The Grand Jury of Humboldt County

R1

Cross-train food inspectors to do water sampling. (F1, F2)

R1

Cross-train food inspectors to do water sampling. (F1, F2)

R2

Train food inspectors to take a water sample at the same time they are performing their routine inspections. This would relieve the water system owner from taking a sample, delivering it to a private laboratory and paying for that service. The cost of County lab work could be added to the yearly permit required by DEH without a significant increase of cost to DEH and a potential savings to the owner. (F2)

R3

Have DEH conduct all water sampling to ensure sample integrity. (F3)

R4

DEH should inspect private water systems serving the public quarterly instead of annually. (F4)

R5

Post signs indicating the date of the last inspection. (F5) (2012-GJ-01) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

R6

Coroner/Public Administrator  Continue to work with the ventilation contractor to remedy the inadequacies of the ventilation system since the “upgrade” in October 2011. The health and welfare of the Coroner’s staff should be of prime importance.  Continue to pursue the relocation of the Deputy Coroner’s office to a better ventilated area.  Follow up on the awarding of a contract to repair the loading ramp and get the project finished before a regrettable accident occurs. (2012-GJ-02) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ REQUIRED RESPONSES: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 through 933-05, responses to the RECOMMENDATIONS of this report shall be provided as follows:  Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department to respond to Recommendations R1 through R5.  Humboldt County Board of Supervisors to respond to Recommendations R1 through R6. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. Attachment 2012-GJ-02 Board of Supervisors Response to Grand Jury Report 2012-Jails-01 (2012-GJ-03) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ GRAND JURY REPORT 2012-PW-01 Improving Planning Division Customer Service

R7

Personnel of equivalent rank and meeting the minimum qualification for their positions should be both capable of and available for substituting for their peers. All senior planners should be able and available to perform administrative and ministerial actions. They should stand ready to substitute for one another without delay to the queue of customers being served. Management should ensure that planning personnel are afforded training. Management might consider an internal program testing and certifying the skills of planners according to their ranks, ensuring consistency and competence. (F7)

R8

Applicants should be afforded an estimate of the time required to process their applications concurrent with the cost estimates already provided at the time of initial consultation. The PD should then either complete the transaction within the estimated time period or, if unable to do so, transmit in writing an explanation for the delay to the applicant and enter a copy into the case file. The written notification would identify the reason for delay whether attributable to the applicant, County offices, or other parties. The notification would supplant the original completion time estimate with another date. If that ensuing date is not met, then the process would repeat. The use of this suggested system might allay future allegations of purposeful delay by establishing a clear and coherent record. (F8) (2012-GJ-03) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________