2000–2001 Grand Jurors Oath of Grand Jurors:

Comments 21

• CO1
  suggests that there may be no substantial improvement of the meth problem without an upgrading of the economic and educational status of residents of the County. Response Required Board of Supervisors (Recommendations B & E–G & related Findings) Mendocino County Sheriff (Recommendations A, B, & D & related Findings) Mendocino County Task Force Governing Board (Recommendations B–D & related Findings) District Attorney Recommendation B–D & related Findings) Response Requested Director, AODP (Recommendations E–G & related Findings) 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 7 Complaint Policies and Procedures for Mendocino County The Grand Jury reviewed the County complaint policies and procedures and found a lack of uniformity in the application, content, and enforcement of the policies. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the Assistant County Administrative Officer and the previous Senior Field Representative for Local 707 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The Grand Jury reviewed Memorandum of Understanding Between The County of Mendocino and MCEBU/SEIU Local 707 (County/SEIU MOU), County Policy #16, and the policies and procedures submitted by the departments that had them. Background Information The Board of Supervisors adopted Policy #16 July 7, 1987, to address the procedure for the public’s right to criticize County personnel. Findings 1. County Policy #16 addresses only complaints by the public regarding County personnel and only those complaints presented to the Board of Supervisors or the Clerk of the Board. 2. The County does not have a written complaint policy to address procedural complaints presented to the individual County departments, to the Board of Supervisors, or to the Clerk of the Board. 3. The County/SEIU MOU Article 19 contains a grievance procedure for employees; however, the Human Resource Department does not have a written procedure for referring employees with grievances to the union contract. 4. Neither County ordinance nor the County Human Resource Department have written policies or procedures to accommodate any type of employee complaints not covered in the County/SEIU MOU. 5. The County does not publish or post a standard complaint form or complaint procedures. 6. The County Administrative Office does not monitor any of the departments to verify that a policy is in place to deal with all complaints. 7. The following County departments use Policy #16 as their complaint policy and therefore do not have a policy to handle about department procedures: Administration Office Agriculture 2001–2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 9 Auditor-Controller Clerk of the Board County Counsel Farm Advisor General Services Human Resources Library Museum Risk Management Transportation Treasurer-Tax Collector Assessor/Clerk-Recorder (Complaints received at the counter or by telephone are referred to the department head.) 8. The following County departments have developed their own complaint policies and procedures and/or are using policies and procedures mandated by another agency: Information Services Solid Waste Division Air Quality Management District Animal Care and Control Child Support Services District Attorney Mental Health Planning and Building Probation Public Defender Public Health Sheriff-Coroner Social Services Water Agency
• CO2
  The Grand Jury commends the personnel assigned to COMMET for their respectful approach to persons they encounter in their operations. If the Sheriff determines that it is necessary to eradicate small patches or to go after medical marijuana plantings, it will be necessary to provide much more in the way of funding, personnel, backup, and equipment to COMMET All agencies should encourage and cooperate with citizens’ meth suppression efforts. Agencies should expand efforts to inform community residents about the meth problem and how to deal with it, and where possible provide resources for community meth suppression efforts. 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 6 Finding 17 suggests that there may be no substantial improvement of the meth problem without an upgrading of the economic and educational status of residents of the County. Response Required Board of Supervisors (Recommendations B & E–G & related Findings) Mendocino County Sheriff (Recommendations A, B, & D & related Findings) Mendocino County Task Force Governing Board (Recommendations B–D & related Findings) District Attorney Recommendation B–D & related Findings) Response Requested Director, AODP (Recommendations E–G & related Findings) 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 7
• CO3
  Complaint Policies and Procedures for Mendocino County The Grand Jury reviewed the County complaint policies and procedures and found a lack of uniformity in the application, content, and enforcement of the policies. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the Assistant County Administrative Officer and the previous Senior Field Representative for Local 707 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The Grand Jury reviewed Memorandum of Understanding Between The County of Mendocino and MCEBU/SEIU Local 707 (County/SEIU MOU), County Policy #16, and the policies and procedures submitted by the departments that had them. Background Information The Board of Supervisors adopted Policy #16 July 7, 1987, to address the procedure for the public’s right to criticize County personnel.
