Modoc County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
Modoc County Grand Jury Fy 2003/04 Report Scanned from the Modoc Record
⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 205 findings
F1
Dependent, with advisory boards, elected or appointed, governed by a larger entity, for example the Board of Supervisors; and
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Independent, governed by their own elected or appointed bodies. For the most part, special districts have not had audits done for several years due to a lack of funds. Government Code Section 26909 requires special districts to have an audit annually, but, under certain conditions, the district can substitute a biennial audit covering a two year period, or the Board of Supervisors may substitute a financial review if the Board of Supervisors is the governing board of the district and the revenues do not exceed $100,000, and the districts revenues/expenditures are transacted through the county financial systems and other special conditions are met. Jurors found there have been certain county funds that were not run through the county accounting system and therefore were not included in the county audit.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
All county funds/financial transactions should be detailed in the county auditor/recorder's records.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The county should have an unqualified audit of all funds that are administered or expended by the County.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Finances of special districts must be audited annually, biennially or a financial review must be done annually in accordance with Government Code Section 26909.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Board of Supervisors must meet their obligations to special districts as required by Government Code Section 26909.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
County auditor/recorder must request copies of annual audits from those special districts that are required by code to provide them. Respondents: Board of Supervisors County Counsel County Auditor/Recorder Special District/Non-Profit/General Government Areas of Study Hot Springs Valley Irrigation District (HSVID) Modoc County Special Districts Modoc County Administration District Attorney Conflict of Interest Contracts of Modoc Medical Clinic Doctors Nepotism in County Government Hot Springs Valley Irrigation District (HSVID) Issues: The Grand Jury reviewed the legally required response from HSVID to the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Elections procedures are being followed satisfactorily.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Conflict of dual elective office issues has been resolved by the resignation of the involved board member.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The State Water Resources Control Board cease-and-desist orders are covering district and downstream water rights issues. Procedures: Since satisfactory answers for the following questions were not received in response to the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury Report, the FY 2003-04 Grand Jury submitted the following questions:
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Has the recommended and required audit been completed?
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Requested HSVID provide Code support to its contention Board members are not required to file Form 700. In addition, the Grand Jury requested HSVID furnish copies of recent cease-and-desist orders from the State Water Resources Control Board. The Grand Jury also informed HSVID that the special district is subject to conflict of interest code requirements according to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F13
HSVID acknowledges its responsibility for but has not yet attained the required audit.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Forms 700 for each current HSVID Board member have been completed and filed with the County Clerk.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
HSVID acknowledges its responsibility for having a conflict of interest code, and for meeting state requirements in this regard. As of this writing, the code has not been filed with the county.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
The Grand Jury informed the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Office of the above lack of compliance and informed them of proposed legislation, S B 1272, which, if enacted could place enforcement of current code in state hands instead of at the county level.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
The Grand Jury met with the auditor to determine the cost of bringing the County into compliance regarding its obligations to audit dependent special districts, and the requirement for independent districts to file copies of their audits with the county. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F18
The Grand Jury found and brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors violations of Government Code Section 26909 regarding the audit of some special districts.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
The Grand Jury found that the County Administrative Office was unaware of, or had not communicated, the above requirements to the Board of Supervisors or the special districts.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
Special district volunteers have received little advice or help from the county as responses to Grand Jury questions indicate that most special districts are unaware of audit, conflict of interest and other legal issues pertaining to special districts.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
Most special districts in the county are made up of volunteers who perform many vital county functions with little or no compensation.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
The Board of Supervisors provide for aid to special districts, both dependent and independent, in achieving compliance with existing codes.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
The Board of Supervisors provide adequate legal counsel to review the status of special districts and county responsibility to those districts on a regular basis and to advise county staff and special district volunteers.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
The Board of Supervisors meet it s obligations regarding audits of special districts.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
The Board of Supervisors review the policies of all special districts not specifically exempted by resolution 95-08 to ensure that those special districts are in compliance with Government Code Section 87300 regarding conflict of interest. Respondents: Board of Supervisors County Counsel County Auditor County Administration Issues: Grand Jury review of several county programs -- Public Guardian, Special Districts, Tobacco Settlement Funds and lack of compliance with various codes -- reveals problems in county administration. These issues reach the top of county government-the County Administrative Office (CAO) and the Board of Supervisors (BOS). The Grand Jury finds that the CAO s unaware of, or indifferent to, certain code and procedural requirements of county governance. Findings: Granting the fact that Modoc County is a small rural governmental entity with limited funding, we offer these findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F26
It appears the BOS is overly reliant on the CAO regarding issues that rightfully should be the BOS responsibility.
