Calaveras County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

Grand Jury Final Report 2010-2011

Published: March 31, 2010 109 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Findings 10 findings

F1
During the course of the interviews with department staff, it became clear that a hostile workplace environment exists. The interviews elicited descriptions of physical altercations, sexual harassment, discrimination, and battery upon a subordinate by a superior officer, none of which were appropriately documented.
F2
Attendance by the Grand Jury at JLFPD Board meetings revealed unstructured, chaotic shouting matches involving board members, staff, and the public. There were Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950) violations and little adherence to any formal rules of order.
F3
JLFPD staff and members of the Board of Directors regularly violate the chain of command as described in the District‘s Policies and Procedures Manual, which is outdated.
F4
Typically, training of staff and volunteers is conducted on a regularly scheduled basis. Mandatory and refresher training sessions are provided for firefighters, management, and combined staff; however, during the investigation it was revealed that training was not properly documented, making it impossible to verify attendance.
F5
There is a public perception that the JLFPD station is no longer a community meeting place where members of the taxpaying public are welcome. There is also a perception that the public is not welcome at the board meetings. Meeting dates and times have been changed with little prior notice.
F6
Many areas within the County are undergoing a lengthy planning process to update the County‘s General Plan. The LAFCO will have a significant say in whether a community‘s plans can move forward. The Grand Jury asks whether providing insight to these communities in advance of or concurrent with local residents making significant plans is not wiser than waiting for local planning to be rejected or significantly delayed during the LAFCO application stage. It is possible local planning recommendations cannot be implemented under current or projected service area capabilities and boundaries approved by the LAFCO.
F7
Board members reported having obtained bids for services such as paving through a word- of-mouth method that included only select providers rather than through a broader, more formal process with public notices. RESPONSE FROM WCSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS The WCSD Board of Directors responded, ―It is the intent of the current Board to utilize the services of the Calaveras County Water District to search for, and when required, produce request for bids or proposals. As part of this process the WCSD issued a RFP for Audit Services obtaining 5 responses to provide these services. After reviewing the responses the Board selected the audit firm that seemed the most appropriate in terms of District needs.‖
F8
Recently an expansion of Wallace Lake Estates was proposed by a developer who had purchased property and plans from the entity responsible for the original development. The new owner had requested that the District honor the costs and rates agreed upon with the prior developer. Questions arose whether an apparently favorable response to the new developer‘s proposal was communicated by a Board member prior to the proposal being discussed in open session. A problem with actual approval of the prior expansion plan later surfaced.
F9
Related to Finding 8, it was discovered the previous expansion application process had not been completed through Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO). In its 2004 services review, LAFCO had advised WCSD to prepare a capital improvement plan, to perform an analysis of its rate structure, and to consider exploring sources of surface water to provide a long-term reliable water supply to the area. WCSD has acted upon all of these
F10
During the meetings, corrections to WCSD bookkeeping and balances were regularly pointed out by audience members. Inter-fund loans and transfer matters were presented for vote without clear or accurate information relative to terms or status of either fund. A confusing discussion was held regarding compensation for the General Manager and the individual under whose State certification the General Manager would be working. It is uncertain whether accurate documentation detailing the outcome was ever prepared for the record following Board discussion of the topic.

Recommendations 10

Comments 1