.A.36. TDRPD management staff and letters from the public attached to Board agenda identified several piers/docks along Donner Lake are in need of repairs due to safety concerns. F.A.37. A TDRPD employee told the Jury some piers/docks were closed to the public due to safety issues. F .A.38. A TDRPD employee told the Jury that there is no plan to repair the closed piers/docks. Findings F.1.1. The Jury found a lack of managerial oversight at TDRPD. F.1.2. There is a lack of open communication between TDRPD management and the Board. F. 1.3. The lack of open communication between TDRPD management and the Board --- . ... -· could lead to potential litigation. F. 1.4. There is a lack of timeliness in the investigation and adjudication of employee complaints. F. 1.5. There is a lack of timeliness in the training to employees on use of facility equipment. F.1.6. Many of the policies, procedures, rules and regulations stated in the TDRPD Handbook are outdated. F.I.7 . There is no information regarding a plan to repair the piers/docks. Recommendations R.1 The Board should update the TDRPD policies, procedures, rules and regulations. R.2 The Board should require the GM to report all issues, including harassment, to the Board. R.3 The Board should develop and implement policy to facilitate open and ongoing communication with TDRPD management. R.4 The Board should develop and implement policy to include proper training on the use of all facility equipment in a timely manner. R.5 The Board should develop and implement an ongoing evaluation process to insure all facility equipment is in good working order. Responses Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District Board of Directors: Due Date: September 28 2013 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Special Districts ~ ~ ~ ~ Nevada County Consolidated Fire District ~ Board of Directors ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Nevada County Grand Jury Report with Responses ~ 2012-2013 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TruckeeD onner Recreation and Park District 8924 Donner Pass Road. Truckee. California 96161 General Manager rHONE: (530) SfQ-7720 • FAX (530) 582-7724 Steve Randa 11 September 6, 2013 The Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury Nevada County Superior Court 201 Church Street Nevada Cit";, CA 95959 Members of the Grand Jury of Nevada County You have provided the Truckee Donner Recreation & Park District with a report dated June 24, 2013 on your findings from your investigation of the District. The Truckee Donner Recreation & Park District Board of Directors reviewed your findings at a board meeting of the District and is providing a response as requested. Herewith is a copy of our response to y°"&°lJ:commendat;ons Kristen York Board Chairperson Truckee Donner Recreation & Park District Truckee Donner Recreation& Park District ResponseT o Grand Jury Report Finding F. 1.1 The jury found a lack of managerial oversight at TDRPD. Disagree 1. Staff meetings are held at every level of the District, from management, parks, recreation and part time staff. A quarterly staff meeting is held with all full time employees of the District to go over issues that affect the entire district. 2. Staff performance reviews are conducted on a regular basis. 3. The financial budget for the District is prepared by staff, reviewed by supervisory staff, management staff, board finance/audit committee and then presented to the entire Board of Directors for approval. The board finance/audit committee meets with management staff to go over the budget line item by line item prior to being presented to the Board of Directors. Budget includes revenues and expenditures. 4. A report from the park division on the district facilities is presented to the board on a monthly basis. The report details what has been completed in the prior month. Issues with facilities are agendized at board meetings for board action. 5. The District has a safety committee, made up of representatives from administration, parks, and recreation. They review all facilities on a yearly basis and present their written findings to the District for action. 6. A profit and loss report is generated for all recreation programs of the district. These reports include expenditures, revenues and recommendations for improving these programs. 7. Affected staff is required to complete harassment training and conflict of interest training every two years. The board of directors is required to complete conflict of interest training every two years. 8. District staff attends conferences, seminars and meetings to further their education and experience in their area of expertise. 9. Reports are provided to the Board of Directors along with background information so that the board may make an informed decision on various matters of the District. 10. The District board of directors and mid management staff and above conduct a retreat on a yearly basis to discuss the future of the district, issues and concerns, and budget and marketing. Finding F.1.2. There is a lack of open communication between the TDRPDm anagement and the Board Disagree The board of directors conducts a retreat with staff including management where open communication between the board and management takes place. Additionally there is a board meeting on a monthly basis where the board openly communicates with management staff. Management staff presents items for review and approval by the board on a regular basis. Input from staff is very important in the decision making process of the board. The board has various sub committees that deal with review and issues of the District. Management staff attends these meetings in their area of expertise. The general manager speaks with board members on a regular basis to keep them informed of what is going on in the district. The general manager has an open door policy which includes the board, staff and the general public. Finding F.1.3. The lack of open communication between TDRPD management and the Board could lead to potential litigation Disagree As stated above, there is open communication between management and the board of Directors. The General Manager communicates with the board chairperson on a regular basis to discuss areas of concern. Areas that have potential litigation are discussed with the entire board of directors. Additional matters of concern are discussed with the district's legal counsel. During the tenure of the general manager which is 28 years, the District has not been involved in any litigation. FindingF . 