• CO4
  Because of the lack of a County-wide complaint policy, there is inconsistency throughout the County on how complaints are handled. Department heads would benefit from a County-sponsored personnel management training class about effective responses to employee grievances. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested County Administrative Officer Human Resources Department Director 2001–2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 11
• CO5
  Community Development Commission The Community Development Commission (CDC) has had erratic leadership and acted without following procedures. A new director is working to stabilize CDC. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) needs to fill vacant and expired positions on the Board of Commissioners (BOC). CDC needs to rectify some of its practices and staffing to raise employee morale and better serve low-income housing needs, especially in coastal areas. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed past and present personnel of the CDC including the fiscal section, Fort Bragg office, public and agency owned housing section, accounting section, housing program section, community development section, the Executive Director, and executive assistant. The Grand Jury interviewed independent contractors of the CDC. The Grand Jury reviewed the BOC meeting agendas and minutes from September 2000 through July 2001, the 1999-2000 Grand Jury report “Community Development Commission,” and a August 2001, letter to the editor that appeared in several local newspapers regarding the closing of the CDC Fort Bragg office. The Grand Jury reviewed the BOS Ad-Hoc Committee report dated January 25, 2002 and The Brown Act, California Government Code (Govt. Code) §54950 et seq.
• CO6
  The Grand jury believes that the criminal justice system, the Jail in particular, is not an effective venue for the treatment of behavior that might violate a criminal statute, but with cause rooted in illness that can be treated. Yet the Grand Jury acknowledges that under our present system, the criminal justice system will continue to be involved with the mentally ill. Mendocino County should be commended for making these changes with the expectation that the need for criminal justice intervention will be significantly reduced and that successful client outcomes be improved. The CSC is an evolving and expanding concept. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mendocino County Sheriff Ukiah City Council Fort Bragg City Council Willits City Council Response Requested Department of Mental Health Director Ukiah Police Chief Fort Bragg Police Chief Willits Police Chief 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 21 AODP Director 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 22 Mendocino County Information Services Department The Information Services Department (ISD) directly or indirectly provides services to all County departments. As technology becomes more important and crucial to conducting the County’s business, ISD must be highly involved in decisions that affect the direction of technology in the County. However, County departments are not using ISD as efficiently as is possible. The ISD is functioning well internally with a new Director and knowledgeable support staff; this report gives recommendations for increased security, backup procedures, and updating manuals. After completing an overview of the ISD and developing recommendations for County-wide data technology and computer services, the Grand Jury discovered that 12 years ago the Grand Jury found the same County-wide flaws that exist today. Even though technology has changed immensely since 1990, the basic issue of County-wide consistency in technology planning still exists. Method of Investigation Within the ISD, the Grand Jury interviewed the former Director, the new Director, the Computer Operations Manager, the Network Services Manager, and various personnel in the computer operations sector and the network sector. The Grand Jury toured the facilities several times looking at physical and data security and working space and reviewing documents, logs, and computer operating procedures. The Grand Jury also interviewed Information Technology (IT) personnel from the Departments of Social Services, Public Health, Mental Health, Child Support Services, and the Sheriff’s Office. The Grand Jury reviewed County Policy 22, “Information Technology (IT) Policy: Acquisition, Ownership and Use of Computer Hardware and Software, the Role of the Information Technology Committee, the Role of Information Services and the Role of Departmental IT Personnel,” and the 1989-90 Grand Jury Report, “Mendocino County Data Processing.” Background Information The ISD stores and controls most of the information the County needs to conduct its business, including financial data, payroll, property ownership, building and encroachment permit data, and the County data communication network. The ISD participates in the decision-making and acquisition of communication hardware and software for voice and data for the County. In January 1989, the County engaged an outside contractor to operate the County-owned computers and peripherals. The County supplied the premises and equipment. The contractor employed some of the County data 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 23 processing personnel, while other personnel remained County employees. The County resumed control of the operation of the ISD again in July 2000, and contractor-employed personnel became County employees. On June 27, 2000, The Board of Supervisors adopted Policy 22.
