El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2001-2002
• Agency Response
Government & Administration Committee Subcommittee on Government Structure Report Replying to Responses of Board of
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F41, F42, F45, F48, F50, F51, F52, F54
Findings and Recommendations 47 findings
F1
Page 1
The Grand Jury issued a Dated Final Report, dated as of October 4, 2001 (October 4 Report). The subject of that Report involved follow-through by the Board with regard to its promises and representations contained in responses to Grand Jury reports generally.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 47
Because division heads and managers are presumed to be familiar with the operations of their units, the Board should amend Paragraph 1 of Board Policy A-11, referenced in Finding F12-a, to shorten the time period set forth for input to the CAO from forty- five (45) days to twenty-one (21) days or less. (See Finding F40-c) Response to R1: The recommendation requires further analysis. Respondent agrees that Board Policy A-11 needs to be reviewed and revised in various respects. The Board of Supervisors also agrees with the goal implicit in the recommendation and does not necessarily disagree with the specific recommendation. However, the Board believes that a comprehensive review of Policy A-11 should be undertaken and that specific modifications should be reviewed and undertaken only in the context of such a comprehensive review. This will ensure that the goals are achieved and Policy A-11 is revised in the most effective and internally consistent manner. The Interim CAO, in conjunction with County Counsel, is directed to review Board Policy A-11 and present a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding its possible amendment no later than six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury's repo rt. The comprehensive review to be conducted is referred to hereinafter as the "Study ." Because input to the CAO should be submitted in substantially finished form, the Board should amend Paragraph 2 of Board Policy A-11, referenced in Finding F12-b, to establish a time 30 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) period of twenty-one (21) days or less from the date the CAO receives the responses of the appointed department heads for transmittal of the Draft Response to the Board, and to establish a procedure which assures that the responses of the appointed department heads are transmitted to the members of the Board concurrently with the transmittal of the Draft Response. Response to R2: The recommendation requires further analysis . Respondent agrees that Board Policy A-11 needs to be reviewed and revised in various respects. The Board of Supervisors also agrees with the goal implicit in the recommendation and does not necessarily disagree with the specific recommendation. However, the Board believes that a comprehensive review of Policy A-11 should be undertaken and that specific modifications should be reviewed and undertaken only in the context of such a comprehensive review. This will ensure that the goals are achieved and Policy A-11 is revised in the most effective and internally consistent manner. The Interim CAO, in conjunction with County Counsel, is directed to incorporate analysis of the recommendation in the Study for review and recommendation.
F2
Page 1
In its Response to Finding F15 of the October 4 Report, the Board "acknowledge[d] that future actions promised in prior Grand Jury responses have not always been performed," and represented that "[a]s part of finalizing [its] responses to [that] Report, we have established procedures to avoid this problem in the future." (Emphasis supplied.)
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 73
The Board should take all necessary and appropriate steps to establish accountability in the management structure of the County by making the highest administrative position within County Government a position that allows its occupant to exercise strong executive authority commensurate with the responsibilities of the position. Response to R2: The recommendation requires further analysis. As noted in the response to R1, the Board is supportive of giving the CAO increased authority over the (cid:9) operations of the County. However, the study referenced in that response is needed before the Board can commit to specific actions to effect that change. The Interim CAO, in conjunction with County Counsel, shall analyze the extent to which such an increase in the authority of the CAO can, or if it should, be accomplished without Charter amendments and shall identify specific changes in ordinances or policies that would provide for such increased authority. This analysis shall be done in conjunction with the study referenced in the response to R1 and shall be presented to the Board not later than six months after the publication of the Grand jury's report. Issues related to whether changes should be proposed to the Charter should be referred to a Charter Review Committee that is expected to be convened within the year.
F3
Page 2
Similarly, in its Response to Recommendation R1 of the October 4 Report, which recommended that the Board "implement and follow through" on its representations that it will take, and communicate to the Grand Jury, specific identifiable action, the Board stated that the recommendation "has been" implemented, and that it "ha[s] already established procedures" to avoid lack of follow-through in the future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 48
Whether or not it can require responses within such a time period, the Board should also amend Paragraph 2 of Board Policy A-11, referenced in Finding F12-b, to encourage elected department heads to respond to final reports of grand juries within twenty-one (21) days or less, rather than sixty (60) days, from their receipt of those final reports. Response to R3: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The time within which the final responses of elected department heads are to be filed is established by statute. The statute presumably reflects a legislative determination that the deadline selected satisfies both the needs of the Grand Jury and the responding officers. Reports of the Grand Jury are of varying lengths and complexity. The amount of time 31 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) needed to respond varies based on the nature of the report. The responses referenced in R3 are final responses being filed with the Presiding Judge, not preliminary drafts that are incorporated into another process for preparation of a final report. Under these circumstance, no reason or basis is apparent that would support a request by the Board of Supervisors that elected department heads shorten the time for submitting their final reports from that which is statutorily provided, or for the suggestion of any particular deadline. However, the CAO is directed to incorporate into the Study consideration of a change to Policy A-11 that would simply encourage elected department heads to expedite their review of Grand Jury final reports and to file their responses as early as is reasonably feasible.
F4
Page 2
As part of that same Response, however, the Board also stated that it "directed the Interim Chief Administrative Officer (ICAO) to work with department heads to develop a procedure to schedule actions required to follow through on Board commitments to the Grand Jury, and that the ICAO "is in the process of carrying out that direction." (Emphasis supplied.)
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 49
The Board should also amend Paragraph 2 of Board Policy A- 11, referenced in Finding F12-b, to require that the items to be presented to the Board also be presented concurrently to the Grand Jury. Response to R4: The recommendation requires further analysis. Respondent agrees that Board Policy A-11 needs to be reviewed and revised in various respects. The Board of Supervisors also agrees with the goal implicit in the recommendation and does not necessarily disagree with the specific recommendation. However, the Board believes that a comprehensive review of Policy A-11 should be undertaken and that specific modifications should be reviewed and undertaken only in the context of such a comprehensive review. This will ensure that the goals are achieved and Policy A-11 is revised in the most effective and internally consistent manner. The Interim CAO, in conjunction with County Counsel, is directed to incorporate analysis of the recommendation in the Study for review and recommendation.
