Nevada County Grand Jury
• 1997-1998
Nevada County Courthouse and Holding Facility Reason for Investigation*
⚠️ 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.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F6
Findings and Recommendations 7 findings
F1
The courthouse and holding facility was clean and well maintained. The system of moving inmates from the county Wayne Brown Correctional Facility to the courthouse holding facility was adequate.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The courthouse holding facility meets the California Board of Corrections minimum standards for security, staffing, safety and separation of adults, juveniles, males and females.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Security issues have been well known for at least three years by courthouse personnel, the county senior management, the Sheriff's Department and the Board of Supervisors. They have been addressed in past Grand Jury reports. They are:
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors establish a policy for county management to apply immediate action priority in resolving security issues when identified.
F4
On April 14, 1997, the chairman of the Board of Supervisors responded to the 1996-97 Civil Grand Jury Interim Report dated February 14, 1997, regarding courthouse security as follows: "In regard to the matter of improving Courthouse security, specifically the movement of inmates through the facility, the County Administrator, the Sheriff and Court Administrator have met several times to identify options that may be available to improve the level of security. These options with an estimated cost and plan to design and construct the improvements that may be necessary will be presented to the Board in the next 30 days." As a result of this Board of Supervisors' directive, a Courthouse Security Committee was formed. The committee was composed of the County Administrative Office, court executive officer and Sheriff's Department. However it was unclear who the assigned chairperson was.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The 1997-98 Grand Jury investigation found the Courthouse Security Committee has met only occasionally and no report that met the directive of the Board of Supervisors had been prepared fully seven months past the required deadline. One memo to the county administrative officer dated December 5, 1997, states: "I know that there is a task force appointment, but being a member, we haven't met in many months." The Grand Jury asked two committee members who the chairman of the security committee was. The members' response was they were uncertain but thought it was the county administrative officer. A second question asked why security issues take so long to resolve. The response was, "the budget." A review of the county audit of June 30, 1997, revealed a Courthouse Temporary Construction Fund balance of $392,167. The County Counsel stated to the Grand Jury that these funds could be used for courthouse security improvements.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors establish a policy of assigning specific responsibility and putting required response dates to directives on appropriate future agenda.
R3
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors begin holding county management accountable and responsible for any failure to act as directed.
F7
The Courthouse Security Committee issued a status report on January 16,1998, eight months after the April 1997 deadline of the Board of Supervisors' directive of April 1997. This report did not show estimated costs or a plan to construct improvements as required.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors establish a policy of assigning specific responsibility and putting required response dates to directives on appropriate future agenda.
R3
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors begin holding county management accountable and responsible for any failure to act as directed.
F8
On March 17, 1998, the director of general services presented a courthouse security report, fully 10 months past the directed deadline, to the Board of Supervisors. The report contained inconsistencies in cost estimates and did not include the Sheriff's Department in distribution. The Grand Jury has determined that no meetings of the Courthouse Security Committee were held to draft the report. The report was apparently based on the director of general services understanding of the required changes to security. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors establish a policy of assigning specific responsibility and putting required response dates to directives on appropriate future agenda.
R3
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors begin holding county management accountable and responsible for any failure to act as directed.
Conclusions 3
-
CL1 Page 2The Grand Jury finds that the failure of the Board of Supervisors to appoint a Courthouse Security Committee chairman at the time of the April 14, 1997, directive contributed to delay and confusion in resolving the courthouse security issues.
-
CL2 Page 2The Grand Jury has a serious concern that the security report presented to the Board of Supervisors on March 17, 1998 was not a committee report but that of one person's conclusions.
-
CL3 Page 2The Grand Jury believes there is a management practice in county administration that allows personnel to avoid responsibility. This practice, and Board of Supervisors style of direction, contributed to the 10-month delay in proposing solutions to the courthouse security issues. 10
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
Nevada County Sheriff
Elected County Office
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.