• CO7
  All the personnel interviewed were dedicated, hard working, and took the importance and responsibility of their jobs very seriously. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mendocino County Sheriff (Rec. A through H & accompanying Findings) Mendocino County Assessor Clerk-Recorder (Rec. A through H & accompanying Findings) Response Requested Information Services Department Director Department of Social Services Director (Rec. A through H & accompanying Findings) Department of Public Health Director (Rec. A through H & accompanying Findings) Department of Mental Health Director (Rec. A through H & accompanying Findings) Child Support Services Director (Rec. A through H & accompanying Findings) 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 27
• CO8
  City of Fort Bragg Community Development Department and Affordable Housing This report is on the Fort Bragg Community Development Department (Department) and the affordable housing situation within the City of Fort Bragg (City). The Department has made a commendable contribution to the City through grants toward improving conditions. The Department needs to improve policies and procedures, job descriptions, complaint handling procedures, and communications with permit applicants. The affordable housing situation is in dire straits with no easy answers. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed employees of the Department, members of the City Council, Planning Commission, employees of the Public Works Department for the City, citizens involved in the permit process, and citizens involved and interested in Fort Bragg Planning including the Community Development Advisory Board. The Grand Jury attended and watched telecasts of Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings dealing with planning issues. The Grand Jury attended the Alliance for Democracy forum on affordable housing. The Grand Jury reviewed documentation for 134 permit applications for the years 2000 & 2001, which included applications for commercial and residential buildings, decks, garages, outbuildings, and signs. The Grand Jury reviewed the “Mendocino County Housing Needs Plan” by the Mendocino Council of Governments, and pertinent Municipal Codes, ordinances, and State Codes. The Grand Jury reviewed balance sheets for the Department and Building Services and the draft General Plan for the City of Fort Bragg. Background Information The Community Development Department is responsible for administering the City’s planning and zoning regulations and overseeing a broad range of activities affecting planning, building, and economic development in the City. Department functions include processing of applications and preparation of environmental documentation for General Plan amendments and rezonings, subdivisions, lot line adjustments, use permits, variances, Coastal Development permits, Site and Architectural Review permits, and Scenic Corridor Review permits. The Department reviews building permit applications, business license applications, and sign permits for zoning consistency and conducts enforcement activities to ensure compliance with the City’s zoning codes. The Department serves as staff to the Planning Commission, Redevelopment Agency, Community Development Committee, Community Development Advisory Board, Technical Advisory Committee, and Loan Committee. The Department is responsible for providing periodic 2001–2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 29 reviews and updates of the City’s General Plan and zoning, subdivision and sign codes. The Department takes a lead role in applying for grant funds from the Community Development Block Grant program, and other planning and economic development related funding sources. Department employees consist of a Community Development Director, an Associate Planner, and a clerical position. The Department contracts with the County of Mendocino for structural permit and inspection services and coordinates with the County service provider to facilitate an integrated permitting and inspection process. The shortage of affordable and low-income housing is a problem for the City of Fort Bragg and is endemic to most of the State as well. State Government Code 65580 et seq. declares: The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farm workers, is a priority of the highest order. Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The housing element of the General Plan identifies and analyzes existing and projected housing needs and states goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.
