Compliance and Accountability

Recommendations 9

• R1
  By October 1, 2024, the classification decision tree be modified to include additional factors as set forth in the Scott Jones, Esq. report. This should include charges an inmate is facing and the potential sentence range assuming conviction, including sentencing enhancements, and pending out- of-county charges. Response to R1: The recommendation will not be implemented. The Placer County's Sheriff's Office acknowledges the recommendation to create a Guard-Duty matrix that includes factors in accordance with Penal Code section 1192.7(c). As of July 16, 2024, the Corrections Manual contains a policy that includes current charges and prior convictions. However, the Placer County Corrections Division Classification Unit does not have access to the potential sentences an inmate is facing or any sentence enhancements. This function is under the jurisdiction of the Courts. Additionally, the Corrections Unit lacks access to information on pending charges in other jurisdictions, except for known out-of-county warrants.
• R2
  staff approval prior to any reclassification of any inmate currently charged with an aggravated felonies pursuant to Penal Code section 1192.7(c). Response to R2: The recommendation has been implemented. The Placer County's Correctional Manual Policy 1-18, Guarding inmates, was modified on July 16, 2024, to include a process for downgrading inmates guard with jail commander approval.
• R3
  curriculum and commence a formal training program for Placer County deputies for out of custodial facility transportation and monitoring duties, prior to deputy assignment, which includes hands-on, practical training. Response to R3: The recommendation has been implemented. Deputies assigned to Field Operations who have not yet been jail trained will be trained by their Field Trainer on Jail Policy 1-18. The responses and date of responses to the Grand Jury recommendations met compliance requirements of Penal Code section 933.05.
• R4
  By September 1, 2024, the Lincoln City Council will appoint a city representative to attend quarterly Restoration Advisory Board meetings. Responses to R4: By September 1, 2024, the City Council will appoint the City Manager or designee as the representative to attend meetings of the Restoration Advisory Board. The 2024-2025 PC-GJ contacted the Lincoln City Manager on October 9, 2024 and confirmed implementation. Follow-up to R1 R4 Responses: The City Council and City Manager of Lincoln, Ca, have met Compliance requirements for their responses to the 2023-2024 Grand Jury report recommendations.
• R5
  By November 1, 2024, the Placer County Planning Services Division will develop written procedures to inform Placer County Supervisors, Municipal Advisory Councils, and county staff how information is transmitted among these parties. Response to R5: Recommendation No. 3 requires further analysis. District 1- The Grand Jury (GJ) has requested that I, an individual Supervisor, respond. However, the GJ's recommendations is directed to the "Placer County Board of Supervisors", as a legislative body, to take specific actions. As an individual supervisor, I cannot bind or commit the Board to act (repeated in every Board of Supervisor response and will be omitted for Districts 2-5). Speaking as an individual Supervisor, I favor this recommendation. It makes sense for Planning Services, which primarily interacts with the MACs, to set standards that the MACs would follow. District 2 No additional submittal. District 3 - Speaking as an individual Supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that it would be best to discuss this as a hearing body as it may need to be pushed further out to give staff adequate time to update. A realistic date would be further out to early-mid 2025. District 4 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that further analysis is required to determine the necessity and/or feasibility of such an undertaking. District 5 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that it should be implemented in the given timeframe. Follow up to the responses to R5: As of December 31, 2024, the BOS have not included any action item in the bi-monthly Board meetings to address the recommendations to address having the Planning Services Division develop written procedures to inform Placer County Supervisors, Municipal Advisory Councils, and county staff how information is transmitted among these parties.
• R6
  Beginning in February 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will authorize mandatory annual training on the Brown Act and new rezoning laws and procedures relevant to the Municipal Advisory Councils. Beginning in February 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will ensure mandatory annual training on the Brown Act and new rezoning laws and procedures relevant to the Municipal Advisory Councils board members occurs. Response to R6: Recommendation No. 6 requires further analysis. District 1- The Grand Jury (GJ) has requested that I, an individual Supervisor, respond. However, the GJ's recommendations is directed to the "Placer County Board of Supervisors", as a legislative body, to take specific actions. As an individual supervisor, I cannot bind or commit the Board to act (repeated in every Board of Supervisor response and will be
• R7
  By September 1, 2024, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will ensure all current and past meeting agendas and approved minutes are posted to the Municipal Advisory Council webpages. Response to R7: Recommendation No. 7 requires further analysis. District 1- The Grand Jury (GJ) has requested that I, an individual Supervisor, respond. However, the GJ's recommendations is directed to the "Placer County Board of Supervisors", as a legislative body, to take specific actions. As an individual supervisor, I cannot bind or commit the Board to act (repeated in every Board of Supervisor response and will be omitted for Districts 2-5). Speaking as an individual Supervisor, I favor this recommenda period. District 2 - Speaking as an individual Supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is it is important to have meeting agendas and minutes available and updated regularly. District 3 - Speaking as an individual Supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that although a good idea, we are short-staffed, and this is not a realistic timeline to get this completed. Late 2024 to early 2025 would be a more realistic timeline. District 4 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that further analysis is needed to determine the necessity for this step. District 5 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that this has already been handled by county staff.
• R8
  By January 1, 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will provide virtual access for all Municipal Advisory Councils meetings to the public. Response to R8: Recommendation No. 8 requires further analysis. District 1- The Grand Jury (GJ) has requested that I, an individual Supervisor, respond. However, the GJ's recommendations is directed to the "Placer County Board of Supervisors", as a legislative body, to take specific actions. As an individual supervisor, I cannot bind or commit the Board to act (repeated in every Board of Supervisor response and will be omitted for Districts 2-5). Speaking as an individual Supervisor, I believe this recommendation is unreasonable. MACs are primarily in rural areas with unreliable internet, making it difficult to hold compliant public meetings. For instance, if a MAC meeting loses power or internet, it must be adjourned and rescheduled, which is highly inefficient. While recording and posting meetings online is a viable alternative, it would demand substantial county resources. District 2 -Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is virtual meetings are costly to host and virtual access is limited in much of the rural parts of the County where the Municipal Advisory Councils exist. During Covid, we provided virtual access, and did not see as increase in attendance. I believe the public is more likely to attend when an issue that impacts them directly is on the agenda, and providing virtual access will be a large expense to taxpayers, without a lot of benefit. District 3 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that t believe it will be effective in drawing in additional citizens to this meeting. Follow-up to R1 R8 Responses: The Placer County Board of Supervisors have met Compliance requirements per Penal Code § 933.05 for their responses to the
• R29
  R4. transportation methods for moving detainees from Burton Creek to the Auburn Main Jail. Responses to R4: Sheriff Woo stated that Recommendation No. 3 requires further analysis. The cost of funding full-time transport deputies would exponentially outweigh the cost of the contract between Placer and Nevada County. Placer County is responsible for providing allied agencies such as CHP, CA State Parks and Probation with a booking facility for arrests made within Placer County. The contract with Nevada County Jail ensures that officers making arrests in the eastern part of the county do not need to drive to the western end for booking. This arrangement not only saves time and resources but also allows officers to remain in their respective areas, maintaining a higher level of public safety and efficiency. By preventing long travel times for bookings, the contract helps keep law enforcement presence consistent across the country, avoiding the potential gaps in coverage that could arise if deputies were required to transport arrestees across significant distances. Follow-up to R1 R4 Responses: Supervisors, have met Compliance requirements for their responses to the Recommendations within the 2023-2024 Grand Jury report.