F5
Page 2
Statements that the Board "has established" a procedure, on the one hand, and that it has directed the ICAO "to develop" a procedure and that the ICAO "is in the process of” doing so," are mutually inconsistent unless it is the intention of the Board to treat a delegation of responsibility as a "procedure."
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 49
In order to comply with the 90-day requirement of Penal Code §933(c) while allowing the Board adequate time to perform its 32 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) required duties, and in light of the foregoing recommendations and Paragraph 7 of Board Policy A-11, the Board should amend Paragraph 3 of Board Policy A-11, referenced in Finding F12-c, to expand its review and comment period from "at least one week" to not more than twenty-one (21) days," to allow sufficient time thereafter for the agendizing of the Draft Response on the Board's calendar for review, consideration, adoption and/or modification ("adoption hearing"). Response to R5: The recommendation requires further analysis . Respondent agrees that Board Policy A-11 needs to be reviewed and revised in various respects. The Board of Supervisors also agrees with the goal implicit in the recommendation and does not necessarily disagree with the specific recommendation. However, the Board believes that a comprehensive review of Policy A-11 should be undertaken and that specific modifications should be reviewed and undertaken only in the context of such a comprehensive review. This will ensure that the goals are achieved and Policy A-11 is revised in the most effective and internally consistent manner. The Interim CAO, in conjunction with County Counsel, is directed to incorporate analysis of the recommendation in the Study for review and recommendation.
F6
Page 2
In its Response to Recommendation R2 of the October 4 Report, the Board represented: • that "it is the intention of the [Board] to implement" the Grand Jury's
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Page 50
The Board should establish a procedure which assures that there will be compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 4 of Board Policy A-11, referenced in Finding F12-d, requiring that copies of the final Draft Response be distributed to all members of the current and/or issuing Grand Jury prior to the agendizing of that Draft Response on the Board's calendar for adoption hearing. Response to R6: The recommendation requires further analysis . Policy A-11 contains express direction regarding certain actions, such as that referenced in R6, which are to be taken. It is not clear what form procedures designed to ensure compliance with existing procedures would take, or whether any such efforts would be 33 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) redundant. The Interim CAO, in conjunction with County Counsel, is directed to incorporate this issue into the Study and recommendation called for under the response to R1, and to present the recommendation concurrent with recommendations made under that study.
F7
Page 2
In its Response to Recommendation R4 of the October 4 Report, the Board represented that "a definite timeline is set by these responses to ensure that the work will be completed in a timely and appropriate manner."
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Page 51
The Board should establish a procedure which assures that there will be compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 4 of Board Policy A-11, referenced in Finding F12-d, requiring that copies of the final Draft Response be distributed to all members of the issuing Grand Jury prior to the agendizing of that Draft Response on the Board's calendar for adoption hearing. Response to R7: The recommendation requires further analysis. Policy A-11 contains express direction regarding certain actions, such as that referenced in R7, which are to be taken. It is not clear what form procedures designed to ensure compliance with existing procedures would take, or whether any such efforts would be redundant. The Interim CAO, in conjunction with County Counsel, is directed to incorporate this issue into the Study and recommendation called for under the responses to R1, and to present the recommendation concurrent with recommendations made under that study.
F8
Page 2
The foregoing responses have merged and/or melded the Board's responses to two separate issues raised in the Grand Jury's reports. One issue is the procedural issue of follow-up. The other issue is the substantive issue of whether the position of CAO should be converted into a position of CEO. The latter issue is discussed below, in the Grand Jury's Reply to the Board's Response to the Grand Jury's Dated Final Report of January 23, 2002 (January 23 Report). It does not appear, however, that the Board has established a procedure for following up on the implementation of its responses to Grand Jury Reports generally, as opposed to having furnished an ad hoc response to the January 23 Report. Findings re Dated Final Report of October 10, 2002
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Page 51
The Board should establish a procedure which assures that there will be compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 5 of Board Policy A-11, referenced in Finding F12-e, requiring that the members of the issuing Grand Jury be invited to participate in the public hearing review of the final Draft Response to the Final Report of that issuing Grand Jury. Response to R8: The recommendation requires further analysis . Policy A-11 contains express direction regarding certain actions, such as that referenced in R8, which are to be taken. It is not clear what form procedures designed to ensure compliance with existing 34 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) procedures would take, or whether any such efforts would be redundant. The Interim CAO, in conjunction with County Counsel, is directed to incorporate this issue into the Study and recommendation called for under the responses to R1, and to present the recommendation concurrent with recommendations made under that study.
F9
Page 3
The Grand Jury issued a Dated Final Report, dated as of October 10, 2001 (October 10 Report). The subject of that Report involved the County Jail at South Lake Tahoe. Responses were requested from the El Dorado County Sheriff and from the Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Page 52
The Board should establish a procedure which assures that there will be compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 9 of Board Policy A-11, referenced in Finding F12-g, requiring that the CAO send correspondence to all entities identified in the Final Report of the issuing Grand Jury (i) alerting them to their reporting obligation under Section 933(c) of the Penal Code, (ii) requesting that those entities supply a courtesy copy of their responses to the County, and (iii) making such courtesy copies available for public viewing in the Board Clerk's Office. Response to R9: The recommendation requires further analysis . Policy A-11 contains express direction regarding certain actions, such as that referenced in R9, which are to be taken. It is not clear what form procedures designed to ensure compliance with existing procedures would take, or whether any such efforts would be redundant. The Interim CAO, in conjunction with County Counsel, is directed to incorporate this issue into the Study and recommendation called for under the responses to R1, and to present the recommendation concurrent with recommendations made under that study.
F10
Page 3
The October 10 Report contained two Recommendations for construction repair and/or maintenance work, one of which was needed to correct a hazardous condition which created a potential liability for the County. The Grand Jury "strongly recommended" that that particular project "be completed before winter of 2001/2002."
