2000 / 2001 San Benito County - Civil Grand Jury Report*

Conclusions 4

• CL1
  The Grand Jury feels this is a worthwhile Program, and the County should continue to administer this Program as long as grant funds are available.
• CL2
  The Grand Jury wishes to congratulate the San Benito County District Attorney's Office, the San Benito County Sheriffs Department, the Hollister Police Department and the San Benito County Marshall's Office on the manner in which their various evidence lockers were maintained. This Grand Jury feels that these agencies deserve acknowledgement for a job well done!
• CL3
  The Grand Jury found no evidence that Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity rules were violated. The Chief Administrative Officer conducted an objective, businesslike downselect process fully compliant with precedent and County rules. The selection process was marred by a few irregularities during its course, but the Grand Jury found no evidence of code or guideline violations that would invalidate the result. The Grand Jury found no evidence that receiving a suggestive list from one of the Supervisors during the selection process had any influence on the Chief Administrative Officer's final list of applicants to be interviewed. The Grand Jury does, however, consider the submission of that list to the Chief Administrative Officer as inappropriate. Conducting the interviews with a "Subcommittee" of two Supervisors has sufficient precedent to be deemed legitimate. The Grand Jury believes, however, that for an important activity such as selecting a Department Head, the Board should be sensitive to "sending a message" of unimportance of the position to potential candidates. The interviews should have been rescheduled to a later time when a quorum of the Board was available. Since the Grand Jury has no knowledge of the other commitments of the three non- attending Supervisors, it is not in a position to evaluate their priorities placed on the selection process. The proper role of the Board of Supervisors during a hiring and selection process for department heads is undocumented and, in this case, was somewhat undisciplined.
• CL4
  It appears that the affected agencies and governing bodies are having difficulty in addressing this issue as a matter of importance. Although all parties are aware that a unification of fire services would certainly benefit the County, urban and rural citizens alike, there does seem to be an inability to come to a progressive solution. Funding is a major factor in preventing the factions from coming together. The Grand Jury believes that the continued expansive growth within the County should warrant a proactive approach to future fire protection, and the many obvious benefits it would bring.

No Responses Found 1

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