Sunshine Club,

Conclusions 3

• CL1 Page 158
  "Although it has now been mcted, in thepast, money raised by the Grid& FOL was used to fund extra hoursfor a part-h'me position." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department. 2. "Then is a hck of overall fundng for the Butte County Libray gstem. The county is ~&ngo n FOL monies to sqpb some of the bm'cs.." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department. 3. "Then is demandfor inmased hours of(9eration." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this hnding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department. 4. "The srjc branch libratie~d o not have individual dismtionq budgets." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department. 5. "There are hmited oppot%um'tiesforc ommunication mong the branch 6hanan.r.'' The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department. 6. "The librayf m'Iities an detenenorah'ng." The respondent agrees with this W n g . The County has a number of aging facilities and is in the process of implementing a plan to address these needs. On June 26, 2007 the Board of Supervisors approved a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which lays out a 20 year plan to address facility needs throughout the County. Sgmficant remodelrng and expansion of County libraries is planned for 2015, but this schedule may be modified dependent contributions from the community. In addition to addressing these large capital budget needs, the County is addressing maintenance needs. For example, in the current fiscal year the Board of Supervisors appropriated funds to replace the flooring in the Oroville Library and in the Chico Branch Library's conference room. 7. "The roof ha& and moM damage at the Gn'dhy Library took omt woyears to msolve." The respondent agrees with the finding as stated However, it should be noted that although the resolution took two years, the problem was promptly addressed. Over the course of the two years a series of professional roofing contractors were retained, but failed to locate the source of the leak and remedy it. Finally, County staff, by an extensive effort, was able to locate and remedy this unique situation. Newly acquired equipment should allow for more prompt resolutions in the future. 8. "The Biggs Library bsn'Mng is not owned by the coung, is in poor condition without mstmom fadties, and is not AL2A accessibh." The respondent agrees with this finding. The builchg in which the Biggs Branch Library operates is owned by the City of Biggs and leased to the County at essentially no cost. This facility, while not ideal, does allow for Library services to be provided in the City of Biggs. The City recently provided access to a restroom both for library staff and for patrons, and approached the County with an offer to discuss other City facilities that may become available for use by the library. Other County libraries, for example Gridley, which is neatby, are ADA accessible. 9. "Handicappedpmknga ccess is a p b ha t the Pmdse Librag,." The respondent agrees with this finding. Although the Paradise Branch Library has handicapped parking directly in front of the main entrance, there appears to be a problem with the slope of those parktng spaces. There are few, if any, level parking spaces at this library. The General Services Department will analyze the extent of the problem with these parlung spaces, and the most appropriate remedy as part of the ongoing effort to eliminate ADA issues throughout the County. 10. "The Library shategtk Phn is sixyem OM and is c~mnt3 in the pmcess of being Kphted" The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department 11. "The Board ofSupenn'sws nee& a cham undersana3ng @Butte Coung librq issues." The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with this finding as it is outside the scope of responsibility of this department.
• CL2 Page 136
  The Grand Jury in its report focused on a small element of the f d y v iolence issue in our community. However, this provides a welcome opportunity to discuss the critical nature of the problem and to put forward a few points. s We need a full time vertical DV Court to keep a focused effort of intervention and change in this dangerous crime. s We need expanded victim advocacy and sheltering services, including intervention services for women with children and pets that need protection. We need sufficient access to drug and alcohol treatment. Methamphetamine is the predominant drug of abuse in the County. While alcohol use does NOT cause violence, methamphetamine, because of the unique impact on dopamine and serotonin, can cause violence. It is critically important that persons not be impaired by any form of substance abuse while working through a batterer's intervention program. If their learning is impaired, progress is limited. Grand Jury Response 2006-07 August 20,2007 Paqe 11 of 11 We need alcohol and drug treatment providers as part of the current Domestic Violence Court team. Ths would move us farther into the problem solving court model which has demonstrated national excellence. ' We need to move toward uniform and normed assessment instruments that allow the court . team to measure progress, and focus additional services where deficits remain. We need additional community supervision to protect the public. The Grand Jury is a group of citizens who dedicate significant amounts of personal time in an effort to make our community a better place to live. I applaud their efforts. I am very sony that they appear to have been given insufficient information fi-om vested interests. This lack of information has caused a focus on a very small aspect of the overall response to family violence and distracted them &om addressing the many problems that we face in addressing family violence in a comprehensive manner. Respectllly