• CO9
  The Grand Jury commends the Department and the City for its support of grants for the Streetscape Plan, Project Sanctuary, the Coast Senior Tri-level Care Facility project, emergency and homeless shelter projects, housing rehabilitation, and preparation of an American with Disabilities Act Comprehensive Access Plan. The Grand Jury wishes to thank the employees of the Community Development Department for providing detailed documentation, which required considerable preparation. There are no easy answers to the problem of affordable and low-income housing. The solution of government support involves pain in the form of tax dollars. The inclusion of low-income housing as a portion of private commercial development is painful to the developer and may stifle enterprise. Raising of the minimum wage to a “living wage” was recently quashed at the Federal level. The problem shows no signs of abating. Response Required Fort Bragg City Council Response Requested Fort Bragg Community Development Department Fort Bragg Planning Commission Fort Bragg Community Development Advisory Committee 2001–2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 32 Point Arena City Government A review of Point Arena (City) city government and related issues found that the City is well governed for the most part with a few areas of concern to be addressed. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed elected officials and employees of City government, private citizens, former City employees, former elected officials, citizens involved in private business, employees of the local school district, employees and volunteers of the Redwood Coast Fire District, and local law enforcement. The Grand Jury attended City Council meetings and reviewed the minutes of 2000-2001 City Council and Planning Commission meetings. The Grand Jury inspected the wastewater treatment facilities, the Point Arena Pier facilities, the emergency services facilities, the petroleum recycling facilities and city yard facilities, city schools, fire protection facilities, and the private water company facilities. The Grand Jury reviewed the latest draft of the City’s General Plan, City zoning ordinances, the most recent outside financial audit of City government, employee policies, procedures, and job descriptions, the City’s revolving loan fund policies and procedures, and emergency services procedures. Background Information Point Arena is an incorporated city. City government consists of an elected five-member City Council that meets monthly. The City Council acts as the Planning Commission as well. The City Council elects one of its members as Mayor. Registered voters number somewhat less than 300. There are eight salaried employees: three part time Pier Facilities Managers, a Maintenance Supervisor concerned with street and infrastructure maintenance, a city clerk/administrator who acts as planning director, a Waste Water Treatment Plant Supervisor, a combination Street Maintenance Person/Used Oil Grant Director and a Grant Administrator. The Grant Administrator also acts an Emergency Services Director. Legal services to the City are provided by a contracted “city attorney.” The City contracts with the County Sheriff to provide three full-time officers. The City contracts for engineering services with a private firm. The City contracts for fire inspection and related plan checks with the Fort Bragg Fire Marshal. The City has established a system of commissions dealing with various areas of concern of City government. These commissions consist of one City Council member and one or more salaried employees, for example, the Pier Commission. The City manages two revolving loan funds that are offered to citizens to promote real estate and business development including affordable/low income housing. The city obtained oil pollution cleanup grant money for “Arena Rescue,” which consists of a dedicated rescue boat to be used in emergencies and assists the Coast Guard in emergency services. 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 33 City revenue is generated from secured taxes, transient occupancy tax, and pier facility services and product tax. Pier revenue is generated by boat launching, product cranes, parking fees, and product tax from private fish product companies. A privately owned water company supplies water to the City for domestic use and fire protection. The Redwood Coast Fire District headquartered in Manchester provides fire and emergency services. The City has developed a disaster plan in coordination with the Emergency Services Authority in Ukiah. The City is involved in Safe Passages, an externally funded program to provide infrastructure for safe transit of children to and from school.
• CO10
  The Grand Jury commends the city government and citizenry of Point Arena on its completion and adoption of its General Plan, its efforts to establish its emergency services program, its successful petroleum and solid waste recycling program, its support of the Safe Passages program, and its sound fiscal management. The Grand Jury applauds the dedication of the virtually unpaid elected officials of the city and the dedication of its salaried employees as well. Misinformation and lack of communication between various factions of the citizenry and City government is endemic. The public does not regularly attend City Council meetings. The City Council in the past has had to appoint members because of lack of interest. The Grand Jury would remind the citizenry of Point Arena that “you get the government you deserve.” Response Required Point Arena City Council Redwood Coast Fire District Board of Directors Emergency Service Authority Board of Directors 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 36 Willits City Government, Little Lake Fire District, and Willits Unified School District Overall the City of Willits (Willits) operates effectively, with some problems, through its Departments of City Administration, Public Works, and Police. The Little Lake Fire District provides superlative services. The Willits Unified School District provides good education in a relatively safe environment; maintenance at some schools needs attention. City Administration Method of Investigation The Grand Jury met with the Mayor, City Manager, and city personnel. The Grand Jury reviewed the Ten Year Plan, Policies and Procedures, budgets, complaint forms, Future Growth Plan, Willits 101 Bypass documents, and the Emergency Disaster Plan. Background Information Willits, known as the ‘Heart of Mendocino County,’ was incorporated in 1888. Willits operates under a city council-city manager form of government with a five-member City Council that elects the Mayor each year. The ‘One- town, One-vision’ program came about for citizen input about Willits development; it is not an official Willits program. According to the 1990 census, Willits has 5,027 residents and 7,000 people live in the surrounding areas including Pine Mountain, Brooktrails, and Little Lake Valley.
