2007–2008 Grand Jury Final Report

Recommendations 7

• R1

  Page 68
  Each one of the members is truly dedicated and has a strong desire to see that the project is completed. However, because of other obligations, it is sometimes difficult to work on the project full time. It is unfortunate that the many hours spent and the brainstorming efforts of Commission members have not been recognized, and/or appreciated. All Members are very committed, and make every effort to donate their time and efforts towards the safeguarding of county records, not only as their duty as a member, but as interested citizens as well. Response to
• R2

  Page 7
  Elective officer or agency head: All elected officers of heads agencies who are required to respond must do so to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an informational copy provided to the board of supervisors. The legal requirements for responding to individual reports in the grand jury final report, as contained in the California Penal Code, Section 933.05, are summarized as follows: The responding entity or person must respond in one of two ways:
• R5

  Page 76
  Any of the parties may terminate this MOU on thirty (30) days written notification.
• R6

  Page 76
  Each party to the MOU is responsible for own acts and will not indemnify the acts of the other parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Memorandum of Understanding as of the date signed: (Signatures are on file copy) Glenn County Department of Health Services by name and title Glenn Medical Center by name and title Willows Police Department by name and title Orland Police Department by name and title Glenn County Sheriff’s Department by name and title California Highway Patrol by name and title Glenn County Counsel by name and title ATTACHMENT A Interagency Memorandum of Understanding Mental Health Assessment of 5150 Candidate The following document is based upon these key principles: * Compassionate concern for the welfare of persons with mental illness. * Least restrictive environment for the consumer that is appropriate for the circumstances. * Safety of staff involved in the assessment process. 76 * Efficient used of staff time so duplication of effort does not occur. Law enforcement personnel are released back to the street as soon as possible. * Public safety is maintained. * Medical issues are seen as a high priority for attention. * Agencies acknowledge that cooperation with each other allows the detained individual to receive the most humane care. * Quarterly meetings will be held to assess and problem-solve issues that may arise regarding these protocols. Planning for joint training will be addressed at these meetings. * All standard practices in regard to confidentiality will be maintained. * Title 22 (emergency rooms) (W&I 4080 – Psychiatric health facilities, edition of CDMH Laws and Regulations) and law enforcement agencies are the only agencies legally allowed to restrain a citizen under a detention. Need for medical clearance is defined as being when an individual: ! Is to be placed into any psychiatric health facility (PHF) as required by law. ! Has an obvious injury; ! Is suspected of ingesting a harmful substance; ! Is under the influence of a controlled or illegal substance or alcohol to the degree that the individual could be arrested for same (PC 647f); ! Appears to be experiencing a medical reaction. For example: shortness of breath, dizziness, fainting, seizure, bleeding, etc. ! Is displaying overt psychotic symptoms and is unable to communicate clearly: ! Is clearly uncooperative, combative or expressing explosive anger, and/or ! Is in need of a 5150 (PC 4011.6) assessment, if in custody. A voluntary individual is a person not under arrest, however by law requires medical clearance prior to placement into any psychiatric health facility (PHF). During mental health clinic working hours, the voluntary individual will receive evaluation and assistance from mental health staff. After hours, the individual will call the mental health clinic and be directed to call a toll-free phone number which will connect them with the after-hours response service. If it is determined that there is a need, the after hours on-duty worker will respond. In the event that the officer has the first contact with the individual, the officer may elect to transport to Glenn Medical Center (GMC) without writing a 5150 hold, and an after- hours worker will go to GMC. Once the citizen is at the GMC and the individual is determined by GMC staff not to be a safety risk, law enforcement is free to leave. The on-duty mental health worker will evaluate, place the individual on 5150 if required, arrange a placement in the least restrictive setting, and arrange for transportation. A non-voluntary individual is a person who is suspected of experiencing emotional distress and is not requesting mental health assistance. This individual will be taken directly to a Title 22 facility (emergency room) day or night. When an individual is under arrest/in custody, the officer will initiate 4011.6.Only an officer can write this hold, however, assistance is available from a mental health worker. Law enforcement will inform the emergency room en route, and may also call mental health staff en route. Law enforcement is responsible for completing the 5150 paperwork. Emergency room staff will call mental health staff if law enforcement has not already made the call. Mental health staff will return all calls for request of service within ten (10) minutes. Once safety has been established law enforcement is free to leave. Mental health staff will arrive at the emergency room with 45 minute of the telephone contact. GMC staff or the officer may elect to contact on- duty mental health staff and inform them to await medical clearance prior to assessing for 5150 status (due to medical or under-the-influence issues); this will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Mental health staff will obtain a placement and transportation for the individual. Mental health staff will remain with the individual until the individual leaves the emergency room for transport to the placement or diversion location. When law enforcement brings and individual to a Title 22 facility (emergency room) custody remains with the law enforcement officer until the detention passes to the authority of the emergency room staff. The detained individual will be admitted to the emergency room for assessment and medical clearance, if necessary. In the event the individual has a serious medical issue and the detainee is admitted to a medical facility and not placed on a 5150, the individual is then a patient of the medical facility. Prior to discharge, if medical facility staff request a 5150 assessment, mental health staff will respond and provide the service at that time. If an individual is on 5150 hold and is admitted to a medical facility, that 5150 will be reevaluated every 24-hours (minimally) by mental health staff until medical clearance is given. Although the mental health department has the responsibility of locating a psychiatric hospital bed for the detainee, staff from local hospitals are welcome to participate with the mental health department in this process. Emergency room doctors generally will be required to speak to the admitting physician in order to facilitate transfer; often a “doctor-to-doctor” conversation can help to expedite transfer to the new facility. Mental health staff will work collaboratively with all parties to facilitate this process. While in the emergency room, mental health workers will function collaboratively with the ER staff so that the 5150 process does not interfere with other events and routines that normally occur. The mental health worker will communicate with the supervisory staff about plans and needs so that arrangements can be made with a minimum of inconvenience and disruption to the medical facility. Glenn County Sheriff response – We continue to work with Glenn Medical Center and Glenn County Mental Health in order to establish up to the minute protocols for treating inmates in need of both physical and mental health care. The agreement between Glenn Medical and Glenn County Mental Health has progressed very well. Our protocols within the jail itself are continually evolving in order to assure that every inmate needing any type of health care will receive all needed assistance. All complaints of failure to see inmates on sick call will be investigated. Glenn Medical Center response – Hospital administrator responding – Glenn Medical Center initiated quarterly informal meetings with representatives of the hospital, jail, juvenile hall, and county health department. Issues pertinent to the jail contract and provisions of care to inmates are discussed at these meetings and change implemented as needed. The psychiatrist providing services to the jail and juvenile hall is a contract physician providing 24 hour, 7 day per week services