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
Page 52
Whether or not such action is required by Section 933(c) of the Penal Code, the Board should amend Board Policy A-11 to require that non-elected County agency or department heads, when requested to do so by a grand jury, respond to final reports of grand 35 (cid:9) juries in the same manner as elected County agency or department heads. Response to R10: The recommendation requires further analysis. Based upon input from the County Counsel, it is the Respondent's po sition that the recommended action is not required by Penal Code section 933(c). (See responses to findings
F11
Page 3
On December 7, 2001, the Sheriff transmitted his Response to the October 10 Report to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, who in turn furnished that Response to the Grand Jury. No similar Response by the Board, however, has been furnished either to the Presiding Judge or to the Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
Page 54
The Board should amend Board Policy A-11, referenced in
F12
Page 3
Construction repair and maintenance projects are under the control of the Facilities Services Division of the County's Department of General Services (DGS), not the Sheriff's Department. This Grand Jury has reported elsewhere on the performance of DGS, including its Facilities Services Division. The Grand Jury is informed and believes that DGS has implemented a temporary repair of the hazardous condition and is in the process of taking steps to effect a permanent repair. It is disappointing to the Grand Jury, however, that the Board itself (as opposed to the Sheriff) has not seen fit to communicate a response to the Grand Jury's recommendation on the subject. Findings re Dated Final Report of January 16, 2002
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
Page 54
The Board, as substantially suggested by County Counsel in the November 1 Memo, should adopt a Resolution requiring that all County policies and procedures be set forth in writing, and that, in the absence of emergency circumstances and for reasons specified in writing at the time, there be no reliance upon "past practices" or "unwritten policies," as referenced in Finding F39-f, particularly in connection with personnel matters. Response to R12: The recommendation requires further analysis. Respondent agrees with the goal and intent of the recommendation. However, the manner in which the goal and intent are implemented and the timeframe involved require further study. The scope of the issue (i.e. how many undocumented policies and procedures exist) is not known. In addition to items that might accurately be referred to as licies and procedures," Alpo like any large organization, the County and its departments undoubtedly have developed more or less formal "prac tices" for the conduct of business. Some of these may have legal effect whether or not written. For example, state law may require consultation with employee organizations before some unwritten practices can be changed. Therefore, further study is needed to identify the scope of the issue to be addressed, to define the term licies and procedures" that will be the subject of the effort, to Alpo determine whether an effort will be made to document all practices 37 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) of the County, and to identify the time and resources needed to accomplish the project. The Interim CAO, in conjunction with County Counsel, is directed to conduct a study of the issue and. return to the Board with recommendations not later than six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury's repo rt.
F13
Page 3
The Grand Jury issued a Dated Final Report, dated as of January 16, 2002 (January 16 Report). The subject of that Report involved a review of the County's procedures pursuant to which the Board responds to Grand Jury Reports generally.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13
Page 55
The Board should establish a procedure which assures that the contents of its final responses to grand jury final reports are accurate as of the date of its adoption of those responses, rather than as of some unknown prior date. Response to R13: The recommendation requires further analysis. Respondent agrees with the goal and intent of the recommendation. However, further study is needed to determine the manner in which the recommendation should be implemented and the degree to which the strict language of the recommendation should be implemented. Respondent agrees that current . information in the possession of the County should be incorporated in the final response. The recommendation could be read, however, to require ongoing active investigation throughout the course of preparing the final response. The extent to which such an effort should be undertaken requires additional study. The Interim CAO, in conjunction with County Counsel, is directed to study the issue further and return to the Board with recommendations not later than six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury's report.
F14
Page 3
In several of its findings in the January 16 Report, in an effort at politeness, the Grand Jury prefaced its substantive findings with the statement "In the Grand Jury's view" or words of similar import. See, e.g., Findings F45, F49 and F51, and see also Findings F17 and F18 ("It was the view of the Previous Grand Jury, and is the view of this Grand Jury"). The Board, in responding to those findings, evaded the substance of the findings by agreeing that the statements represented the views of the Grand Juries, without either agreeing or disagreeing with the substance of the findings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14
Page 55
The Board should establish a procedure whereby its members can discuss with division heads and/or managers those proposed responses to final grand jury report findings which disagree with grand jury findings for reasons which do not fully satisfy the members of the Board. Such a procedure could involve the establishment of workshops or other discussion groups at which the members of the Board, the affected division heads and/or managers, and one or more members of the Grand Jury and/or the 38 (cid:9) issuing Grand Jury, would participate. Such discussions, in any event, should occur during the twenty-one (21) day period prior to the commencement of the agendizing of the Draft Report for final action by the Board. Response to R14: The recommendation requires further analysis. The Board of Supervisors already has the authority to hold special meetings, workshops, discussion groups and other mechanisms to engage in dialogue with staff on these or any other matters related to its response to Grand Jury reports. The need for establishing a formal procedure for that interaction is unclear and needs to be further considered. To the extent such a procedure is deemed warranted, further consideration needs to be given to the instances in which it would be invoked, the nature of the process and the participants. The Interim CAO, in conjunction with County Counsel, is directed to further study this issue and return to the Board with recommendations not later than six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury's report. . EXHIBIT - Response to Report Dated January 23, 2002 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO THE EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY Government & Administration Committee Final Report as of January 23, 2002, on Duties and Responsibilities of the Chief Administrative Officer Reason for the Report The 2001/2002 El Dorado County Grand Jury ("Grand Jury") issued a Final Report dated as of October 3, 2001, dealing with "lack of follow up" regarding the responses of previous Boards of Supervisors to previous grand jury reports. The substantive subject- matter of that particular Report dealt with the management structure of the County of El Dorado ("County"), and recommendations concerning possible changes to that structure. The Grand Jury has observed a widespread lack of accountability in connection with the performance of the duties required of County employees. Some department heads, division heads and supervisors are attentive to this problem, while others are not. Lack of accountability for non-performance has a negative effect upon County efficiency. Many employees perform "above and beyond" the requirements of their positions. Outstanding performance is often unrecognized and uncompensated, and is of substantial benefit to the County. Employees who do not meet performance standards, however, cause considerable expense to. the County. The Grand Jury will continue to inquire into this . accountability issue within the County and will disseminate a more comprehensive Final Report on the subject at the end of the Grand Jury's term. Concurrently with the issuance of the Grand Jury's October 3 Report, the Board of Supervisors ("Board") initiated inquiry into procedures (i) for the recruiting, interviewing and hiring of a new Chief Administrative Officer ("CAO"), and (ii) for defining the duties of the CAO position. Because of the Board's initiation of that study and the Grand Jury's.views (i) that "accountability starts at the top," (ii) that the County's present management structure fails to provide the CAO with authority commensurate with responsibility, and (iii) that there is a lack of adequate accountability on the part of department heads for the performance and functioning of their departments, the Grand Jury has elected to commence its review of County government structure and accountability by focusing its first report on the CAO position. In the Grand Jury's view, the County's highest administrative officer should be a Chief Executive Officer or County Manager (collectively, "CEO"). The CEO should be accountable to the Board for the proper and efficient administration of the affairs of the County, including the implementation of Board policy and the execution of budgetary requirements. All appointed department heads should operate under the authority of, should report directly to, and should be accountable to, the CEO. Because whatever final action the Board takes on the subject of its inquiry into the duties and responsibilities of the CEO/CAO position will be of considerable consequence to the County for many (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) years to come, the Grand Jury has elected to express its view on the subject, and the reasons for that view, in this Report. Scope of the Investigation The Grand Jury reviewed: 1. The County's Charter ("Charter"); 2. The County's Ordinance Code ("Ordinance Code"); 3. The County's present job description for the position of CAO ("Job Description"); and 4. Eighteen (18) responses to a survey questionnaire prepared by the Grand Jury and submitted to twenty-nine (29) demographically and/or geographically similar counties ("Survey . Responses"). The Grand Jury also interviewed numerous employees of the County, including department heads, division heads, supervisors and clerical and field workers.