No recommendations for this finding
F27
There are issues that should go before the BOS without having to receive prior submittal approval from the CAO. Some budgetary and financial issues come before the BOS. Other equally important issues such as code compliance, performance evaluations for department heads, and public service issues do not.
No recommendations for this finding
F28
The BOS is receiving some of these issues only when they are at crisis level. To wit: the current imbroglio regarding the overpayment of some several hundred thousand dollars for surface maintenance to a contractor.
No recommendations for this finding
F29
The Grand Jury found that the BOS has not conducted annual performance reviews of the County Administrative Services Director.
No recommendations for this finding
F30
The CAO serves at the pleasure and under the direction of the Modoc County Board of Supervisors. Without closer direction by the B OS and clearer delineation of authority and responsibility, this office is operating too independently for the good of the county and the public served.
No recommendations for this finding
F31
The BOS should require that the Board Chairperson be consulted by the CAO before proposed agenda items are rejected.
No recommendations for this finding
F32
The Board of Supervisors should conduct an annual performance review of the County Administrative Services Director.
No recommendations for this finding
F33
An annual performance review should be conducted by the CAO on all department heads under CAO supervision and these reviews should be analyzed by the BOS with the County Administrative Services Director in closed session. If an employee reviewed disagrees significantly with the evaluation, that employee should be heard by the BOS in closed session. Respondents: Board of Supervisors Administrative Services Director District Attorney Conflict-of-Interest Issues: The Grand Jury received a letter from the California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office in response to a request made by the FY2002-03 Grand Jury to review the evidence it had collected on an investigation. That jury had no available legal counsel because of a written declaration of conflict of interest from the District Attorney, a declaration of conflict of interest from the Judge, and County Counsel could not provide advice other than for civil issues. Procedures: The Grand Jury reviewed the investigation by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury. The 2003-04 Grand Jury wrote a letter asking the District Attorney to explain his actions. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F34
The Attorney General's Office declined to review the evidence collected by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury, citing an opinion from the District Attorney.
No recommendations for this finding
F35
The 2003-04 Grand Jury's review indicated that the 2002/03 Grand Jury's investigations gathered evidence of possible criminal issues.
No recommendations for this finding
F36
The 2003-04 Grand Jury finds that the District Attorney, after declaring conflict-of-interest, submitted an opinion regarding the ongoing 2002-0 3 Grand Jury investigation to the Attorney General that may have interfered with access to counsel by the 2003-04 Grand Jury.
No recommendations for this finding
F37
Negligence by the Department of Public Works regarding the enforcement of its condemnation and building habitability policy/procedures.
No recommendations for this finding
F38
The Road Department's inappropriate changing of county road designations. Procedures: On January 8, 2004 the Jury met with the Director and Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. The jurors were made aware of the laws that apply to condemnation as well as the procedure for enforcing living conditions when a building is being occupied under what is believed to be less than desirable conditions. Jury members also reviewed the statutes relating to the alleged violations. On April 19, 2004 the Jury met with the Modoc County Road Commissioner/ Director of Public Works, and the Deputy Road Commissioner to discuss the second complaint regarding road signs. A thorough explanation was presented regarding the mandates involving the distribution and maintenance of county road signs. The jurors also reviewed the applicable statutes governing this procedure. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F39
There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.
No recommendations for this finding
F40
There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.
No recommendations for this finding
F41
Qualifications of Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F42
Inventories of conservatee assets.
No recommendations for this finding
F43
Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.
No recommendations for this finding
F44
Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F45
Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.
No recommendations for this finding
F46
Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.
No recommendations for this finding
F47
After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.
No recommendations for this finding
F48
Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.
No recommendations for this finding
F49
The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.
No recommendations for this finding
F50
The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F51
HSVID acknowledges its responsibility for but has not yet attained the required audit.