via on site and call service. When he is unavailable, the jail, juvenile hall and the hospital will all have prior notice and a physician scheduled to act in behalf of the contract psychiatrist. Finally, the Glenn County Health Director and the Glenn Medical Center Administrator will convene discussions with the Glenn County Administrative Officer to discuss mental health services in greater detail. Glenn County Administrative Officer response – The County and Glenn Medical Center do have quarterly Joint Management meetings to discuss medical services provided to the Jail and Juvenile hall. These meetings have expanded to include the Glenn County Human Resource Agency, so that all aspects of interaction could be discussed and all participants could better understand each others obligations and roles in providing medical services to both facilities. Glenn County Board of Supervisors responding – The Board concurs with Department responses and would add that the current contract for the Jail and Juvenile hall medical services requires contractor to provide their own backup. GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSES – Responses accepted 79 Responses to the 2006-2007 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report Mosquito Abatement Program RECOMMENDATIONS: The Board of Supervisors and the city councils/service districts of each city involved should work with the director of the Glenn County Health Department to implement this program as quickly as possible. RESPONSES: City of Orland – Mayor responding – The issue of providing mosquito abatement and control was addressed through a presentation to the Orland City Council by the Glenn County Health Department Director. A request was made that the City of Orland agree to be included in the Glenn County mosquito abatement program, which request was accepted by the Orland City Council. A resolution of the City Council of the City of Orland, requesting the inclusion of the City of Orland within the Glenn County Mosquito Abatement Program was passed, subject to a successful outcome from a property owner assessment ballot proceeding for a benefit assessment that would provide funding for County of Glenn’s mosquito and disease control services in the City. That balloting procedure is concluded, and the program has been approved. Accordingly, the City of Orland will participate with the County of Glenn Health Department in implementing this program. City of Willows – Mayor responding – With regards to the Mosquito Abatement Program, the City agrees with the report and provides the following comments:
• R8

  Page 96
  Consider establishing term limits for Board of Education members to two terms. Advertise all open positions to the general public, advising them of the duties as well as the benefits of the office. RESPONSES: Former President of the Glenn County Board of Education responding – Referring to
• R2007

  Page 24
  III. FINDINGS: The guardian is appointed by and reports to the Glenn County Board of Supervisors. The guardian has the following three primary responsibilities: A) the guardian acts as a court appointed guardian for individuals who are not competent to represent themselves. These are normally children or they are mentally or physically disabled. B) the guardian acts as public administer who investigates and may administrator estates of persons who die with no will or without an appropriate person willing or able to act as administrator. C) the guardian acts as a representative payee, who manages the finances of individuals who do not have the mental capacity to do so. Two individuals staff the office of the Glenn County Public Guardian and they currently serve approximately 50 clients. IV. CONCLUSIONS: The Glenn County Public Guardian and staff are to be commended for their professionalism and for their dedication in serving residents of Glenn County who lack the mental or physical capacity to represent themselves. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: None VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 25 2007-2008 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report Glenn County Jail I. PURPOSE: To review, inspect, and assess any needs or concerns at the Glenn County Jail. II. BACKGROUND: October 30, 2007, members of the Glenn County Grand Jury Public Safety Committee met with Sheriff Larry Jones and several members of the jail staff during the required annual jail inspection. Committee members reviewed and discussed the current operations, maintenance, and future plans for the facility. Previous grand jury findings such as medical and mental health issues, boiler replacement, sally port dimensions, power pole placement and removal, transfer of inmates to and from court, as well as other pressing issues were discussed. III. FINDINGS: Overall the jail is clean and operating in a safe and secure manner. The malfunctioning boiler has been replaced and is working to standard specifications. Medical and mental health issues are handled more expeditiously due in part to a full- time on-site nurse. More complex medical, dental, and mental health needs are met through Glenn Medical Center and the Indian Health Center. As mentioned in previous grand jury reports, the power pole found at the north end of the jail complex has yet to be removed. The sally port (facility entrance portal) needs to be remodeled and updated to accommodate larger transportation vehicles. Metal detectors and updated finger-printing machines have been approved for purchase and are on line for installation. Food service is to standards with a well maintained kitchen and dining facility. Meals are adequate with special considerations made for religious, medical, or other dietary needs. Jail staffing needs to be closely monitored to ensure compliance with all state jail staffing mandates. The Glenn County Jail is the only north state detention facility to conduct a mandated fire drill. IV. CONCLUSIONS: Major concerns: the sally port needs to be enlarged for greater accessibility by larger prisoner transport vehicles; the utility pole located at the north end of the jail must be removed or safety barriers installed; jail staffing must be in line with California State mandates; and the jail facility must keep up to date on the latest detention innovations as well as planning for future expansion. The Glenn County Sheriff and his staff are to be commended for their professionalism and work ethic in a tight fiscal climate. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: The sally port facility needs to be enlarged, the north utility pole must be removed, future jail expansion should be planned, and the transport of prisoners to and from the jail to court must be addressed. Staffing must be brought up to California State detention facility standards. VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED: Glenn County Board of Supervisors Glenn County Sheriff Glenn County Planning and Public Works – Facilities 27 2007-2008 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall I. PURPOSE: To review, inspect, and assess current conditions and staffing within the Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall facility. II. BACKGROUND: Grand Jury members visited the facility March 17, 2008, interviewing the Glenn County Chief Probation Officer and the facility interim manager. III. FINDINGS: At this time, the facility has a capacity to house 22 juvenile residents. Currently the complex has a staff of ten full time counselors, a cook, and an on-call nurse. In addition, the facility contains a Glenn County Office of Education supported school with a full time administrator, teacher, and teacher’s aide, as well as an on-call school physiologist. At this time, the facility is under-staffed by one counselor. The general appearance of the staff and facility are up to mandated standards. Building maintenance and cleanliness are adequate. Medical needs of the residents appear to be met in a timely manner with intake physicals being given within the required state mandated time frame of 96 hours. The recreation area is clean, secured, and monitored during recreation times. Updated video surveillance was recently installed to better monitor residents, staff, and visitors. The sally port (facility entrance portal) is inadequate for the safe transfer of residents to and from the dentition facility. IV. CONCLUSIONS: The administration and staff of the Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall must be commended for their professionalism and concern shown toward the juvenile residents under their care. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: The sally port must be enlarged in order to accommodate the safe transfer of juvenile residents to and from the detention facility. Staffing must be in accordance with California State mandated juvenile detention standards and regulations. The Glenn County Board of Supervisors must adequately fund the Jane Hahn Juvenile Hall facility and ensure the continued operation of this most important county asset. VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED: Glenn County Probation Department Glenn County Sheriff Glenn County Board of Supervisors 29 2007-2008 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report Probation Department I. PURPOSE: To review the Probation Department in order to understand how it operates and to identify needs or concerns of department personnel. II. BACKGROUND: Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the Chief Probation Officer on March 17,