• CO11
  Comment on Finding 6 in this report: according to Caltrans, “We conducted an extensive traffic volume and origin/destination survey in Willits in 1998. The annual average daily traffic was 25,700 in the Willits area. Of that traffic, the average daily truck traffic exceeds 1000 south of the intersection of US 101 and SR 20. “Caltrans keeps only the most recent 10 years of traffic collision data on all State highways due to the huge data storage logistics. Data on the current years is not accumulated until the end of the year. To evaluate the need for improvement projects, we typically examine the last five years of traffic collision data. “There were 469 collisions on US 101 between June 1995 and May 2000 in the Willits Bypass project area. Of the 469 collisions reported, three resulted in fatalities, 141 resulted in injuries, and the remainder resulted solely in property damage. The existing total collision rate, injury collision rate, and fatality collision rate are 4.5, 3.0 and 1.5 times higher than the statewide average total, injury and fatality collision rates, respectively, compared to a rural four-lane facility with the same average daily traffic.” The Grand Jury urges the residents of Willits to visit and tour the facilities of the Fire District to see how extremely well this department functions. The Grand Jury noted during tours of schools by the Superintendent and principals that they were very professional, prepared, and helpful. The Grand Jury believes the students of Willits would be better served with a new, modern high school facility. Response Required Willits City Council (Recommendations A – E & related Findings) Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (Recommendation F & related Finding) Little Lake Fire District Board of Directors (Findings 22 – 25) Willits Unified School District Board of Trustees (Recommendations G –K & related Findings) Response Requested Willits City Manager (Recommendations A–E & related Findings) Willits Public Works Director (Recommendations A–C & related Findings) Willits Police Chief (Recommendations D, E & related Findings) Mendocino County General Services Director (Recommendation F & related Findings) Little Lake Fire District Chief (Findings 22–25) 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 43 Willits Unified School District Superintendent (Recommendation G–K & related Findings) 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 44 Family and Children’s Services and Parents Within the Department of Social Services (DSS), the Family and Children’s Services Division (FCS) goal is to protect children and provide services to families. FCS sometimes needs to remove children from parents’ custody, setting up an adversarial situation; Social Workers act to protect children, and parents are often upset that FCS has removed the children. The Grand Jury found that throughout the process, Social Workers are sincerely trying to help families and children, while parents feel that FCS abuses its powers and treats them unfairly. FCS could prevent many conflicts by involving parents in the case planning process and clearly informing parents about rights and responsibilities. The County needs to alleviate FCS staffing and training problems. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the DSS Director, FCS Deputy Director, Senior Program Managers, Social Worker Supervisors, Social Workers, Assistant Social Workers, and former FCS employees. The Grand Jury also interviewed clients and their attorneys and service providers. The Grand Jury visited FCS and DSS offices in Fort Bragg, Willits, and Ukiah. The Grand Jury reviewed applicable State Welfare and Institutions Codes, FCS Policy and Procedure Letters, Child Welfare Information Bulletins, the April 2002 Children’s Services Division Annual Report to the Board of Supervisors (April 2002 report), FCS draft documents, and DSS handbooks. Background Information The FCS Mission Statement states: Through teamwork with the community and the Family and Children’s Services Division, we seek to: (cid:53) Promote safety and protection of children; (cid:53) Support and empower families; (cid:53) Return a child to a safe home or, when that is not possible; provide the best alternative permanent plan. FCS “receives suspected child abuse and neglect reports. These reports are related to physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, exploitation or emotional maltreatment of a minor.” “Reports of child abuse are evaluated by the Emergency Response Supervisor and appropriate action is taken. Whenever possible, pre-placement preventative [sic] services are provided to families for prevention of unnecessary separation of the child from their parents or caretaker.” Of 3,345 children reported to the Mendocino County Children’s Services Division for suspected child abuse or neglect, 22% did not warrant a full Emergency Response investigation and 78% received an in-person 2001–2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 45 Emergency Response investigation, “as well as crisis and intervention services.” (April 2002 report)
• CO12
  Public awareness of child abuse and neglect issues is lacking. More outreach by government to the citizenry regarding these issues is needed. Substance abuse is involved in many instances of child abuse and neglect. More public awareness of substance abuse and the harm it causes to families is needed. The County Child Abuse Prevention is not providing information to the public. Family and Children’s Services prepares an annual report to the Board of Supervisors summarizing child welfare issues in the County. The Board of Supervisors should distribute this report to media and all professionals involved with children and make it available to the general public. The problem of unclear and changing requirements for family reunification is a complicated issue involving the judgment and expertise of the professionals involved. FCS is working toward standardizing these requirements throughout the County as much as possible. The Grand Jury encourages FCS in this effort. Several witnesses alluded to the lack of adequate foster care in the County. This problem has been visited by the Grand Jury previously. Perhaps it is time to do so again. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Department of Social Services Director 2001–2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 51 Family and Children Services Director 2001–2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 52 Domestic Violence Restraining Orders The Grand Jury investigated the process by which a person subject to domestic violence obtains a Restraining Order. The Restraining Order is designed to prevent named individuals from contacting those who see them as threatening and is effective for three years Method of Investigation The Grand Jury reviewed “Domestic Violence,” a packet on Restraining Orders issued by the court to anyone applying for a Temporary Restraining Order as a first step toward obtaining a Restraining Order. The Grand Jury interviewed court officials, about the Restraining Order process and spoke with the Sheriff, a police chief, and street officers from different law enforcement agencies about police experience with Restraining Orders.