No recommendations for this finding
F52
Forms 700 for each current HSVID Board member have been completed and filed with the County Clerk.
No recommendations for this finding
F53
HSVID acknowledges its responsibility for having a conflict of interest code, and for meeting state requirements in this regard. As of this writing, the code has not been filed with the county.
No recommendations for this finding
F54
The Grand Jury informed the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Office of the above lack of compliance and informed them of proposed legislation, S B 1272, which, if enacted could place enforcement of current code in state hands instead of at the county level.
No recommendations for this finding
F55
The Grand Jury met with the auditor to determine the cost of bringing the County into compliance regarding its obligations to audit dependent special districts, and the requirement for independent districts to file copies of their audits with the county. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F56
The Grand Jury found and brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors violations of Government Code Section 26909 regarding the audit of some special districts.
No recommendations for this finding
F57
The Grand Jury found that the County Administrative Office was unaware of, or had not communicated, the above requirements to the Board of Supervisors or the special districts.
No recommendations for this finding
F58
Special district volunteers have received little advice or help from the county as responses to Grand Jury questions indicate that most special districts are unaware of audit, conflict of interest and other legal issues pertaining to special districts.
No recommendations for this finding
F59
Most special districts in the county are made up of volunteers who perform many vital county functions with little or no compensation.
No recommendations for this finding
F60
The Board of Supervisors provide for aid to special districts, both dependent and independent, in achieving compliance with existing codes.
No recommendations for this finding
F61
The Board of Supervisors provide adequate legal counsel to review the status of special districts and county responsibility to those districts on a regular basis and to advise county staff and special district volunteers.
No recommendations for this finding
F62
The Board of Supervisors meet it s obligations regarding audits of special districts.
No recommendations for this finding
F63
The Board of Supervisors review the policies of all special districts not specifically exempted by resolution 95-08 to ensure that those special districts are in compliance with Government Code Section 87300 regarding conflict of interest. Respondents: Board of Supervisors County Counsel County Auditor County Administration Issues: Grand Jury review of several county programs -- Public Guardian, Special Districts, Tobacco Settlement Funds and lack of compliance with various codes -- reveals problems in county administration. These issues reach the top of county government-the County Administrative Office (CAO) and the Board of Supervisors (BOS). The Grand Jury finds that the CAO s unaware of, or indifferent to, certain code and procedural requirements of county governance. Findings: Granting the fact that Modoc County is a small rural governmental entity with limited funding, we offer these findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F64
It appears the BOS is overly reliant on the CAO regarding issues that rightfully should be the BOS responsibility.
No recommendations for this finding
F65
There are issues that should go before the BOS without having to receive prior submittal approval from the CAO. Some budgetary and financial issues come before the BOS. Other equally important issues such as code compliance, performance evaluations for department heads, and public service issues do not.
No recommendations for this finding
F66
The BOS is receiving some of these issues only when they are at crisis level. To wit: the current imbroglio regarding the overpayment of some several hundred thousand dollars for surface maintenance to a contractor.
No recommendations for this finding
F67
The Grand Jury found that the BOS has not conducted annual performance reviews of the County Administrative Services Director.
No recommendations for this finding
F68
The CAO serves at the pleasure and under the direction of the Modoc County Board of Supervisors. Without closer direction by the B OS and clearer delineation of authority and responsibility, this office is operating too independently for the good of the county and the public served.
No recommendations for this finding
F69
The BOS should require that the Board Chairperson be consulted by the CAO before proposed agenda items are rejected.
No recommendations for this finding
F70
The Board of Supervisors should conduct an annual performance review of the County Administrative Services Director.
No recommendations for this finding
F71
An annual performance review should be conducted by the CAO on all department heads under CAO supervision and these reviews should be analyzed by the BOS with the County Administrative Services Director in closed session. If an employee reviewed disagrees significantly with the evaluation, that employee should be heard by the BOS in closed session. Respondents: Board of Supervisors Administrative Services Director District Attorney Conflict-of-Interest Issues: The Grand Jury received a letter from the California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office in response to a request made by the FY2002-03 Grand Jury to review the evidence it had collected on an investigation. That jury had no available legal counsel because of a written declaration of conflict of interest from the District Attorney, a declaration of conflict of interest from the Judge, and County Counsel could not provide advice other than for civil issues. Procedures: The Grand Jury reviewed the investigation by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury. The 2003-04 Grand Jury wrote a letter asking the District Attorney to explain his actions. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F72
The Attorney General's Office declined to review the evidence collected by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury, citing an opinion from the District Attorney.