• R2008

  Page 29
  III. FINDINGS: The Probation office has a staff of fifteen officers who are responsible for monitoring approximately 1,500 parolees. In addition to their monitoring of activities, probation officers are required to prepare reports that are used by the courts in the sentencing process. Probation officers are also responsible for transporting juvenile hall residents to and from court. Probation positions are paid either through grants or by the County General Fund. Due to the tenuous nature of grant funding approximately half of the positions may be at risk of being terminated. Revenue shortfalls may result in pressure to cut additional positions in order to balance the Glenn County budget. IV. CONCLUSIONS: One of the functions of the probation services is to help criminal offenders re-enter society as productive citizens. Even at its current staffing level the probation department lacks the resources to proactively monitor parolees and probationers and provide them with the intended support services. If additional probation positions are eliminated the department will likely have time for little other than preparing written probation reports, transporting juveniles to their court appearances and responding to flagrant probation violations. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Grand Jury understands the budgetary pressures faced by the County Board of Supervisors and the need to make difficult decisions regarding the programs and positions to fund. That said, the probation department makes a significant contribution to public safety as well as giving individuals who have served time in the criminal justice system services to help them to re-enter society as productive citizens. If money from the general fund is not available, then every effort should be 30 made to renew grant funding to, at a minimum, maintain probation department service levels. VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED: Glenn County Board of Supervisors Glenn County Chief Probation Officer Glenn County Sheriff 31 2007-2008 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report Orland City Council Dismissal of Planning Commission and Assumption of Duties I. PURPOSE: To investigate whether the City Council acted appropriately in dismissing the Planning Commission and assuming their duties. II. BACKGROUND: Prior to the Planning Commission meeting of May 2, 2007, the president of the commission requested that four items be placed on the agenda. When they were not on the agenda, he adjourned the meeting without holding the scheduled public hearings. At the next regular Orland City Council meeting, May 7, 2007, the dismissal of the planning commission was discussed. A joint meeting of the two bodies was held June 4, 2007. Following this at the regular Orland City Council meeting of June 4, 2007, the Orland City Council dismissed the members of the planning commission and assumed their duties. III. FINDINGS: Orland Municipal Code 2.32.050 states, “The city council reserves the right to remove any commissioner from office at any time for any reason.” California State Code 65101 states, “The legislative body may create one or more planning commissions . . . In the absence of an assignment, the legislative body shall carry out all the functions of the planning agency.” IV. CONCLUSIONS: It is the conclusion of this grand jury that the city council acted within the parameters of the Orland Municipal Code and the California State Code. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: None. VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None. 32 2007-2008 Glenn Grand Jury Final Report Orland City Council Procedures I. PURPOSE: To review the Orland City Council actions following the dismissal of the Planning Commissioners. II. BACKGROUND: Following the recall attempt, discrepancies regarding the adherence of the Orland City Municipal Code came to light. Grand jury members conducted several interviews, attended city council meetings, reviewed Orland City Municipal Code, city council minutes, and the Procedure for Recalling State and Local Officials manual from the Office of the California Secretary of State. III. FINDINGS: The Orland City Council currently acts as the planning commission. The Orland City Council meetings begin at varying times in violation of the Orland City Municipal Code, which states “the regular meetings of the Orland city council shall be held at seven-thirty p.m.” As the city council addresses planning issues during the second monthly meeting, council meeting start-times have been changed to 6:30 p.m. in violation of the current city code. New training has been planned but not implemented. A special meeting of the Orland City Council was held July 11, 2007 with the single agenda item "PRESS RELEASE - Responses from Council members to recall petitions." IV. CONCLUSIONS: The Orland City Council is not in compliance with the Orland City Municipal Code. Orland City Council members being recalled acted outside of the parameters of the Orland City Municipal Code by holding a meeting to deal with the personal business of the recall of four members of the council at a public meeting with the inappropriate use of city management and city staff. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Orland City Council regular meetings must adhere to the Orland Municipal Code or the code must be amended to reflect the meeting times currently in use. Planning commissioners should be appointed to better serve the people within the city of Orland as soon as possible. Mandatory training should be developed for new commissioners as they are appointed to fill the vacant city planning commission. Special meetings of the Orland City Council should only be called to address permissible Orland city business. VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED: Orland City Manager Orland City Council 34 2007-2008 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report Willows City Library Funds I. PURPOSE: The Glenn County Grand Jury investigated the reasoning behind the return of approximately $63,755 from the 2006-07 library budget to the general fund rather than being used to fund other library uses and needs. II. BACKGROUND: The City of Willows allocated a library budget of $288,331 for the 2006-07 fiscal year. Expenditures totaled approximately $224,576, leaving approximately $63,755 unspent. This amount was returned to the general fund. On April 10, 2008, a grand jury team met with the Willows City Manager to inquire into this matter. III. FINDINGS: According to the information conveyed to the grand jury by the Willows City Manager, the City of Willows General Fund did receive the unspent monies from the library budget – he stated that this is standard operating procedure. When asked if the amount $63,755 was approximately correct, the City Manager stated that that amount sounded too low, that the money budgeted for a library director was between $70,000 and $80,000 and so $70,000 to $75,000 was probably more accurate. The salary range for the position was $47,000 to $57,000 with ancillary benefits added to it. When asked about the difficulty of finding a library director, the city manager gave us a detailed summary of the advertising, recruiting, and interviewing process that the City of Willows had gone through to find a qualified library director. The city manager noted that the City of Willows lacked the “attractiveness that candidates were looking for,” that is, the money being offered and the duties to be fulfilled were not competitive with other areas around the state. At one point, there were only four applications. The city manager took the recommendations of two committees for the person finally selected – the committees were unanimous in their selection of this person. When asked about the proper procedure or procedures for utilizing unspent money budgeted for the library, the city manager responded that there was explicit direction for this in the city regulations. He offered to give us the exact citation and added that as far as he was aware (and there was agreement among the Grand Jury team that he was perhaps more aware than anyone else), no needs for the library went unaddressed. In addition to the city council having final say on all aspects of the 35 budget, he added that the interim library director knew of the unspent monies and how to submit a request for library materials. IV. CONCLUSIONS: Department heads in all administrative entities are in general encouraged to come in under budget and add back unspent monies to the overall general revenue reserve. The Willows City Library Board of Trustees, in an advisory status, and the interim library director could each have requested by way of the Willows City Council all or part of the unspent budgeted monies for the library. According to the Willows City Manager, no need for the library went unaddressed. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: If a similar situation comes up again, the City of Willows should inquire into the feasibility of coordinating with the City of Orland for Library Directorship services. VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED: Willows City Council Willows City Library Board Willows City Library Director 36 2007-2008 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report Medical Volunteer Transport Program I. PURPOSE: To review the volunteer medical transit program. II. BACKGROUND: The volunteer medical transit program was established by the Glenn County Board of Supervisors in July 1998. The service provides transportation primarily for elderly persons who cannot get to Orland, Chico, Colusa, Red Bluff, Sacramento, and other places for medical services not provided in Glenn County. Dialysis treatments are the major medical need. III. FINDINGS: Volunteer drivers use their own vehicles to provide transportation, and are provided a gas allowance and a small stipend. Drivers must have car insurance and they are checked for compliance annually by California Department of Motor Vehicles. Most drivers are retired and the majority live in the Orland area. IV. CONCLUSIONS: The program provides a much needed service and is operated efficiently. The drivers are the backbone of this program and the grand jury highly commends them for their dedicated service. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: The grand jury recommends that the need for additional volunteer drivers should be more widely publicized, due to the fact that this information is not known by many of the citizens of Glenn County. The Glenn County Board of Supervisors should be commended for their support of this program. VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED: Glenn County Planning and Public Works Agency Glenn County Regional Transit Committee Glenn County Board of Supervisors 38 2007-2008 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report Glenn County Subsidized Taxi Service I. PURPOSE: To investigate the question of whether the Glenn County Regional Transit Committee (RTC) fairly awarded the bid to the present operator of the subsidized taxi service in Glenn County. Some residents of the county have questioned whether there were irregularities in the bid process. The grand jury investigated the minutes of the RTC meetings from January 25, 2006 to February 15, 2007, the three bid proposals submitted to provide the subsidized taxi service for Glenn County and a profit and loss statement from the previous subsidized cab service provider for the period of December 1, 2005 through December 6, 2006. II. BACKGROUND: The Glenn County RTC is responsible for overseeing the transportation needs of the citizens of Glenn County. Included in this system is the fixed route system (Glenn Ride Bus), the subsidized taxi (including HRA ride to work) and the medical transport system. The previous subsidized taxi service provider had been under contract with Glenn Transit Service (GTS) for the subsidized taxi service in Willows and Orland for approximately 10 years. Their contract was due to expire at the end of May 2006. However, they agreed to extend their contract at the request of GTS while the request for proposal (RFP) process could be completed. An RFP for the management and operation of the subsidized taxi service was circulated in May of 2006 indicating a deadline date of June 8, 2006. One of the bidders submitted a proposal for consolidation of the transit services and the subsidized taxi service. The long time provider of the subsidized taxi service submitted a proposal for the taxi service only. A review panel reviewed the bid proposals in July 2006. The panel recommended that the bid proposal by the former subsidized taxi service be found non-responsive because the bid bond was not included, all the required information was not submitted, and the required numbers of copies of the bid were not submitted. At the August 17, 2006 RTC meeting, the committee found the bid request non-responsive under the guidelines of Appendix "A" Title 9 Standard Contract Form of the Glenn County Administrative Manual and did not meet the requirements of the Transportation contract. RTC awarded the contract to a new provider. At the September 2006 RTC meeting, the new provider requested more time to review some procedural issues prior to transition to the subsidized taxi program. The former subsidized taxi service provider agreed to extend their contract to January 8, 2007 to accommodate the transition. After the October 17, 2006 RTC meeting, a second RFP was circulated for the taxi program because of service hour changes. Three bid proposals were received. On December 13, 2006 the bids were reviewed once again by the review panel. The panel found that the former subsidized taxi provider had omitted an audit / review by a certified public accountant and a profit and loss statement without review. The RTC awarded the bid to the present provider because of their submittal of the lowest bid. III. FINDINGS: The grand jury finds that the profit and loss statement submitted by the former subsidized taxi provider had mathematical errors in calculating profits. Had the math been correct, the bid proposal would have been the lowest bid and the contract would have been awarded had all the other supporting documentation been included with the bid. It is noted by the grand jury that the former subsidized taxi provider’s vehicle insurance was much higher than the amounts listed for that charge on the other two bids. Furthermore, it appears that the former subsidized taxi provider failed to use the fuel cost "pass through" option that was discussed at the pre-bid meeting on May 1, 2006 and included on an RTC letter to all bidders. The grand jury reviewed the ridership information report from Glenn Transit Service for the subsidized taxi program. The information report shows ridership for three years from July 2005 to February 2008. The contract began with current taxi service provider in February 2007 and apparently due to the transition, the ridership in the city of Willows declined by approximately 52% from February 2006. Since then, ridership has increased and for the last six months, from September 2007 to February 2008, the numbers have surpassed the previous year’s total. At the current rate, the yearly total should near or surpass the previous year. The Orland City totals show a decrease in ridership of about 1,300 riders from February 2006 to February 2007. It is unknown why this trend is occurring. IV. CONCLUSIONS: It is the opinion of the Grand Jury that no further investigation is necessary in view of the fact that the previous subsidized taxi provider bid had not met the requirements of the bid contract. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: The grand jury recommends that bids to the County of Glenn continue to be administered to the letter of the requirements set forth in the County Administrative Manual for Title 9 Contracts. VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED: No response required. 