F15
Page 3
Responses of the type described in the preceding finding, while literally correct, exhibit a type of "gamesmanship" which makes it difficult to give credence to the statement, prepared by county staff and adopted by the Board in its Response to Finding F15 of the October 4 Report, that the Board "disagree[s] that the Board or the Chief Administrative Officer's Office regards the work of … Grand Juries as a nuisance."
No recommendations for this finding
F16
Page 4
Responses of the type described in the two preceding findings appear to have been made selectively on the basis of some criteria unknown to the Grand Jury. It appears that when it has served the interests of the persons drafting the Board's responses, or the Board in adopting those responses, the Board has adopted and issued responses which reach the substance of Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations, even where they: • are expressed as "the views of" the Grand Jury, see, e.g., Board Responses to Finding F3 of the January 23 Report ("generally agrees with the main thrust of the finding"); or • contain obvious clerical or ministerial errors, see, e.g., Findings F27 and F42 of the January 16 Report.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
Page 4
The Board, in its Response to Recommendation R3, states that "[t]he time within which the final responses of elected department heads are to be filed is established by statute." While that is true, the statute does not say that elected department heads must take 60 days to file their responses; it says that such responses shall be submitted within 60 days. See California Penal Code §933(c). This is consistent with the Board's direction to the ICAO "to incorporate into the Study consideration of a change to Policy A-11 that would simply encourage elected department heads to expedite their review of Grand Jury final reports and to file their responses as early as is reasonably feasible." It is also consistent with the fact that, where grand jury findings or recommendations "address[] budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors [sic] shall respond if requested by the grand jury, … ." See California Penal Code §933.05(c). It is inconsistent, however, with the Board's Response that the "recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted." The Board cannot meaningfully respond to such budgetary and/or personnel findings or recommendations if the agency or elected department heads do not give the Board the relevant information in sufficient time for the Board to respond.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
Page 4
The Board, in its Response to Recommendation R12, has properly articulated a distinction between "policies and procedures" and "more or less 'formal' practices." In moving forward with the study which the Board has directed the ICAO and the County Counsel to conduct, both "policies and procedures" and "all practices of the County" should be included. Findings re Dated Final Report of January 23, 2002
No recommendations for this finding
F19
Page 5
As indicated above in Finding F8, the Grand Jury issued a Dated Final Report, dated as of January 23, 2002 (January 23 Report). The subject of that Report involved the scope of authority of the County's Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), and a general recommendation that the occupant of that position be empowered to act more like a Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), in various specified regards.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
Page 5
On January 15, 2002, prior to the January 23 Report and pursuant to the
No recommendations for this finding
F21
Page 5
Such a response was not drafted by March 15, 2002, and the Board did not take any other public action on the subject by that date.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
Page 5
At its April 9, 2002, meeting, "Staff [was] directed [by the Board] to draft a response [to the January 23 Report] indicating that the Board generally supports the concept of a stronger Chief Administrative Officer but that further analysis is required to determine exactly what changes will require a Charter amendment and which would not."
No recommendations for this finding
F23
Page 5
On April 16, 2002, substantially adopting a proposed response which had been submitted to it by its consultant Don Peterson, the Board responded to the January 23 Report generally. It agreed "that the CAO should be given greater authority over and responsibility for the proper and efficient administration of the business of the County," including "a more direct reporting relationship between appointed department heads and the CAO, and a greater degree of accountability of the appointed department heads to the CAO." Board's Response to Recommendation R1 of January 23 Report. Also in that Response, however, the Board stated that: • It "has not yet completed its review of this matter;" and • It "has [not] reached a final determination on the extent to which such authority should be vested in the CAO."
No recommendations for this finding
F24
Page 5
In that same Response, the Board stated that "the CAO, in conjunction with County Counsel, is directed to compile the available information which has been marshaled in the court of the Board's study of this matter, including any additional information deemed relevant, as well as a delineation of possible areas of delegation of authority to the CAO along with analysis of the steps required to implement the alternative courses of action. The study shall be completed and returned to the Board within six months of the publication of the Grand Jury's report." (Emphasis supplied.) Similar comments were made in the Board's Response to Recommendation R2. The term of this Grand Jury will expire prior to that six-month return date.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
Page 6
In Recommendation R3 of the January 23 Report, the Grand Jury recommended that the Director of Human Resources be directed to draft a revised job description for the CAO position. The Board responded to that Recommendation on April 16, 2002, by stating: • that it "has directed staff to work with County consultants to develop and present to the Board a new job description for the CAO reflecting increased authority to the extent feasible without amendments to the County Charter" (Emphasis supplied.); • that "[f]inalization of the job description will require the results of the studies being conducted under the responses to R1 and R2"; and • that "[t]he job description will be presented to the Board not later than the studies referenced above," i.e., "within six months of the publication of the Grand Jury's report."
No recommendations for this finding
F26
Page 6
Statements in the Board's April 16 Response to the January 23 Report that the Board "has directed" that a job description be developed and presented, on the one hand, and that County staff "is directed" by that Response to compile available information for purposes of a subsequent report to the Board, are mutually inconsistent.