No recommendations for this finding
F73
The 2003-04 Grand Jury's review indicated that the 2002/03 Grand Jury's investigations gathered evidence of possible criminal issues.
No recommendations for this finding
F74
The 2003-04 Grand Jury finds that the District Attorney, after declaring conflict-of-interest, submitted an opinion regarding the ongoing 2002-0 3 Grand Jury investigation to the Attorney General that may have interfered with access to counsel by the 2003-04 Grand Jury.
No recommendations for this finding
F75
Negligence by the Department of Public Works regarding the enforcement of its condemnation and building habitability policy/procedures.
No recommendations for this finding
F76
The Road Department's inappropriate changing of county road designations. Procedures: On January 8, 2004 the Jury met with the Director and Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. The jurors were made aware of the laws that apply to condemnation as well as the procedure for enforcing living conditions when a building is being occupied under what is believed to be less than desirable conditions. Jury members also reviewed the statutes relating to the alleged violations. On April 19, 2004 the Jury met with the Modoc County Road Commissioner/ Director of Public Works, and the Deputy Road Commissioner to discuss the second complaint regarding road signs. A thorough explanation was presented regarding the mandates involving the distribution and maintenance of county road signs. The jurors also reviewed the applicable statutes governing this procedure. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F77
There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.
No recommendations for this finding
F78
There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.
No recommendations for this finding
F79
Qualifications of Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F80
Inventories of conservatee assets.
No recommendations for this finding
F81
Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.
No recommendations for this finding
F82
Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F83
Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.
No recommendations for this finding
F84
Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.
No recommendations for this finding
F85
After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.
No recommendations for this finding
F86
Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.
No recommendations for this finding
F87
The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.
No recommendations for this finding
F88
The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F89
The Grand Jury found and brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors violations of Government Code Section 26909 regarding the audit of some special districts.
No recommendations for this finding
F90
The Grand Jury found that the County Administrative Office was unaware of, or had not communicated, the above requirements to the Board of Supervisors or the special districts.
No recommendations for this finding
F91
Special district volunteers have received little advice or help from the county as responses to Grand Jury questions indicate that most special districts are unaware of audit, conflict of interest and other legal issues pertaining to special districts.
No recommendations for this finding
F92
Most special districts in the county are made up of volunteers who perform many vital county functions with little or no compensation.
No recommendations for this finding
F93
The Board of Supervisors provide for aid to special districts, both dependent and independent, in achieving compliance with existing codes.
No recommendations for this finding
F94
The Board of Supervisors provide adequate legal counsel to review the status of special districts and county responsibility to those districts on a regular basis and to advise county staff and special district volunteers.
No recommendations for this finding
F95
The Board of Supervisors meet it s obligations regarding audits of special districts.
No recommendations for this finding
F96
The Board of Supervisors review the policies of all special districts not specifically exempted by resolution 95-08 to ensure that those special districts are in compliance with Government Code Section 87300 regarding conflict of interest. Respondents: Board of Supervisors County Counsel County Auditor County Administration Issues: Grand Jury review of several county programs -- Public Guardian, Special Districts, Tobacco Settlement Funds and lack of compliance with various codes -- reveals problems in county administration. These issues reach the top of county government-the County Administrative Office (CAO) and the Board of Supervisors (BOS). The Grand Jury finds that the CAO s unaware of, or indifferent to, certain code and procedural requirements of county governance. Findings: Granting the fact that Modoc County is a small rural governmental entity with limited funding, we offer these findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F97
It appears the BOS is overly reliant on the CAO regarding issues that rightfully should be the BOS responsibility.
No recommendations for this finding
F98
There are issues that should go before the BOS without having to receive prior submittal approval from the CAO. Some budgetary and financial issues come before the BOS. Other equally important issues such as code compliance, performance evaluations for department heads, and public service issues do not.
No recommendations for this finding
F99
The BOS is receiving some of these issues only when they are at crisis level. To wit: the current imbroglio regarding the overpayment of some several hundred thousand dollars for surface maintenance to a contractor.