40 2007-2008 Glenn Grand Jury Final Report Glenn County Office of Education Board Elections I. PURPOSE: Review the protocols and procedures for the election of individuals for open seats on the Glenn County Office of Education Board (GCOEB). II. BACKGROUND: The GCOEB provides oversight for the Glenn County Office of Education (GCOE). Under the California State Education Code, the GCOEB has defined roles and responsibilities. Five individuals, representing high school districts within Glenn County, are elected to four-year terms. If no one files as a candidate, an existing board member can be re-appointed to another term or, if that board member does not want to serve another term, an alternate individual can be appointed to fill that seat. The board is the body that is responsible for making appointments. The Glenn County Elections Department is responsible for conducting elections for the GCOEB. At stated times the elections department publicizes open school board positions in order to solicit candidates. The elections department also contacts the GCOE and suggests that they publicize open board positions as well. For the last 12 years, members of the GCOEB have been appointed in lieu of running for election and this has also been a common practice in years past. Appointments were made because people were satisfied with the job being done by the incumbent or because other qualified community members failed to file for election, were unaware of election deadlines, or were not familiar with the procedures necessary to apply for an elected position on the GCOEB. At present, there are no term limits for Board of Education positions. III. FINDINGS: There has been relatively little turnover in the membership on the GCOEB. Of the five board members, one has served for twenty-three years and two have served for seventeen years. In recent years, incumbent board members have either been unopposed for election or, in certain cases, no one has filed to run for an open seat. As a result, appointments have been made to fill the open seats. There are three forms of compensation for members fo the board. The budgeted amo9unt for health benefits for the board is $37,260, however, it is expected that only $30,000 of that amount will be spent this year. They also receive a stipend of $10 per 41 meeting. The budget for the stipends is $850 per year. The amount budgeted for mileage to attend meetings and functions is $1,800 annually. IV. CONCLUSIONS: The GCOEB is an important body and county residents would benefit from having a larger number of candidates from which to select board members. Arguably, new board members would bring new ideas and perspectives to the GCOE. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: Procedures should be put into place to improve the publication of open GCOEB positions. The goal should be to put notices in media that are the most likely to attract the attention of county residents. This might include newspaper advertisements, posting on web pages (Glenn County Elections Department and GCOE), or postings on community bulletin boards. It should be clearly stated which districts have seats that are up for election. Local district superintendents could identify, or even recruit, qualified individuals for GCOEB vacancies. Candidate qualifications and remuneration/benefits that come with the GCOEB positions should be part of the publication materials. Consideration should be given to putting a limit on the number of times a board member may be reappointed (in contrast to running for election). Under Section 1006 (a) of the California Education Code, the board may adopt, or the residents of the county may propose by initiative, a proposal to limit the number of terms a board member can serve. The GCOEB should explore the possibility of allowing board positions to be elected from the county-at-large if a sufficient number of candidates cannot be attracted to certain seats. The GCOEB should provide a current copy of the board policies (adopted March 19, 1997) to the Glenn County Elections Department (at the time this investigation began, the most current copy the elections office had was dated 1963). VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED: Glenn County Office of Education Board Glenn County Elections Department 42 2007-2008 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report Glenn County Office of Education I. PURPOSE: To review the governance procedures and the working relationship between the Glenn County Office of Education (GCOE) and the school districts it supports. II. BACKGROUND: The GCOE supports the individual school districts that educate the students of Glenn County. An elected superintendent, who is responsible for managing operations and who reports to a five-member board of trustees, heads the GCOE. The board has responsibilities that are defined under the California Education Code, inclusive of the review and approval of individual district annual budgets. In recent years, one of the primary responsibilities of GCOE has been to provide special education services to the individual school districts through the Special Education Local Plan (SELPA). State money provides much of the funding base for special education programs, with the districts being responsible for costs that are in excess of state funds. III. FINDINGS: The twelve years of operation under the previous administration was a period of apparent cooperation and collegiality. The Glenn County Office of Education Board (GCOEB) supported the policies, procedures and programs put forth by elected officers and employees of the county office. The superintendents in the individual districts had a close working relationship with the GCOE superintendent and the support staff in the county office. In 2006, issues unfolded when the former superintendent retired leaving a legacy of questionable activities. The circumstances surrounding the exit of the former superintendent, and strong feelings by certain members of the community have resulted in an air of contention between the county office and the Glenn County Office of Education Board (GCOEB). The Glenn County Office of Education Board consists of five members, several of whom have served for an extended period of time. In past practice, the former superintendent took a lead role on board issues with the board supporting and seldom questioning the policies and practices proposed by the county office administration. After the election the relationship between the new superintendent and the board turned adversarial. Board meetings deteriorated into contentious sessions making it difficult to conduct GCOE business. One of the issues that arose in these meetings 43 was a lack of training for new board members regarding their roles and responsibilities. While the superintendent and board members agreed to attend a training session, they have been unsuccessful in scheduling an appropriate date. Several individual events added to the discord. Disagreements over the governance provisions of the William Finch Charter School and an unexpected increase in excess costs for special education (billed back to the individual school districts) created an environment of mistrust between the GCOEB, the GCOE and the individual districts. This situation was exacerbated by declining enrollment and budgetary difficulties faced by the individual districts. While in most cases the GCOE is responsible for providing special education services, it is the individual districts that must actually pay for the services. The GCOE has few incentives to manage and minimize the costs for providing special education services. In response to disagreement among the individual districts regarding the formula for reimbursing special education costs, the GCOE retained the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team to prepare a SELPA Review (FCMAT Report). One of the major recommendations of the FCMAT Report was to develop a more precise bill-back model for excess costs that will fairly and equitably distribute those costs throughout the members of the SELPA. Over-identification of special education students by the Orland Unified School District was cited in the FCMAT Report as being one of the reasons for the misallocation of special education costs. IV. CONCLUSIONS: The community and the students of Glenn County are not being well served by the Glenn County Office of Education or by the Glenn County Office of Education Board. Discord among the various parties distract them from performing their roles and creates an environment of mistrust. This adversarial environment threatens the GCOE’s ability to provide cost effective special education programs and to support the individual districts. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: A training session should be mandatory for all board members. The board and the superintendent should define the topics to be covered. Some examples are: Roles and responsibilities of board members, Policies and procedures for the GCOEB, and Educational programs and services that are provided by the state and federal governments. The board and superintendent should cooperate and retain common counsel to review and resolve legal issues. The board should follow established policies and procedures to set and adjust the salary for the Glenn County Superintendent of Schools. It is especially important to 44 establish a base salary that is published, prior to the filing period, for an upcoming election. A spirit of cooperation in board meetings that recognizes that the county office exists to provide support services to the individual districts and that the school districts exist to serve students. SELPA needs to serve all of the districts and develop strategies to make it more efficient to provide special education services. VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED: Glenn County Superintendent of Schools Glenn County Board of Education Special Education Local Plan Area Board 45 2007 – 2008 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report Plaza School District I. PURPOSE: To conduct a health, safety, and welfare visitation as well as to emphasize the need for both Plaza School District and Glenn County Office of Education to formally respond to this and previous