⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 9 findings
F1
Often comments made by individual Supervisors cannot be heard clearly, either by those in attendance at or observing the public broadcast of the Board of Supervisors' public meetings, because the microphones are not turned on or not spoken directly into, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people's business. 5
F2
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people's business.
F3
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors' meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated.
F4
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals.
F5
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot.
F6
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents.
F7
Pertinent to R-7 The rear door has been repaired in the Hoopa Substation.
F8
Pertinent to R-8 Did not determine if the fire door at the Hoopa Substation meets State standards
F9
Pertinent to R-9 The Hoopa Substation does not meet ADA standards. Report 01-13 CLARK COMPLEX INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury inspected the Clark Complex, located on Harris Street between H and I Streets. A survey conducted by the 1999-2000 grand jury of custodial and maintenance procedure highlighted certain problems with the Clark Complex. The original building was built around 1916 as a hospital. The Clark addition was added in the late 1950s. The hospital moved out in the late 1970s. This complex now houses county offices for the following departments: public works, planning, election's office, coroner’s office, mental health, Sempervirens, rehabilitation center and various outbuildings used for storage. THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING: R-1 The County meet ADA access standards at the main building of the Clark Complex. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE: Will be implemented. The county has currently contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of all county buildings for disability access. Changes identified as a result of this evaluation will then be prioritized and budgeted. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RESPONSE: Agree. Access to the building for the disabled currently is from the ground floor. A phone allows people to contact Planning, Elections and Public Works who will open the locked doors and escort the person or persons to the elevator from which the elevator can be accessed. The county has two disabled employees at Clark who routinely use this access for the building. The county currently is updating its facilities, evaluations for all buildings, including Clark, which will be used to complete an ADA transition plan. FINDING The 2002-2003 grand jury makes the following finding:
Recommendations 9
-
R1Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated.
-
R2Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones.
-
R3Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people's business. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County's architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the 6 County's advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury's investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller's agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent's actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller's agent and the buyer's agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer's agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
-
R4Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise.
-
R5Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees.
-
R6Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
-
R7Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
-
R8Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
-
R9Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9:
Conclusions 2
-
CL1 Page 7The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to recommendations R1 through R6.
-
CL2 Page 38The Humboldt County Community Development Services, Planning Division shall respond to R1 through R6. 37 REPORTS GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 03-CC-01 FOLLOW-UP TO THE 2000-2001 GRAND JURY REPORT Continuity Committee INTRODUCTION The Humboldt County Grand Jury is charged with the authority and responsibility to investigate and report on the functioning of local government. Local government entities, which are addressed in grand jury reports, are required by state statutes to reply to the Presiding Judge of Superior Court within a specific time frame using a limited range of responses, pursuant to California Penal Code, section 933.05 (PC 933.05) One continuing obligation of the grand jury is to monitor the actions of local government entities in response to the findings and recommendations of prior grand juries. The purpose of this monitoring process is to determine what actions local government officials have taken regarding recommendations they agreed to implement or to study for possible implementation. The time frame allowed for items to be studied shall not exceed six months. [PC 933.05,(b),(3)]. PROCEDURE The written responses provided by local government officials to the 2000-2001 Humboldt County Grand Jury Report were reviewed by the 2002-2003 grand jury. All responses concerning recommendations which officials agreed to implement, or to study for possible implementation, were identified for follow-up investigation. Appropriate documents were consulted and officials were contacted to determine what actions had been taken toward implementing the agreed to recommended improvements. The following information is a synopsis of the recommendations and responses contained in the 2000-2001 grand jury report and investigation results for those areas in which changes were expected. For a full text of the recommendations and responses to the 2000-2001 grand jury report, please contact the Humboldt County Library to examine a copy of the 2000-2001 Humboldt County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses. Note: No responses are required for items in this Continuity Report 01-01 Report 01-02 INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION INTRODUCTION The Information Services Division (ISD) is responsible for assisting the County Board of Supervisors, all county administrative offices, managers, and staff in improving work methods and productivity through the application and use of a variety of automated services and methodologies. ISD maintains the integrity and security of official county information as the county conducts its business. 38 THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY 2000-2001 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING R-3 Personnel require extensive background checks on all new ISD staff INFORMATION SERVICES RESPONSE The recommendation will require further analysis. The procedures and costs of background checks must be determined with resource and budget issues identified. After appropriate analysis, the issue will be brought to the Board of Supervisors prior to December 31, 2001.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office