No recommendations for this finding
F27
Page 6
The Board received, and placed on its April 30, 2002, agenda, a recommendation from its consultant Don Peterson concerning a proposed job description to be used in connection with recruitment procedures for a new CAO. That recommendation, while substantially similar in tone and content to the Grand Jury's January 23
No recommendations for this finding
F28
Page 6
The day before the April 30, 2002, meeting, the Director of the Department of Human Resources (HRD) submitted a proposed job description. Because that proposed job description had not been submitted in time to be made a part of the Board's public agenda packet, the Board continued the item once again, to May 14, 2002. One member of the Board indicated an intention, in the interim, to consider augmenting and/or revising some of the contents of the proposed job description. On May 14, however, that member was not present, and the matter was further continued by the Board to May 21, 2002, a date subsequent to the writing of this Reply.
No recommendations for this finding
F29
Page 6
There does not appear to be any substantial reason, when the subject of CAO authority had first been agendized on January 15, 2002, at the request of a member of the Board and without reference to the January 23 Report, why it should take more than four months from the date of Board action on that agendized item for staff and the County's consultants to produce an acceptable job description. The Grand Jury is aware of various public statements which have been made and reported in the media as to the reason or reasons for that delay. Without attempting to place blame or fault, the Grand Jury believes that the relevant issue is progress, or lack thereof. Accordingly, the Grand Jury merely notes the fact of the delay and makes no finding as to the validity or invalidity of any of those conflicting public statements. The Grand Jury simply says, about the CEO project, "GET IT DONE!" EXHIBIT - Response to Report Dated October 4, 2001 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) RESPONSE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO THE FIRST FINAL REPORT OF THE 2001-2002 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY, DATED OCTOBER 4, 2001 Findings
No recommendations for this finding
F30
Page 30
No formal request was made to the Grand Jury by the Board at that September 18, 2001, meeting, or otherwise, for an extension of the September 23, 2001, deadline for responding to the Previous Grand Jury's Final Report. Nevertheless, based on its understanding as set forth in Finding F29, the Grand Jury did not object to the implicit extension of time to October 16, 2001, set forth in the Motion and action of September 18, 2001 (See Finding F27). Response to F30: Respondent agrees with the finding. It is not clear that the Grand jury has the authority to extend the statutory deadline. The Board did direct that a letter be sent to both the Presiding Judge and the Grand Jury explaining the situation and indicating that the Board would take additional time to review the response. This may well have been construed as a request for an extension. Under the circumstances, and particularly taking into account that the undated letter was received from a person who was a member of the prior Grand Jury, the Board believed that the best course of action was to take the time necessary to respond to the comments that had been received. Respondent has no information that would allow it to assess the reason the Grand jury 13 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) did not object to the Board's failure to approve the response within the statutory time frame. Therefore, Respondent agrees with that portion of the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F31
Page 31
On October 5, 2001, the Foreman and one member of the Grand Jury met with the CAO, the County Counsel, and a committee consisting of two Board members, to discuss the Undated Letter, and specifically the perceptions articulated in the Undated Letter that the Draft Response presented to the Board appeared not to view the Previous Grand Jury's Final Report as a matter deserving of serious consideration by the Board itself. The meeting was an amicable one, although no specific actions were developed or agreed upon at the meeting. Response to F31: Respondent agrees with the finding . Although no specific actions were developed or agreed upon, the concerns expressed in the written materials received was discussed, as were various approaches to addressing them. It was and is the understanding of Respondent that the issues raised in the material received reflected concerns of the current Grand Jury or members of the current Grand Jury. Respondent does not know whether the transmittal of those concerns to the County was the result of formal action by the Grand Jury as a body.
No recommendations for this finding
F32
Page 31
By October 16, 2001, when the Board's regularly scheduled meeting was held, no "alternative responses" to the Draft Response, as required by the Board's action of September 18, 2001, had been prepared or brought back to the Board. Response- to F32: Respondent agrees with the finding . Based upon consideration of the issues, the results of the October 5, 2001, meeting, and discussions with the Board subcommittee, it was determined to recommend a workshop of the Board to address the issues.
No recommendations for this finding
F33
Page 31
Accordingly, on October 16, 2001, the Board requested that 14 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) the Grand Jury further extend the deadline for its Response to the Previous Grand Jury's Final Report to November 6, 2001. The Board represented to the Grand Jury that it would conduct a Workshop devoted to that subject on November 5, 2001. Response to F33: Respondent agrees with the finding. The Board determined to take the additional time in order to allow the Board workshop to take place. The Board did inquire of the Grand Jury whether that additional time was acceptable.
No recommendations for this finding
F34
Page 32
The foregoing request was presented to the Grand jury on October 17, 2001, and was approved by the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury directed the Foreman to advise the Board that the Grand Jury would not look favorably upon any further request by the Board for extended time to submit its Response. The Foreman so advised the Chairperson of the Board. Response to F34: Respondent agrees with the finding .
No recommendations for this finding
F35
Page 32
Thereafter, the County Counsel submitted to the Board a twelve-page memorandum dated November 1, 2001 ("November 1 Memo"), to which the Undated Letter was attached. A copy of that November 1 Memo was first delivered to the Grand Jury on the morning of November 5, 2001, shortly before the Board's Workshop on the afternoon of November 5, 2001. Response to F34: Respondent agrees with the finding. The memorandum, addressed to Supervisors Baumann and Borelli (the subcommittee) and copied to the remainder of the Board, actually was completed on Friday, November 2, 2001, as indicated in the header of the document, although the date on the face page was not changed.
No recommendations for this finding
F36
Page 32
The November 1 Memo did not discuss, on an item-by-item basis, the sixty (60) Findings or the twenty-four (24)
No recommendations for this finding
F37
Page 33
None of the matters discussed in the "Generic Objections" portion of the November 1 Memo identify, by number or page, any specific Finding or any specific Recommendation in the Previous Grand Jury's Final Report. Much of the content of the November 1 Memo, while legally and factually correct, was not responsive to the Board's action of September 18, 2001, for the reasons set forth in Finding F36. Response to F37: Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Respondent agrees that portion of the November 1 memorandum that discussed "G eneric Objections" did not identify specific findings or recommendations by number or page. Respondent disagrees with the finding that much of the memorandum was not responsive to the Board's ac tion of September 16 [25],2001. The September 25, 2001, motion authorized Supervisors Baumann and Borelli to work with the Interim CAO and County Counsel to prepare "po tential alternative responses." The motion does not expressly call for an alternative to be prepared for each finding and recommendation whether or not deemed warranted. The motion implicitly includes authority to recommend whether or not alternatives were deemed warranted. The memorandum identifies a proposed approach to responding to the concerns expressed and specific alternatives or modifications deemed warranted. The memorandum was developed after discussions with Supervisors Baumann and Borelli and in light of the meeting with members of the Grand Jury on October 5, 2001. Based on all of those interactions, County Counsel believed that the November 1 memorandum was responsive to the 16 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) Board's direc tion.
