Napa County Grand Jury • 2003-2004

I Napa Countyg Randj Ury P.o. Box5 397 Napai California9 4581

Published: June 23, 2004 56 pages Consolidated Report
Ver PDF original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F2, F3

Findings 2 findings

F1 Page 1
NSDis not being managed in an efficient manner for the benefit of the community it serves. Management is not effective anddoesnot display the mutualrespectandsupportfor either one anotheror the line staff that is mandatory for efficient operation. Management expertise and performancehas improvedsignificantly since 1999. Interviews with employees,management, and the Boardof Directors revealed the followingpositiveresults: 34 i I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Constructionof the highly advanced Soscolfacility wascompleted. Newcapital improvement andstrategic planning programswere implemented. Substantial improvements weremadein formalizing training andsafety programs. Networkedcomputersand a Nextel telephone systemhave improved communications and efficiency. Ongoingefforts havereducedraw material andprocesscosts. TheBoardof Directors nowreceives moredetailed financial reports. In addition to these improvements in NSDoperations, employees consistently reported that moraleand relationships with management improveddramatically over the past five yearsandparticularly during the last three years. Over90% of the employees reportedmoraleas "generally good"to ’~ery good". Total employee attrition, a generallyuseful indicator of moralelevel, averaged less than 10%per year during the last three years. While employeemoraleis good, the majority of non-managerialemployees reportedthat it has deteriorated in the last few months.Theseemployees believethat the District hasreceivedinaccurateandunfair pressregarding operations. Theyreport casesof being approached by members of the public regardingaccusationsreportedin the press, andthey find this disturbing. They feel that they are not givenpublic credit for a goodrecordof timely and courteousservice. Employees also report dismayat recent newspaper reports indicating that the District maybe broughtunderthe control of the City of Napa Water Department. 1998-1999 Finding2: TheBoardof Directors is too involvedin the dayto-day managing andsupervisingof the operationsof the District, including the handling of grievancehearings. If the management arrangements werebetter structured by the Board,the Boardof Directors wouldbe free to performits primarypurpose,whichis the settingof policy. TheNSDBoardof Directors is no longer micro-managing the District. In recent years, the Boardhas focusedprimarily on policy mattersandleft managing dayto-day operations to management. 1998-1999Finding3: Thepresent Boardof Directors meetingfacilities are crowdedand inadequate. Boardmeetingsare nowheld at the Soscoltreatmentplant in a large meeting roomthat providesamplespaceandcomfortfor participants, including members of the public. TheGrandJury also noted that Boardmeetingsare scheduledwell in advanceandare publicized on the NSDwebsite. 35 1998-1999
F4 Page 1
There have beennumerous

Recommendations 8

Commendations 3

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 6

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Calistoga City
Napa County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office
Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Conservation District
Napa Sanitation District Special District
St. Helena City
Yountville City