Glenn County Grand Jury reports. II. BACKGROUND: On November 7, 2007, members of the Glenn County Grand Jury visited Plaza School to determine the status of the school’s safety procedures and to reinforce the need to respond to all Grand Jury visitations or inquires. Upon entering the school office, it was determined that the primary school staff, the district superintendent and school secretary, were not on campus. The site principal was contacted, as she was instructing class, to arrange for a safety inspection and fire drill. III. FINDINGS: On the day of the initial visit, the district superintendent and the school secretary were off campus. Prior to entering the school office, it was noted that there were no visitor pass requirements conspicuously posted requiring campus visitors to secure school identification. During the Grand Jury visit, several members of the visiting committee did not display any Grand Jury Identification and were never challenged by the school administration. After contacting the site principal, a fire drill was conducted to determine the actions associated with an unannounced school fire drill. After the fire drill, other various types of disaster drills and preparedness were discussed with the school principal. During the fire drill and in subsequent conversations with the senior members of the school staff, it was noted that there are numerous safety issues that must be corrected. During the fire drill, several rooms were not locked, in accordance with the Plaza School District Safety Plan Disaster Procedures dated 2004. In addition, several teachers did not carry their school attendance book with them (a California State mandate) and lights were left on in several rooms in violation of the Plaza District’s safety plan. IV. CONCLUSIONS: Plaza School District has the beginnings of a well developed safety plan and with additions and modifications it can be a most outstanding document. Even though there were some problems noted during the fire drill Plaza School the entire staff are to be commended for the outstanding manner in which the fire drill was conducted. Additionally, Plaza School must also be commended for the way in which alternate fire alarms are activated to ensure proper response for each alarm. The school is not tied into an outside emergency system. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: Plaza School must update and expand its safety plan. As per California Penal Code 6722, all school visitors must receive a school issued visitor pass or badge. This pass notification must be clearly posted at all school entrances. In the event that all senior staff are off campus, the school office must be staffed by the site principal or secretary designee. This may require a substitute for the principal or secretary. The Plaza School District School Safety Plan must be updated to include scenarios such as how and by whom are staff alerted to a problem on campus especially in the event of a power or communications (land-line or cell phone) failure. A designated position must be established to contact emergency services as a by-named individual may not be on campus during the event. Criteria must be established concerning how parents are notified during a major safety event. Once the notification goes out, the school must have a plan in place to control traffic in and around the school in the event safety officials are unable to respond quickly. Parking in front of the school is limited and must remain open for fire and safety personnel. Cell phone usage by students must be monitored to lessen the confusion caused during a major safety incident. All clear signals both bell and voice need to be established and included in the safety plan. Procedures must be established, in the event of a major incident, just prior to the start or just after school ends with students still on campus this should also include after- school and nighttime school activities. Intruder-on-campus guidelines must be fully developed and implemented in a most judicious manner. VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED: Plaza School District Superintendent Glenn County Superintendent of Schools 47 2007-2008 Glenn Grand Jury Final Report Willows Unified School District I. PURPOSE: To investigate the financial disposition of the Willows Unified School District (WUSD). II. BACKGROUND: The former WUSD business manager prepared a comprehensive budget report in the fiscal year 2004-2005 to warn the board about the need for prudent financial practices. A new superintendent came onboard in July of 2006. In December of that year the former business manager resigned. WUSD employed a part-time interim business manager while trying to recruit a qualified replacement for the position. The Special Education bill-back to WUSD escalated tremendously beginning in 2004. Expected retirements among the staff, which would have provided cost savings to the district, did not occur as expected, and WUSD average daily attendance (ADA) continued to decline. The state governor’s 10% spending cut announced in January 2008 further impacted the financial situation. III. FINDINGS: The first interim report for 2007-2008 submitted to the Glenn County Office of Education (GCOE) indicated that current projections predicted a continual net loss in general fund; the special reserve fund was found to be extremely low; the district was projecting a continual decline in enrollment; and the multi-year projection report was reliant on MediCal Administrative Activities (MAA) revenues, retirements, and possible staff reductions. The Willows Unified School District has a state mandated requirement known as Designated for Economic Uncertainties (DEU), which stipulates that the school district must maintain at least a three percent budget reserve. WUSD has traditionally maintained a DEU of six percent; however, in recent years due to budget pressures, the district has been forced to reduce its reserve to the state requirement. Several factors such as the cafeteria deficits, have led to budget shortfalls which have necessitated the reduction of the district’s budget reserve. The 2007-2008 Second Interim Review continued to warn the district about the findings listed above. Figures in this report indicated that WUSD might be able to 48 meet its financial obligations for this year (2007-2008), but without reductions and financial stabilization, it may not be able to in 2008-2009. IV. CONCLUSIONS: WUSD has served students very well for many years and has handled past financial difficulties with great skill. However, given the current circumstances, the board, administration, and staff need to be collectively responsive to the near-term situation and work together as a team to resolve the issues for the benefit of the community and students for the long-term. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: WUSD should urgently pursue the services of a business manger, it should undertake serious budget reduction measures, it should develop a fiscal plan to build back the DEU fund to the former practice of six percent if practicable. Additionally, WUSD personnel should work with the Special Education Local Plan Area Board (SELPA) to help streamline the delivery of Special Education services to help reduce bill-back costs. And finally, WUSD should work to improve relations with the administration and staff of the Glenn County Office of Education (GCOE). VI. RESPONSES REQUIRED: Willows Unified School District Board of Education Willows Unified School District Administration 49 2007-2008 GLENN COUNTY GRAND JURY RESPONSES TO 2006-2007 Grand Jury Final Report JUNE 30, 2008 50 Responses to the 2006-2007 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report City/County Tax Split RECOMMENDATION The county administrator and the two city managers should meet on a regular basis to resolve the city/county tax split. RESPONSE County Administrative Officer (CAO) – The County and the two Cities have been working cooperatively over the last year to formulate such an agreement. The three organizations currently have a contract with an outside consultant to provide independent statistical analysis on cost of service for all three organizations. This analysis is a key factor needed to develop the ultimate agreement. We look forward to finalizing the agreement over the next year. Board of Supervisors – The Board concurs with the response of the CAO. City of Orland – City Council Response - Under existing law, allocation of property taxes is to be determined as part of the submission of an annexation request to LAFCO, with the allocation the subject of negotiation between the City and County on a case-by- case basis. This has been the arrangement for many years, with little opposition from either party as to the allocation, resulting in roughly equal division of the tax dollars. If the City of Orland and the County of Glenn so desire, a master tax sharing agreement may be devised, to be applied