• CO13
  The Grand Jury suggests that the Court cooperate with law enforcement agencies to deliver orders expediently. Response Required Mendocino County Sheriff Fort Bragg City Council Ukiah City Council Willits City Council Response Requested City of Fort Bragg Police Chief City of Ukiah Police Chief City of Willits Police Chief 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 54 Department of Transportation The County Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for maintenance of approximately 1,020 miles of County roads and management of the County Surveyor’s office and the County airports. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) recently shifted the Solid Waste Division to the DOT. The Grand Jury reviewed the DOT in regard to management, equipment, security and housekeeping practices, safety procedures, and personnel policies. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the DOT Director and staff members, including department managers, the Office Administrator and clerks, the Senior Road Engineer, a civil engineer, equipment superintendents, the Safety Coordinator, senior and junior equipment operators, and crew supervisors. The Grand Jury also interviewed members of the BOS, the County Director of Human Resources, and the Service Employees International Union County Representative. The Grand Jury reviewed accident reports, the DOT’s “Mendocino County Goals and Issues,” the “Management Audit of the Mendocino County Department of Transportation” (Audit), and equipment maintenance and tracking reports. The Grand Jury observed the state of equipment, visited maintenance yards in Booneville, Point Arena, Fort Bragg, Covelo, Ukiah, Laytonville, and Willits, and observed operations of road crews and the condition of roads in various parts of the County. Background Information The Grand Jury last reviewed the DOT in 1989. At that time, the Grand Jury looked at the Road Division of the Department of Public Works, which became the DOT in 1998.
• CO14
  The morale of the road crews is low because of low pay, arbitrary decisions on job assignment, frequent loss of time due to the need to travel to toilet facilities, and work stoppage due to shortage of road crew members. The Grand Jury commends the many DOT personnel, who despite low morale and often inadequate funding and old equipment, perform their jobs efficiently and safely, with little turnover of personnel. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Department of Transportation Director Human Resources Department Director 2001–2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 61
• CO15
  Visually Handicapped Funding at Mendocino College The Grand Jury investigation of the Visually Handicapped funding programs within the Disabled Students Program Services (DSPS) of Mendocino College (MC) found that MC uses the funds properly. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the DSPS Director and the DSPS Learning Disabled Specialist. The GJ visited MC. The Grand Jury reviewed the MC DSPS budgets and expenditures for the fiscal years of 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001 and the State of California Chancellor’s office budget for DSPS disbursements to Community Colleges. Background Information DSPS encourages disabled student independence and responsibility. The program promotes equal opportunity and access to college courses. The DSPS receives funds through grant from the State of California for the Disabled Students program. The DSPS grant stipulates that a specified portion of the Visually Handicapped Program funds be restricted to the Visually Handicapped program.
• CO16
  It is not within the purview of the Grand Jury to make recommendations to citizens concerning political issues. However, in regard to the lack of citizen participation in the Water District, the Grand Jury would remind the citizenry of the District: “one gets the government one deserves.” Response required Westport County Water District Board of Directors 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 67
• CO17
  Foster Care-Foster Parent Issues The Grand Jury has looked at various issues regarding Foster Care in 1995– 96, 1997–98, 1999–2000, and 2000–2001 and made recommendations. The Department of Social Services (DSS) has adopted many of the recommendations and provided documentation of their implementation to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury now finds that some of these issues need attention again.
