Del Norte County Grand Jury • 2014-2015

2014/2015 Del Norte County Grand Jury

Published: May 22, 2015 3 pages Consolidated Report

Findings 24 findings

F1
The JPA and the SWA continues to be the most appropriate answer to the issues created by ​ the landfill and the appropriate response to CalRecycle and state mandated regulations and laws.
F2
Some decisions made by the Authority Board significantly affected the functioning of the ​ operations of the SWA, reducing its effectiveness.
F3
Multiple violations by Commissioners #1, 2 and 5 of the Code of Ethics occurred. ​
F4
Commissioners #1 and #5 did not consistently conduct public affairs with honesty, integrity, ​ fairness and respect for others.
F5
Commissioner #1 committed numerous and varied violations of the Code of Ethics and ​ Conduct.
F6
Commissioner #1’s conduct is potentially harmful and divisive to the functioning and vested ​ interests of the SWA and the community.
F7
Commissioner #5 committed multiple violations of the Code of Ethics and Conduct. ​
F8
No fiscal analyses or cost/benefit impact reports were produced to support some of the ​ decisions the Authority Board rendered.
F9
No fiscal analyses or independent impact reports were produced to support further ​ privatization of the SWA or selling of the transfer station.
F10
SWA has lower disposal rates than Curry County or Humboldt County. ​
F11
The SWA has been understaffed since August 2013. ​
F12
The Authority Board failed to modify the workload to accommodate staffing levels. ​
F13
The SWA is presently out of compliance with its Mission Statement and some state agency ​ ​​ regulations due to failure to produce mandated reports in a timely manner.
F14
The costs for managing the SWA increased under the 2013/14 Authority Board. ​
F15
Applications for grant monies ceased under the 2013/14 Authority Board. ​
F16
The JPA and the SWA are at functional risk should a charter member choose to withdraw ​ from the JPA.
F17
The actions of Commissioners #1, 2 and 5 contributed to a hostile work environment. ​ 36
F18
Commissioners #1 and #5 demonstrated a lack of transparency in decision processes and ​ outside activities.
F19
Certain Commissioners made misleading statements as to the need and reason for the ​ $33,000 spent on R3 study.
F20
The tone and content of Commissioner #1 and #5’s communications with R3 were ​ inappropriate and an attempt to influence the outcome of the consultant group's report.
F21
Commissioners were varied in their understanding and knowledge of the JPA and state ​ rules and regulations and operating standards.
F22
COE #17 places the Executive Director in the precarious employment position of ​ disciplining his employers.
F23
The Grand Jury finds the continued assertions by Commissioner #1 regarding lowering ​ rates without job loss and increasing privatization of the recycle/waste­stream to be unsupported by facts and fiscal analysis.
F24
SWA Commissioners can serve on the solid waste task force and board concurrently. ​

Recommendations 16

Conclusions 5

Commendations 11