No recommendations for this finding
F38
Page 34
Numerous statements made in the November 1 Memo were incorporated either verbatim or substantially verbatim into a nine- page letter dated December 17, 2001, described in Findings F45 and
No recommendations for this finding
F39
Page 34
The November 1 Memo contains the following policy statements with which the Grand Jury agrees: a. "In the final analysis, the critical requirement is that the Board feel confident in adopting the [draft] response as its own." ( ) b. "For this process to work properly, of course, the Board must have sufficient time to review and consider the proposed responses before finally adopting them. County Counsel agrees that there is valid concern in this regard.... {T]iming problems are driven by the size and complexity of the required responses,...." ( ) c. "Because there are areas of overlapping control, of course, it may often - although not necessarily always - be appropriate for the Grand Jury to receive responses from both [elected officials and the Board] on a single issue." (Emphasis in original.) ( ) d. "County Counsel suggests that the Board clarify where appropriate whether (and why) it has adopted an elected official's response without review, or only after some exercise of independent judgment." ( ) e. "Developing a recommendation to address the timing issues raised by this portion of the letter is challenging. The fundamental problem is the tight statutory timelines." ( ) f. " ... '[P] ast practice' and unwritten policies are a poor basis for County operations - a point with which County Counsel, 17 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) and no doubt the Board, agrees." ( ) g. "In a time-pressured environment, the focus naturally is more on meeting legal requirements than on providing the most comprehensive response possible." ( ) Response to F39: Respondent agrees with the finding. With respect to paragraph (b) of F39, Respondent notes that an important portion of the quoted language was omitted. Finding
No recommendations for this finding
F40
Page 35
The November 1 Memo contains the following policy statements with which the Grand fury disagrees, either in whole or in part: a. "[C]ommunication of the Board's position to the Grand Jury may be by letter rather than amendment to the formal responses in order to avoid further delay." ( ) In the Grand Jury's view, the exclusive procedure for responses to grand jury final reports is mandated by Section 933.05 of the Penal Code, as implemented by Board Policy A-11. b. "Given that each Grand Jury report requires responses to literally hundreds of factual findings and recommendations within ninety days, it is simply infeasible for Boardmembers to personally investigate and respond to each one without staff assistance." ( ) That statement is also set forth in the December 17 Letter. ( ) _ In the Grand Jury's view, that statement begs the relevant question. Because it is agreed (see Finding F39-a above) that the Board must "feel confident in adopting the response as its own," the question is how the Board reaches that "confidence 18 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) level." "In the Grand Jury's view, an investigation by Board members is required where (i) serious and substantial disagreements appear between findings and recommendations of a grand jury and responses thereto proposed by staff, and (ii) the reasons for the staff's disagreement do not appear convincing or conclusive on their face. This would not require investigations by Board members of "literally hundreds" of proposed responses, because it would not require investigations of (i) those responses which agree with the findings and/or recommendations, (ii) those responses which, although disagreeing in whole or in part with a finding or recommendation, set forth convincing explanations of reasons for such disagreement, and (iii) those responses which propose a further investigation of the subject. It is only those findings and/or
No recommendations for this finding
F43
Page 41
The matters discussed irl the "Specific Concerns" portion of --_ -the November 1 Memo specifically identify eleven (11) [out of 60 listed on September 18] Findings, and seven (7) [out of 24 listed on September 18] Recommendations for specific response. Some other Findings and Recommendations may also have been 24 (cid:9) intended for response,but they are not specifically identified by number or page in the November 1 Memo. Response to F43: finding. Respondent agrees that the November 1 memo specifically mentions only a limited number of the 84 findings and
No recommendations for this finding
F44
Page 42
The Board, on November 6, 2001 als adopted the County Counsel's recommendation "that staff be directed to contact other counties to see if they experience the same [insufficiency of time to prepare responses to grand jury reports] difficulties and report back on [his] findings." ( of November 1 Memo) 25 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) Response to F44: Respondent disagrees with the finding. The I Conformed Agenda for the meeting of November 6, 2001, does not reflect such action.
No recommendations for this finding
F46
Page 34
("December 17 Letter"), signed by the Chairperson of the Board and addressed to the Presiding Judge. Response to F38: Respondent agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F47
Page 43
The contents of the December 17 Letter are substantially similar, but not totally identical, to the contents of the November 1 Memo. The December 17 Letter asserts that it "is meant to clarify some of the Board's adopted responses and to address certain 26 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) objections and concerns ...that the Board believes are more appropriately addressed in correspondence to the Grand fury than in its formal responses." Response to F47: Respondent agrees with the finding .
No recommendations for this finding
F49
Page 44
In the Grand Jury's view, the length of the 45-day response period for appointed department heads referenced in Finding F12- a creates an unnecessarily short period of time for independent review, consideration and analysis of those responses by the Board. Response to F49: Respondent agrees with the findin . In the absence of any contrary information, Respondent agrees that the finding accurately represents the view of the Grand Jury. (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)
No recommendations for this finding
F53
Page 45
no separate final Draft Response was prepared since no changes 28 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) were made in the Draft Response until the meeting of November 6, 2001.