to all annexations. However, no such master agreement has been created at this time. In the latter part of 2004, the County proposed an allocation of approximately 70/30 in favor of the County, based upon calculations that were challenged by the city. Meetings were conducted between representatives of both cities and the County and neutral outside experts were retained to provide a preliminary analysis of the issue. The result of the experts’ review was a determination that the county’s position was incorrect, and that an allocation of 70/30 in the City’s favor would be more appropriate, particularly in the case of significant increased development within the City of Orland’s sphere of influence. In light of the findings of the neutral experts, the County declined to enter into a master tax sharing agreement, and the City has proceeded with annexations as before, with the tax allocation negotiated as to each property. All proposed annexations during 2006 and 2007 have been submitted to LAFCO with a 50/50 division between the City and the County, with certain accommodations made where commercial properties are involved. There are quarterly meetings being conducted by legislative representatives of each agency, to discuss the potential future development of a tax sharing agreement. City of Willows – City Manager Response – As noted in the 2005/06 response, the City of Willows, the City of Orland and the County of Glenn have entered into a consulting contract for 51 services associated with developing baseline information necessary for preparing possible structures for a master tax sharing agreement. While this process has moved at a slower pace than desired, due primarily to City Manager turnover in Willows as well as personnel turnover with the consulting firm, it is hoped that this project will continue with all three parties involved in the review of possible master tax sharing structures. While it is the goal of the City of Willows to come to a mutual agreement on a master tax sharing structure, we recognize that the complex nature of each annexation (type of development, project impacts, and potential for revenue generation) is such that a master tax sharing agreement may ultimately not be in the best interest of the agency/agencies affected by given annexation. GRAND JURY REVIEW OF RESPONSES – Responses accepted. Responses to the 2006-2007 Glenn County Grand Jury Final Report Glenn County Request For Bids Process RECOMMENDATIONS – Too much control and regulatory power has been placed with one department. Therefore, the many activities they oversee are not being conducted in a timely and professional manner. County code books and administrative manuals need to be edited and coordinated so policies do not contradict one another. The various county code manuals are not consistent and give conflicting directions for the same issues. The code books should be edited into a more cohesive set of policies and procedures. This is especially important in the Planning and Public Works Department, which plays a major role in the projects that require bids and contracts with the county. The Grand Jury suggests the Board of Supervisors rescind the new ordinances approved on February 20, 2007, which consolidates the power to award contracts without the oversight of the Board. RESPONSES – Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Commissioner - I have reviewed the report under the above topic and I am unclear what response is requested in light of the report not identifying any processes used by the Agricultural Department that were in question. I would respectfully request clarification from the Grand Jury concerning the Agricultural Department and the Grand Jury’s concerns with its contract awards process for county projects. I will say that we endeavor to follow the requirements outlined in County Policy. There are several checks and balances in place to assure policy is followed. Glenn County Health Services – Chief Deputy Director Administration – Glenn County Health Services consists of Glenn County Mental Health Department, Glenn County Public Health Department, Glenn County Alcohol and Drug Department and Glenn County Environmental Health Department. This response covers all departments listed above in regards to request for bid process. Due to the highly specialized services that Glenn County Health Services provides we find that there are very few situations that require us to go out for bid, for example, our many contracts for inpatient hospitalizations. There specialized contracts do not require that a bidding process be followed because of the highly specialized services and the fact that we contract with all providers who qualify. As an example of one of our most recent times it has been necessary to go out to bid was for the consultant to assist with the survey, voting and implementation of the new Mosquito District. All county policies and procedures were followed. Supplies that are purchased by the agency are purchased locally and the 5% advantage for local business is always considered, an example is our contract with a local vendor for office supplies. Glenn County Health Services has also participated in a multi jurisdiction bidding process through the California Institute of Mental Health. This coalition of 32 California counties established a bidding and procurement process that met all local and state requirements for the competitive bidding of behavioral health software. Due to the few times that Glenn County Health Services has found that it has had to go out to bid we believe all policies and procedures established by the Board of Supervisors have been followed. Glenn County Planning and Public Works Agency – Director’s response - Contracts and Bids Process (pages 2-4) There are several factual errors within the report. The correct name is the Planning & Public Works Agency. Under that Agency there are eight divisions. They are: Roads (responsible for maintenance of roads, bridges, certain flood control efforts such as flood fighting and 2 storm drainage maintenance districts) Fleet Service Center (maintenance and purchase of light vehicles used in pool service and when assigned to various departments and agencies and heavy equipment maintenance and purchase) Facilities (all county buildings and grounds including boat launching facilities, airports, parks, office buildings, and the memorial halls in Willows and Orland) Building Inspection (includes code enforcement program) Engineering/Surveying (design and management of construction projects, processing of surveying documents, and review of development proposals) Planning (processing of development proposals, Surface Mining and Reclamation Act) Solid Waste (operation of the land fill) Support Services (fiscal and clerical support for the above) In addition, the Agency has contracts with several independent agencies to provide services. They include the Transportation Commission (which, through the Regional Transit Committee, administers the public transportation systems) and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). Water Resources is under the Agriculture Commissioner. The only special district operations that the Agency has responsibility for is Storm Drainage Maintenance District #3 and North Willows County Service Area. Other special districts handle their own operations. The report seems to confuse budget units with “departments.” The budget units are established to account for multiple funding obligations but are often grouped in their administration into the eight divisions of the Agency. For example, budget units for Flood Control, Road Maintenance and Road Construction are all administered by the Road Division. However, there is neither a budget unit nor a department for “Stream Cleaning.” That is a method of maintenance used under the administration of Flood Control and the drainage districts operation. The description of “outside locations” is not correct, which I assume means facilities outside of the offices of the county courthouse core area even though the fleet service center and one of the road yards are located adjacent to the Colusa Street office of the Agency. The Agency has 24 facilities for which it has responsibilities and they are: Courthouse Complex - Courthouse (Court operations and Recorders Office) Courthouse Annex (Finance Department and Assessor/Elections) District Attorney’s Office Sheriff’s Administration Offices/Probation Offices Jail Child Support Services Planning & Public Works Agency Murdock Offices (Building Inspection, Planning and Facilities Divisions) Willows Civic Memorial Hall (Veterans’ Organizations, Personnel, County Counsel and community auditorium) Memorial Park Old Jail (used for storage and maintenance staff offices and shop) Blue House (Veteran’s Officer and Court Conciliator) Villa Street Complex Health Services Agency Glenn Medical Center (maintained by contract with GMC) Juvenile Hall North Willows Complex Planning & Public Works Agency Colusa Street Offices (Support Services, Engineering/Surveying, and Roads) South County Road Yard Fleet Service Center Agriculture Commissioner’s Offices Sheriff’s Impound Yard Other county facilities in Willows for which PPWA has responsibilities – Willows Airport Animal Control Offices North Willows County Service Area Storm Drainage Maintenance District #3 County Facilities in Orland Area Orland Court and County Offices (court operations, Orland Substation, Cooperative Extension Service offices) North County Road Yard Orland Memorial Hall Health Services Agency Offices Orland Airport Orland Airport Industrial Park County Facilities in Hamilton City Community Center building County Library (maintained by contract with HC CSD) Park (maintained by contract with HC CSD) Other County Facilities Bayliss Library 55 Ord Bend Boat Ramp and Park Butte City Boat Ramp Area 21 river access area Elk Creek Road Yard Sanitary Land Fill County gravel pit The purchasing process for Glenn County agencies and departments is governed by more than Chapter 4 of Title 4 of County code. Additional regulations are found in Chapter 30 (Public Bidding) of Title 4 and Chapter 8 (Uniform Cost Accounting for Certain Public Projects) of Title 2, both in the Glenn County Code. In the Glenn County Administrative Manual the following sections govern purchasing: Title 4 (Purchasing Policies); Chapter 10 (Property Accountability and Sale) in Title 5 (Fiscal Policies and Procedures); Title 9 (Contracts) and Title 14 (Fleet Management Policy). There are several State Laws that also govern the process of public purchases. They include: Government Code, Title 1, Division 5 (Public Works and Public Purchases), Sections 4000 through 4529.20; Title 3, Division 3, Section 25084; Title 3, Part 2, Chapter 5, Sections 25480 through 25509; and Title 5 (Local Agencies), Division 2 (Cities, Counties, And Other Agencies), Part 1 (Powers And Duties Common To Cities, Counties, And Other Agencies), Chapter 5 (Property), Article 7 (Purchases of Supplies and Equipment by Local Agencies), Sections 54201 through 54205, and; Public Contracts Code, Sections 1100 through 9203 and Sections 20100 through 22300. In addition, if the funding source is the federal government, there are additional federal regulations that must be followed. The lack of a complete picture of the complex public purchasing regulations appears to lead to the incorrect statements made in the report. Section 04.004.050 of the County Code is being used as if it is the only governing regulation. For many public works projects the sections in the other Titles of County Code and State Law are used as public works projects have their own set of regulations. As for the comment that the list of vendors is not used, this is incorrect. I do not know what situations where the report believes that the list is not used as there is no information provided by the report nor were the inquiries by the Grand Jury ever specific to a particular situation to allow consideration or explanation. The statement that section 04.004.080 somehow implies that “there is no local list from which to draw when sending invitation to bid” is incongruent as that section says nothing about a “list” but deals with what the Board may do if the regular bidding process is unsuccessful. In most public works projects, the codes require notification of “journals” that are regional organizations that act as a clearinghouse for the notification and depository of plans and specifications for public works projects. Individual contractors receive notice through that process. In addition individual contractors can request to be put on the county’s list, which is maintained by the Agency. Additionally requests for bids of public works projects are published in the local newspaper and on the County’s website. It is the responsibility of the contractor to respond; not the governmental agency to seek specific contractors. The comment about preference to local vendors seems to imply that it is the County’s responsibility to find the vendor. This is incorrect. It is the vendors’ responsibility to respond to the requests for bids. This section of County Code only provides that, if all else is equal, local government is willing to pay up to five percent more than the low bidder toward a vendor that resides in the County. Since vendors are required to provide information as to their place of business and contact information it is easy to determine which vendors might qualify for the 56 local vendor preference. Again the responsibility lays with the vendor, not the County to respond to requests for bids. This keeps the purchasing process open and competitive. The conclusion that somehow the County does not allow bidders to view the documents on publicly advertised bid requests is counter-intuitive as the bid request states where the documents can be viewed and it is in the best interest of the County to have informed bidders making bids. Again there is no specific information as to a specific incident to allow rational comments on the conclusions that “it appears it (section 4.04.110) is not being followed.” The comments about the procurement of certain professional services are specifically addressed in Section 4525 through 4529.20 of the Government Code and Section 6106 of the Public Contracts Code. State law specifically prohibits the competitive bidding process from being used in the procurement of such professional services. It should be noted that the process for procuring professional services only prohibits the use of competitive bidding and does not restrict the notification process. Services are typically solicited from firms on the list maintained by the Agency. If local professional service vendors wish to be on the list, and many are, they only need to provide a letter of interest and be qualified to provide the specific professional service to be considered. Many local professional service firms do not solicit work from the County because their code of ethics does not allow them to serve the public entity that regulates their private clients. For example, a local firm could not both provide plan check services to the county and have private clients that submit such plans to the county for checking. The findings appear to represent a misunderstanding of the responsibilities of various departments and the process of procurement. It is unclear as to what is meant by the statement that PPWA “accounts for the majority of the funds allocated by the Board of Supervisors.” PPWA does not have the “biggest” budget but it is responsible for providing services to other departments and for all public works projects. Those projects are expensive but all public works projects in all local governments are the responsibility of the public works agency. That is required by law so the statement that “the idea that one department (it is an “agency”) controls so many of the agencies (they are divisions) that deal with the public is a concern to the Grand Jury” runs counter to the requirements of the law. Other than expressing a concern about one agency being responsible for large and expensive projects, even though such projects are done in compliance with the regulations and awarded in a public process by the Board of Supervisors, the report provides no specifics as to what the concern is. The Conclusions are not correct. PPWA has restrictions on who (and how) it solicits work to be done for the County and they are referenced above. There are restrictions by monetary levels as to how it enters into contracts. They are referenced above. As to the statement that there are no restrictions “as to whether or not the entity contracted to do the work is located within the borders of Glenn County,” the conclusion is correct as there cannot be a prohibition about using entities outside the county. There a preference given to local vendors but there is no way to restrict the procurement of services and products to only local vendors as it would violate the law to do so. The conclusion that there is a lack of oversight by the Board of Supervisors is unfounded as the Board adopts the procurement process that must be followed by county agencies and, when required by those processes, makes the award of such purchases. To imply that this “could have the appearance of favoritism toward certain out of county businesses or companies who are repeatedly awarded contracts” is irresponsible. First, no “certain” businesses are identified to 57 even allow any response from the county. Second, it is improper to believe that the taxpayer should pay more than five percent over the lowest bid just because the vendor is local. This violates the law and common sense as well as being a gift of public funds, which is not allowed by the California Constitution. The purpose of the purchasing procedures is to get the best price for the taxpayer while assuring quality and an open and competitive process, with special p