No recommendations for this finding
F100
The Grand Jury found that the BOS has not conducted annual performance reviews of the County Administrative Services Director.
No recommendations for this finding
F101
The CAO serves at the pleasure and under the direction of the Modoc County Board of Supervisors. Without closer direction by the B OS and clearer delineation of authority and responsibility, this office is operating too independently for the good of the county and the public served.
No recommendations for this finding
F102
The BOS should require that the Board Chairperson be consulted by the CAO before proposed agenda items are rejected.
No recommendations for this finding
F103
The Board of Supervisors should conduct an annual performance review of the County Administrative Services Director.
No recommendations for this finding
F104
An annual performance review should be conducted by the CAO on all department heads under CAO supervision and these reviews should be analyzed by the BOS with the County Administrative Services Director in closed session. If an employee reviewed disagrees significantly with the evaluation, that employee should be heard by the BOS in closed session. Respondents: Board of Supervisors Administrative Services Director District Attorney Conflict-of-Interest Issues: The Grand Jury received a letter from the California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office in response to a request made by the FY2002-03 Grand Jury to review the evidence it had collected on an investigation. That jury had no available legal counsel because of a written declaration of conflict of interest from the District Attorney, a declaration of conflict of interest from the Judge, and County Counsel could not provide advice other than for civil issues. Procedures: The Grand Jury reviewed the investigation by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury. The 2003-04 Grand Jury wrote a letter asking the District Attorney to explain his actions. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F105
The Attorney General's Office declined to review the evidence collected by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury, citing an opinion from the District Attorney.
No recommendations for this finding
F106
The 2003-04 Grand Jury's review indicated that the 2002/03 Grand Jury's investigations gathered evidence of possible criminal issues.
No recommendations for this finding
F107
The 2003-04 Grand Jury finds that the District Attorney, after declaring conflict-of-interest, submitted an opinion regarding the ongoing 2002-0 3 Grand Jury investigation to the Attorney General that may have interfered with access to counsel by the 2003-04 Grand Jury.
No recommendations for this finding
F108
Negligence by the Department of Public Works regarding the enforcement of its condemnation and building habitability policy/procedures.
No recommendations for this finding
F109
The Road Department's inappropriate changing of county road designations. Procedures: On January 8, 2004 the Jury met with the Director and Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. The jurors were made aware of the laws that apply to condemnation as well as the procedure for enforcing living conditions when a building is being occupied under what is believed to be less than desirable conditions. Jury members also reviewed the statutes relating to the alleged violations. On April 19, 2004 the Jury met with the Modoc County Road Commissioner/ Director of Public Works, and the Deputy Road Commissioner to discuss the second complaint regarding road signs. A thorough explanation was presented regarding the mandates involving the distribution and maintenance of county road signs. The jurors also reviewed the applicable statutes governing this procedure. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F110
There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.
No recommendations for this finding
F111
There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.
No recommendations for this finding
F112
Qualifications of Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F113
Inventories of conservatee assets.
No recommendations for this finding
F114
Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.
No recommendations for this finding
F115
Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F116
Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.
No recommendations for this finding
F117
Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.
No recommendations for this finding
F118
After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.
No recommendations for this finding
F119
Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.
No recommendations for this finding
F120
The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.
No recommendations for this finding
F121
The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F122
It appears the BOS is overly reliant on the CAO regarding issues that rightfully should be the BOS responsibility.
No recommendations for this finding
F123
There are issues that should go before the BOS without having to receive prior submittal approval from the CAO. Some budgetary and financial issues come before the BOS. Other equally important issues such as code compliance, performance evaluations for department heads, and public service issues do not.
No recommendations for this finding
F124
The BOS is receiving some of these issues only when they are at crisis level. To wit: the current imbroglio regarding the overpayment of some several hundred thousand dollars for surface maintenance to a contractor.
No recommendations for this finding
F125
The Grand Jury found that the BOS has not conducted annual performance reviews of the County Administrative Services Director.
No recommendations for this finding
F126
The CAO serves at the pleasure and under the direction of the Modoc County Board of Supervisors. Without closer direction by the B OS and clearer delineation of authority and responsibility, this office is operating too independently for the good of the county and the public served.