No recommendations for this finding
F55
Page 46
No correspondence of the type referenced in Paragraph 9 of A-11 and described in Finding F12-g was sent, or request made, or copies of non-County responses made available for public viewing in the Board's office. Response to F55: Respondent disagrees partially with the findin . Clerical staff in the CAO's o ffice confirm that correspondence was sent to entities identified in the Grand Jury report requesting courtesy copies of any responses filed. The response to such correspondence from non-County entities is sporadic. If received, such responses are transmitted to the Board along with the County's draft respo nse. They are included at the back of the County's fin al response. They become available to the public at the time the draft response is sent to the Board. Respondent acknowledges that responses by non-County entities have not been made available for viewing on a routine basis earlier than the transmittal of the County's draft respo nse. 29 (cid:9)(cid:9)
No recommendations for this finding
Commendations 1
-
CM1 Page 79The Grand jury again commends the jail Commander, Lt. Lovell, and his staff for the outstanding work they are doing. The jail is clean, orderly, and the staff performs many tasks in a professional manner. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F16 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Sheriff Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R2 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Sheriff
Comments 8
-
CO1 Page 41The Board's action of November 6, 2001, was not a response to the eighty-four (84) specific items contained in the Previous Grand Jury's Final Report as had been anticipated by the Grand Jury following the Board's Motion and action of September 18, 2001 (See Findings F27 and F28). Response to F42: Respondent agrees with the finding. The Board's ac tion of November 6, 2001, did not contain an item-by- item action on each of the 84 findings and recommendations contained in the two page list that had been provided on September 17, 2001. Respondent has no information to the contrary and therefore assumes that the Grand Jury did anticipate such an item-by-item action after the September 18[25], 2001, motion. Nevertheless, the Board took its action after extensive deliberation, including its subcommittee's m eeting with grand jurors on October 5, 2001, and believes its action was appropriate. As stated in the response to F40, the Board's ac tion was in response to public comments, separate from and in addition to finalizing a formal report to the Grand Jury. The Board of Supervisors believes the form of its response was appropriate in that context.
-
CO2 Page 44The December 17 Letter does not constitute an adequate or proper Board Response, or amendment or modification to the Board's Response, to the Prior Grand Jury's Final Report for- the reasons set forth above in Findings F36, F37 and F40-a. Response to F4$ - --- Respondent disagrees with the -finding. As stated in the response to F40, the December 17, 2001, letter does not purport to be a formal response to the report of the previous Grand Jury, nor does it purport to amend the response to that report. The Board of Supervisors, on November 6, 2001, separately approved the formal response to the report of the prior Grand Jury which was forwarded to the Presiding Judge on November 7, 2001. The December 17, 2001, letter was intended as an additional response to the public comments received on the draft responses, not as a response to the Grand Jury's repo rt. The Board determined, as quoted in F47, that these responses to the public comments were "m ore appropriately addressed in correspondence to the Grand Jury than in its formal responses."
-
CO3 Page 45Because departmental responses of the type described in Findings F12-b and -F20 were not presented to the Board separately from the Draft Response presented by the CAO, the Board was unable to review or consider any changes that may have been made by the CAO to the departmental responses in connection with the preparation of the Draft Response. Response to Respondent disagrees with the finding. As
-
CO4 Page 45In the Grand fury's view, a period of one week for the members of the Board to review departmental responses and to comment on a Draft Response, as referenced in Finding F12-c, is inadequate time for serious and thoughtful review and analysis of those documents, and for further inquiry by the Board members into the details contained therein. Response to Respondent agrees with the finding. In the
-
CO5 Page 45No distribution of departmental responses of the type described in Findings F12-b and F20 was required by law or existing policy to be made, and no such distribution was made, to either the Previous Grand Jury or this Grand Jury. Response to Respondent agrees with the finding.
-
CO6 Page 46No invitation of the type referenced in Paragraph 5 of A-11,-as described in Finding F12-e, was made. One member of the Previous Grand Jury became aware of the contents of the Draft Response prior to the Board's September 18 meeting. That awareness occurred, however, only because the Draft Response was contained in the Board's agenda packet for its September 18 meeting, available in the Board Clerk's office. Response to F54: Res finding. The County did not individually invite each of the members of the immediate past Grand Jury to the September 18, 2001, public hearing. However, clerical staff of the CAO's o ffice confirm that the secretary to the Grand Jury was advised of the hearing date and responded that she would pass the information on to members of both the past and current Grand Juries.
-
CO7 Page 43In the Grand Jury's view, the proposed contact and inquiry described in Finding F44 is inadequate, in that it does not include inquiry of the grand juries in those other counties to ascertain whether those grand juries believe their counties' responses to their reports to be adequate or appropriate. Counties that profess to have no problems in rendering their responses to grand jury reports, but which submit responses that their grand juries believe to be inadequate or inappropriate, are not models which this Board should follow. Response to F45: Respondent agrees with the finding. In the absence of any information to the contrary, Respondent acknowledges that the finding accurately represents the view of the Grand Jury.
-
CO8 Page 36states "that the CAO and other senior staff members do spend considerable time providing review, oversight and drafting for all Grand Jury responses." (Emphasis in original.) The Grand Jury does not necessarily disagree with this statement as an accurate representation of present practice. Depending upon the meaning of the term "other senior staffmembers," however, the Grand Jury may disagree that this is the way the process should operate. In the Grand Jury's view, it is the division heads and managers who have the most hands-on 19 (cid:9) operational knowledge of the matters which are the subjects of grand jury reports, and it is they who should have the primary responsibility for the preparation of proposed responses to factual findings in those reports, with the department heads, the CAO's office, and perhaps County Counsel having only minimal editorial oversight responsibility with regard to such findings. Moreover, Board Policy A-11 requires that the original proposed responses of the department heads, as well as the Draft Response of the CAO, be presented to the members of the Board, but this policy has not been followed in practice. d. "The issue, therefore, is whether the Board should engage in a practice of ongoing updates and amendments to Grand Jury responses when relevant new information comes to light. County Counsel does not recommend adopting this practice, because it would turn the annual Grand Jury process into an ongoing, evolutionary dialogue with no finality. As a practical matter, Grand Jury Reports and responses necessarily reflect snapshots in time." (Page 10) The December 17 Letter (page 7) states that "the fundamental issue is whether the Board should engage in a practice of ongoing updates and amendments to Grand Jury responses when relevant new information comes to light. We respectfully decline to adopt this practice, because it would turn the annual Grand Jury process into an ongoing, evolutionary dialogue with no finality. As a practical matter, Grand Jury Reports and responses necessarily reflect snapshots in time." The Grand Jury does not assert that "the annual Grand Jury process" should involve "an ongoing, evolutionary dialogue