• CO18
  The 2002–03 Grand Jury review the Foster Care program, including foster homes and care of children. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Department of Social Services Director 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 70 Mental Health Services for Children The 2000–2001 Grand Jury provided several recommendations for improved Mental Health services for children. The Department of Mental Health (Mental Health) and Board of Supervisors (BOS) responses indicated that most recommendations were already implemented or would not be implemented. Mental Health scheduled two recommendations for implementation in June 2002. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury reviewed Mental Health and Board of Supervisors responses, documents furnished by Mental Health, information from the Special Education Local Area Plan (SELPA) Administrator, and the Mental Health 2002 Compendium of Services. The Grand Jury interviewed parents of children receiving Mental Health services and visited the Oak Manor Day Treatment classroom.
• CO19
  The Grand Jury commends the Ukiah Unified School District for installing a window in the quiet-room door of the Day Treatment Program classroom, and the classroom teacher for using positive behavior interventions and classroom procedures; when the Grand Jury visited the classroom this year, children were not isolated and no punishments were posted. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Department of Mental Health Director Mendocino County Special Education Local Plan Area Administrator 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 73
• CO20
  Mendocino College Board of Trustees Response and Title IX Review The 2000–2001 Grand Jury made recommendations for the Mendocino-Lake Community College (College) Board of Trustees (Board), which the Board stated were either already implemented or would not be implemented because they were not warranted. However, the college administration currently is implementing some of the recommendations. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury reviewed the responses of the Board, interviewed the College President-Superintendent (President), and attended Board Meetings. The Grand Jury reviewed the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights “Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance: The Three-Part Test” (the Clarification). Background Information In the summer of 2001, the Board selected a new President who began October 15, 2001.
• CO21
  The Grand Jury commends the new President for her leadership in establishing a nursing program, a vital necessity for local health care and the work force, and her stated goal to get “maximum input from the whole institution” in making decisions for the College. The Grand Jury encourages the College community to work with and support the President as needed changes are implemented. The College should continue to encourage input from citizens and the local professional communities. The Grand Jury suggests that the 2002–2003 Grand Jury review the athletic activities for youth in the county and the opportunities to transition to both inter- and intra-mural athletics at the College. 2001–2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 76 Mendocino County Promotional Contract and Review of Responses to the 2000–2001 Report A review of responses to the 2000–2001 Grand Jury report on the Mendocino County Promotional Alliance (Alliance) raises a number of questions about financial accountability and contract performance by the Alliance and contract management by the County Administrator’s Office and the Board of Supervisors (BOS). Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the Alliance director, former Alliance employees, the County Auditor-Controller, the County Administrative Officer (CAO), the County Economic Development Coordinator, and the Assistant District Attorney. The Grand Jury visited the Alliance office. The Grand Jury reviewed the BOS and Alliance responses to the 2000–2001 Grand Jury Final Report “Mendocino County Promotional Alliance,” Alliance Reviewed Annual Financial Statements 1998-2001, Alliance quarterly billings (including Balance Sheets and Profit and Loss Statements) submitted to the CAO’s office, the contract between the County and the Alliance (Contract), documents filed in the Superior Court regarding a Grand Jury subpoena to the Alliance, and the four CAO files containing correspondence and documents concerning the Alliance. Background Information The County funded the Mendocino County Promotional Alliance, Inc., doing business as the Mendocino County Alliance, to promote agriculture and tourism in Mendocino County. The Alliance is promoting lodging and wine almost exclusively. (See Comment at the end for more details.) The responses to the 2000–2001 Grand Jury report “Mendocino County Alliance” presented the picture that the BOS was on top of the way the Alliance spent the public funds, approximately one-half million dollars, indicating that the County received quarterly financial and activity reports and complete annual reports. The report implied that the Alliance was doing a great job and that there was no need for change. The Grand Jury determined that it would be in the public’s interest to determine what information the County did receive and how that information was evaluated. 2001–2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 77 Review of 2000–2001 BOS Reponses