No recommendations for this finding
F127
The BOS should require that the Board Chairperson be consulted by the CAO before proposed agenda items are rejected.
No recommendations for this finding
F128
The Board of Supervisors should conduct an annual performance review of the County Administrative Services Director.
No recommendations for this finding
F129
An annual performance review should be conducted by the CAO on all department heads under CAO supervision and these reviews should be analyzed by the BOS with the County Administrative Services Director in closed session. If an employee reviewed disagrees significantly with the evaluation, that employee should be heard by the BOS in closed session. Respondents: Board of Supervisors Administrative Services Director District Attorney Conflict-of-Interest Issues: The Grand Jury received a letter from the California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office in response to a request made by the FY2002-03 Grand Jury to review the evidence it had collected on an investigation. That jury had no available legal counsel because of a written declaration of conflict of interest from the District Attorney, a declaration of conflict of interest from the Judge, and County Counsel could not provide advice other than for civil issues. Procedures: The Grand Jury reviewed the investigation by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury. The 2003-04 Grand Jury wrote a letter asking the District Attorney to explain his actions. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F130
The Attorney General's Office declined to review the evidence collected by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury, citing an opinion from the District Attorney.
No recommendations for this finding
F131
The 2003-04 Grand Jury's review indicated that the 2002/03 Grand Jury's investigations gathered evidence of possible criminal issues.
No recommendations for this finding
F132
The 2003-04 Grand Jury finds that the District Attorney, after declaring conflict-of-interest, submitted an opinion regarding the ongoing 2002-0 3 Grand Jury investigation to the Attorney General that may have interfered with access to counsel by the 2003-04 Grand Jury.
No recommendations for this finding
F133
Negligence by the Department of Public Works regarding the enforcement of its condemnation and building habitability policy/procedures.
No recommendations for this finding
F134
The Road Department's inappropriate changing of county road designations. Procedures: On January 8, 2004 the Jury met with the Director and Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. The jurors were made aware of the laws that apply to condemnation as well as the procedure for enforcing living conditions when a building is being occupied under what is believed to be less than desirable conditions. Jury members also reviewed the statutes relating to the alleged violations. On April 19, 2004 the Jury met with the Modoc County Road Commissioner/ Director of Public Works, and the Deputy Road Commissioner to discuss the second complaint regarding road signs. A thorough explanation was presented regarding the mandates involving the distribution and maintenance of county road signs. The jurors also reviewed the applicable statutes governing this procedure. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F135
There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.
No recommendations for this finding
F136
There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.
No recommendations for this finding
F137
Qualifications of Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F138
Inventories of conservatee assets.
No recommendations for this finding
F139
Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.
No recommendations for this finding
F140
Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F141
Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.
No recommendations for this finding
F142
Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.
No recommendations for this finding
F143
After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.
No recommendations for this finding
F144
Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.
No recommendations for this finding
F145
The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.
No recommendations for this finding
F146
The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F147
The Attorney General's Office declined to review the evidence collected by the FY 2002-03 Grand Jury, citing an opinion from the District Attorney.
No recommendations for this finding
F148
The 2003-04 Grand Jury's review indicated that the 2002/03 Grand Jury's investigations gathered evidence of possible criminal issues.
No recommendations for this finding
F149
The 2003-04 Grand Jury finds that the District Attorney, after declaring conflict-of-interest, submitted an opinion regarding the ongoing 2002-0 3 Grand Jury investigation to the Attorney General that may have interfered with access to counsel by the 2003-04 Grand Jury.
No recommendations for this finding
F150
Negligence by the Department of Public Works regarding the enforcement of its condemnation and building habitability policy/procedures.
No recommendations for this finding
F151
The Road Department's inappropriate changing of county road designations. Procedures: On January 8, 2004 the Jury met with the Director and Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. The jurors were made aware of the laws that apply to condemnation as well as the procedure for enforcing living conditions when a building is being occupied under what is believed to be less than desirable conditions. Jury members also reviewed the statutes relating to the alleged violations. On April 19, 2004 the Jury met with the Modoc County Road Commissioner/ Director of Public Works, and the Deputy Road Commissioner to discuss the second complaint regarding road signs. A thorough explanation was presented regarding the mandates involving the distribution and maintenance of county road signs. The jurors also reviewed the applicable statutes governing this procedure. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F152
There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.