submitted, District Attorney cc: Butte County Board of Supervisors L A N D OF NATLIRAL WEALTH AIqC B E A U T Y MICHAELL . RAMSEY District Attorney FRANCISCO R ZARATE ANTHONGY. KOESTER Chief Deputy District Attorney Chief Investigator August 20,2007 The Honorable Steven J. Howell Presiding Judge Butte County Superior Court 1 Court Street Oroville, California Re: Response to 2006107 Grand Jury Report on the Feather River Recreation and Park District Your Honor: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933, the District Attorney of Butte County submits ths response to recommendation number 24 of the Butte County Grand Jury in their report on the Feather River Recreation and Park District. In that recommendation the Grand Jury requested ths office "conduct an investigation into the alleged mishandling of knds for the Skate and Bike Park project and into the possibly biased Board-requested investigation of the appropriation process to see if criminal charges should be brought against the Board and the General Manager." The recommendation has been implemented. No summary of this action is possible as it would impede the investigation. District Attorney 1 cc: Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville California 95965-3385 Tel: (530) 538-7411 Fax: (530) 538-7071 www.buttecounty.netlda L A N D OF N A T U R A L \h'EALTH A N C B E A U T Y MICHAELL . RA~ISEY District Attorney FRANCISCOR . ZARATE ANTHONYG . KOESTER Chief Deputy District Attorney Chief Investigator August 20,2007 The Honorable Steven J. Howell Presiding Judge Butte County Superior Court 1 Court Street Oroville, California Re: Response to 2006/07 Grand Jury Report on the Law Enforcement Formal Complaint System Your Honor: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933, the District Attorney of Butte County submits this response to an erroneous finding in the above report. Said finding "found that the DA refused to look into a matter saying it had been turned over to the Grand Jury for investigation." The District Attorney disagrees wholly with this fmdmg. Although the "matter" is unspecified, a discussion with the grand jury foreperson after the report was submitted clarified what "matter" was being referenced. This office was very familiar with the subject matter, which involves two feuding neighbors, both of whom have been charged at different times for harassmentlthreats to the other. During this office's review of the latest incident between the two, one of the neighbors complained of the investigating police agency handling of the incident (and.many other items). Knowing that the grand jury was looking into the agency's interactions with this particular neighbor (based upon his complaints), we referred his new complaints about that agency back to the proper body - the grand jury. We continued to review the criminal incident involving the neighbors and did file a criminal complaint in the court against one of them. For the grand jury to make such an erroneous finding that the District Attorney refused to take appropriate action is not only personally distressing, but reflects badly upon the grand jury's investigative and reporting procedures. A simple contact with me prior to the submission of the report would have avoided this embarrassing lapse by the grand jury. District Attorney cc: Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville California 95965-3385 Tel: (530) 538-741 1 Fax: (530) 538-7071 www.buttecounty,netlda Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile www.buttecountv.netldds F Buttecounty F Supdor Court I I - ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * PLANNING C L ~ l1. 7 l200~7 July 31, 2007 Honorable Steven Howell, Presiding Judge Butte County Superior Court One Court Street Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Response to the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Final Report Dear Judge Howell: Pursuant to Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.5, the Department of Development Services (DDS) hereby submits its response to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury's 2006-2007 Final Report.
• CL3 Page 222
  While FRRPD is appreciative of the Grand Jury and their job as watchdogs of the community, it seems that in this instance the Grand Jury submitted a report based on the biased comments and complaints of a few citizens, which were not even fully explored by the Grand Jury prior to the submittal of its report. In submitting its report, the Grand Jury did not rely on accurate information nor did it properly reference documents or actions of F W Dr ebutting the information found in the investigation, the findings, and the recommendations of the report. FRRPD, over the past year has made significant strides towards putting its financial and managerial houses in order. FRRPD is operating on a limited financial budget, and while in theory the recommendations of the Grand Jury would only benefit FRRPD, it is practically an impossible feat. Further, responding to a second probe by the Grand Jury has cost the District financially as funds had to be diverted to cover legal expenses and staff time associated with the generation of this response. It is the hope of FRRPD that the Grand Jury will recognize the improvements the District has made over the past year and allow it time to continue to improve before issuing another report full of impractical and inaccurate findings and recommendations. At the very least, it is FRRPD'S hope that any future Grand Jury investigation will be completed in an unbiased, impartial way that reflects all information available to the Grand Jury after a full and complete investigation occurs. Sincerely, The Board of Feather River Recreation and Park District Response approved by the Board of the Feather River Recreation and Park District on September 12,2007 by a vote of 315 majority.