1.4. There is a lacko f timeliness in the investigation and adjudication of employee complaints Disagree Employee complaints are always dealt with immediately and action is taken in a timely manner. The complaint that the Grand Jury refers to in their fact statement is not correct. A written or verbal complaint was never filed by the employees referred to by the Grand Jury to the General Manager. A complaint was later filed by the employee who was the subject of the potential complaint feeling he was harassed, because the original incident was not reported to the General Manager by the employees, but by their supervisor. When the secondary written complaint was filed, immediate action took place and the matter was resolved. The District has a policy that it follows regarding this matter. Finding F.1.5. There is a lack of timeliness in the training to employees on use of facility equipment Disagree Park staff conducts equipment training in the spring when seasonal employees are hired. The training is for both seasonal staff and a refresher for full time staff. The training is a full day. The training is done by a qualified full time staff member utilizing equipment safety manuals. During the training all employees operate the equipment to get a "hands on" approach to training. Some equipment training has to have a certified by an OSHA approved instructor, which the district has staff to do the training. Training is provided on all new equipment prior to employees being allowed to use the equipment. This training is done once the equipment is in the possession of the Di strict. At times, when no staff is proficient in the operation of equipment, the supplier of the equipment is brought in to provide the training. The district has a very active safety committee which oversees all training and complies with CAL OSHA standards. In 2012 the District hired a safety training firm from Sacramento to conduct the CAL OSHA 10 ~ r-.. ..-. ~ ~ training to all full time maintenance personnel which included 10 hours of safety ~ training. ~ Finding F.1.6. Many of the policies, procedures, rules and regulations stated in the TDRPD handbook ~ are outdated. ~ ,.,., Partially Agree ~ The District's policy manual was written in 1995. From 1995 to the present, various ,-... policies were added, changed or revised. A thorough review of all the policies had not ,-.., taken place since 1995. When this was brought to the attention of the General Manager of the district during his interviews with the Grand Jury, the General Manager ~ and the District Clerk contacted various public entities to get copies of their policy manuals. A thorough review was made of other manuals and the District's manual. ,~, .. Changes were made to the District's policy manual and submitted to the Board of Directors for review and approval. The Board reviewed the entire policy manual for two. II'. months. In June, 2013 the updated policy manual was approved by the board. All policies of the District are up to date as of June, 2013. Finding F.1.7. There is no information regarding a plan to repair the piers/docks. PartiallyA gree There is not a formal written plan regarding the public piers of the district. The District has 35 public piers at Donner Lake. Over the years, most of these piers have been replaced or renovated. During the last three years, because of the economic crisis, the District has not had the funds to replace any piers. Safety issues have been fixed as needed. Park district staff conducts an Investigation of all piers on a regular basis. Necessary repairs are completed in a timely manner for the safety of the community. If a pier presents a safety hazard, it is closed until repairs can be made. Minor repairs to the piers are handled by district staff. Major repairs are brought to the district board for their consideration. Additionally, the District safety committee assigns a staff member that is not part of the park division to inspect all the piers on a yearly basis. All public piers are currently open and being used by the public. R.1 The board should update the TDRPD policies, procedures, rules and regulations The recommendationh as been implemented The District policy manual was updated and approved by the Board of Directors at their regular board meeting on June 27, 2013 R.2 The board should require the GM to report all issues, including harassment, to the Board The recommendation will not be implemented at the present time The board believes the current processi n place at this time is sufficient. The District General Manager currently handles issuesi ncluding harassmento n a case by case basis. If the issue has m~rit, it is then presentedt o the Board of Directors. The board responsibility is to make the policy of the District, not to handle the day to day operations. R.3 The board should develop and implement policy to facilitate open and ongoing communication with TDRPDm anagement The recommendationis currentlyi n place The board believes that there currentfv is open communication between the board and management R.4 The board should develop and implement policy to include proper training on the use of all facility equipment in a timely manner This recommendationis c urrentlyi n place. R.5 The board should develop and implement an ongoing evaluation processt o insure all facility equipment is in good working order This recommendation is currently in place.