No recommendations for this finding
F153
There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.
No recommendations for this finding
F154
Qualifications of Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F155
Inventories of conservatee assets.
No recommendations for this finding
F156
Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.
No recommendations for this finding
F157
Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F158
Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.
No recommendations for this finding
F159
Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.
No recommendations for this finding
F160
After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.
No recommendations for this finding
F161
Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.
No recommendations for this finding
F162
The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.
No recommendations for this finding
F163
The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F164
Negligence by the Department of Public Works regarding the enforcement of its condemnation and building habitability policy/procedures.
No recommendations for this finding
F165
The Road Department's inappropriate changing of county road designations. Procedures: On January 8, 2004 the Jury met with the Director and Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. The jurors were made aware of the laws that apply to condemnation as well as the procedure for enforcing living conditions when a building is being occupied under what is believed to be less than desirable conditions. Jury members also reviewed the statutes relating to the alleged violations. On April 19, 2004 the Jury met with the Modoc County Road Commissioner/ Director of Public Works, and the Deputy Road Commissioner to discuss the second complaint regarding road signs. A thorough explanation was presented regarding the mandates involving the distribution and maintenance of county road signs. The jurors also reviewed the applicable statutes governing this procedure. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F166
There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.
No recommendations for this finding
F167
There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.
No recommendations for this finding
F168
Qualifications of Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F169
Inventories of conservatee assets.
No recommendations for this finding
F170
Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.
No recommendations for this finding
F171
Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F172
Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.
No recommendations for this finding
F173
Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.
No recommendations for this finding
F174
After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.
No recommendations for this finding
F175
Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.
No recommendations for this finding
F176
The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.
No recommendations for this finding
F177
The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F178
There are laws and mandatory procedures governing the condemnation and habitability of buildings. The Modoc County Public Works Department appears to be following those laws and procedures. Currently, there are n o condemned buildings in Modoc County.
No recommendations for this finding
F179
There are state laws and mandatory policies that dictate how and when road signs shall be used at such time that a private road becomes a county road. The Modoc County Road Department appears to be following those laws and guidelines. Modoc County roads are assigned consecutive numbers as they are accepted into the county maintained road system.
No recommendations for this finding
F180
Qualifications of Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F181
Inventories of conservatee assets.
No recommendations for this finding
F182
Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.
No recommendations for this finding
F183
Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F184
Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.
No recommendations for this finding
F185
Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.
No recommendations for this finding
F186
After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.
No recommendations for this finding
F187
Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.
No recommendations for this finding
F188
The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.
No recommendations for this finding
F189
The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F190
Qualifications of Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F191
Inventories of conservatee assets.
No recommendations for this finding
F192
Educational information pertaining to public guardianship.
No recommendations for this finding
F193
Timely payment of conservatee financial obligations. Findings:
No recommendations for this finding
F194
Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.
No recommendations for this finding
F195
Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.
No recommendations for this finding
F196
After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.
No recommendations for this finding
F197
Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.
No recommendations for this finding
F198
The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.
No recommendations for this finding
F199
The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
F200
Reviewing Class Specifications for Public Guardian as defined by Modoc County, the Jury determined the current job description for the position of Public Guardian is adequate. The county attempted to rectify staffing the Public Guardian position by combining the positions of Director of Social Services with that of Public Guardian. The effect of combining these two positions interferes with the system of checks and balances intended for the Public Guardian position.
No recommendations for this finding
F201
Conservatee physical assets presently in storage have been inventoried.
No recommendations for this finding
F202
After appointment of guardianship, ninety (90) days is the time limit to inventory a new client's assets pursuant to California Probate Code Sections 2610 through 2615. This Grand Jury has been assured that assets are being inventoried within the ninety day limit.
No recommendations for this finding
F203
Modoc County does have a brochure for family or friends explaining the formality of entering a conservatorship.
No recommendations for this finding
F204
The Jury was assured that timely payments of conservatees' financial obligations are being accomplished.
No recommendations for this finding
F205
The Department of Social Services is currently responsible for 30 conservatees, twenty in-county and ten outside the county, yet does not have a full-time Public Guardian.
No recommendations for this finding
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Modoc County Auditor-Controller
Elected County Office
Modoc County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office