with no finality," but, precisely because Responses "necessarily reflect snapshots in time," they should accurately reflect the facts as of the point in time at which they are adopted by the Board, and not at some undefined prior point. In the example referenced in the previous paragraph, the Draft Response was agendized for action to be taken on September 18, but new information was available to the public at least by September 13, and was possibly available to at least some of the members of the Board prior to that date. 20 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) Additionally, the December 17 Letter (page 9) refers to a subcommittee which "will be reporting back to the Board on December 11." On December 11, however, as indicated in Findings F40-e and F46, the Board took action on the subject of closed session record-keeping, but that action was not reflected in the December 17 Letter. It appears, from the dates set forth on pages 2 through 9 of the December 17 Letter, that that letter may actually have been produced on November 21, 2001. The "snapshot in time" approach should have focused on information available as of the proposed Response adoption date, September 18, and on the date of transmittal of the December 17 letter to the Presiding Judge, respectively, and not some undefined prior date or dates. Aside from "the annual Grand Jury process," the Grand Jury believes that "an ongoing, evolutionary dialogue" between the Board and the Grand Jury is a desirable thing. e. "[T]he Grand Jury's convenience needs to be weighed against the chilling effect of a tape recorder's presence in closed session discussions ... ." (Page 12) That statement was not included in the December 17 Letter. As indicated above, however, the December 17 Letter (page 9) does recite that the Board "is still weighing the issue of closed-session record keeping," and that a "subcommittee will be reporting back to the Board on December 11." The Grand Jury does not believe that its efforts to obtain the most accurate information possible in pursuing its statutorily authorized and/or mandated investigations are matters of mere "convenience," as indicated by County Counsel. The Grand Jury is heartened, however, by the Board's actions in (a) directing the establishment of a subcommittee to inquire into the issue of record keeping at closed sessions, and (b) adopting, on December 11 as Agenda Item No. 67, a Resolution establishing that, henceforth, 21 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) (i) County Counsel would take limited notes [i.e., motions and votes] of actions taken in Closed Session, (ii) those notes would be circulated to and initialed by the Board members indicating their concurrence, and (iii) the initialed notes would then be delivered to the Board's Clerk for safekeeping. Response to F40: Respondent agrees with the finding. The portions of the November 1 memorandum and the December 17 letter are accurately quoted in F40. The remainder of F40 constitutes statements of the views of the Grand Jury. Respondent has no information indicating that these do not reflect the views of the Grand Jury and therefore accepts the finding as an accurate reflection of the Grand Jury's v iews. The positions taken by the County Counsel are set forth in the November 1 memorandum and are cited by the Grand Jury. F40 does not call for a substantive response to the views expressed by the Grand Jury. Any such response would be lengthy and might be considered argumentative. Therefore, no such response is made. To the extent the Respondent's po sition on any of these issues is relevant to explain a response to any recommendation made by the Grand Jury in this report, that information will be provided in response to any such recommendation. There is one exception that deals with a procedural matter. Paragraph (a) of F40 partially quotes the November 1 memorandum as saying "[C ]ommunication of the Board's position to the Grand Jury may be by letter rather than amendment to the formal responses in order to avoid further delay." The Grand Jury interprets that statement to refer to the Board's response to the Grand Jury's fin al report and disagrees with it. However, the full sentence from which the quote is extracted reads, "In light of the time constraints involved, it is suggested that as to those items zvhere the responses in gtcestion are factzcally correct but may raise issues concerning the phrasing and legally sufficient, 22 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) or' attitude" of the response, communication of the Board's position to the Grand Jury may be by letter rather than amendment to the formal responses in order to avoid further delay." (Emphasis added.) Read in full, this sentence clearly advises the Board that any changes required to make the formal responses accurate or legally sufficient should be made as amendments to those responses. In fact, certain changes were made and the final response was. forwarded to the Presiding Judge on November 7, 2001. The December 17, 2001, letter to the Presiding Judge was in response to issues raised in the undated letter, which constituted public comment on the Board's pro posed responses. The December 17 letter contained information the Board did not feel was required in the formal response to the previous Grand Jury's repo rt. It was not intended as a substitute for the formal response, but rather as an additional communication expressing opinions of the Board which the Board hoped would foster an improved relationship with the Grand fury. In that context, the Board believes that the letter was an appropriate form of communication. At its regular meeting of November 6, 2001, the Board: (i) Adopted the Response to the Previous Grand Jury Report as originally recommended by staff, subject to a rewriting of the response to Recommendation R1 on page 8 of the Draft Response, the specifics of which were to be developed by staff and brought back to the Board for approval; (ii) Appointed two of its members as a subcommittee to work on possible solutions to the issue of record keeping of closed sessions and to report back to the Board by December 11, 2001; (iii) Directed the CAO to establish a methodology to ensure that departments follow up on those recommendations for which the Board's Response states that follow up will occur; and (iv) Directed County Counsel to prepare, for signature by the Board's Chair, a letter to the Grand Jury transmitting the 23 (cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) responses to "Generic Objections" as set forth on pages 2-5 of the . November 1 Memo, including clarifications proposed in the County Counsel's November 1 Memo to specific concerns numbers 2, 3, 4, 7B, 7D and 7E. The Board's action on this point did not specify any date by which the letter to be completed. . Response to F41: Respondent agrees with the finding. F42. The Board's action of November 6, 2001, was not a response to the eighty-four (84) specific items contained in the Previous Grand Jury's Final Report as had been anticipated by the Grand Jury following the Board's Motion and action of September 18, 2001 (See Findings F27 and F28). Response to F42: Respondent agrees with the finding. The Board's ac tion of November 6, 2001, did not contain an item-by- item action on each of the 84 findings and recommendations contained in the two page list that had been provided on September 17, 2001. Respondent has no information to the contrary and therefore assumes that the Grand Jury did anticipate such an item-by-item action after the September 18[25], 2001, motion. Nevertheless, the Board took its action after extensive deliberation, including its subcommittee's m eeting with grand jurors on October 5, 2001, and believes its action was appropriate. As stated in the response to F40, the Board's ac tion was in response to public comments, separate from and in addition to finalizing a formal report to the Grand Jury. The Board of Supervisors believes the form of its response was appropriate in that context. F43. The matters discussed irl the "Specific Concerns" portion of --_ -the November 1 Memo specifically identify eleven (11) [out of 60 listed on September 18] Findings, and seven (7) [out of 24 listed on September 18] Recommendations for specific response. Some other Findings and Recommendations may also have been 24 (cid:9) intended for response,but they are not specifically identified by number or page in the November 1 Memo. Response to F43: finding. Respondent agrees that the November 1 memo specifically mentions only a limited number of the 84 findings and