Who’s In Charge Here?

Recommendations 3

• R1
  The Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County Superior Court should develop and adopt a formal agreement which 2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury ! • defines the roles and responsibilities of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County Superior Court with respect to the supervision of the Chief Probation Officer, • establishes an effective communication process between the Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County Superior Court, related to the supervision of the Chief Probation Officer, • provides measurement of the job performance of the Chief Probation Officer against established job goals and objectives in annual performance reviews.
• R2
  The Nevada County Probation Department should implement a comprehensive policy and procedures manual consistent with existing state and local laws and regulations. Responses Nevada County Board of Supervisors: Findings 1 through 8 and Recommendation 1 – Due Date: September 17, 2012 Nevada County Superior Court: Findings 1 through 7 and Recommendation 1 Nevada County Chief Probation Officer: Finding 9 and Recommendation 2– Due Date: August 17, 2012 2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury ! NEVADA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE OF THE JURY COMMISSIONER 201 CHURCH STREET, SUITE 6 NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 ThoJllas M. Anderson /\udrcy 1\11. Golden Presiding Judge ofthe /)eplilv Jllrv ('ommissioner Grand .lUi)' (530) 265-1475 August 14, 2012 Keith Overbey Majdu A venue Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Keith: This is the response to Nevada County Grand Jury Report, Chief probation Officer Reporting Structure Who's in Charge. I have asked the Deputy Jury Commissioner to forward this response on to you. Thanks to you and the other members of the Grand Jury. ~) Presiding Judge of the Civil Grand Jury Response to: Nevada County Grand .Jury Report Chief Probation Officer" Reporting Structure Who's in Charge Here RESPONSE OF TIlE NEVADA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ("The Court") F. Ll As of March 28, 2012, Nevada County and the Court had no formal agreement regarding their respective roles and responsibilities concerning the evaluation and supervision of the CPO. (F.A.# 20) The Court agrees. No "formal" agreement is in place; however, see response to F.l.2 and Attachment A in fUI"ther response. f.I.2 As of March 28, 2012, there had been no communication between Nevada County and the Court to define their roles and responsibilities with respect to the supervision of the CPO. (F.A.# 10 - 20) The Court partiaJiy agrees. Prior to County CEO Haffey raising the issue in mid­ 2011, the County and Courts for many, many years operated under an informal agreement which required little discussion. Pursuant to this informal understanding, the Courts supervised the professional role of the CPO as it related to the CPO's duties to the Courts, and the County super-vised the administrative functions of the Probation Office. Some discussion that would ty pically occur tool.: place in connection with tbe hiring of a replacement CPO, as was the case with the hil"ing of CPO .John War'dell and CJ>O Doug Ca."ver. The nature of the discussion was a collaborative worl.:ing of two independent branches of government. In mid­ 2011, in response to then pending administrative issues concerning the CPO, Mr. Haffey suggested a fundamental structural change wher'ein either the County or the Courts would assume full responsibility for the hiring, tiring, evaluation and performance of the CPO. Since March 28, 2012, the Courts and County have engaged in additional conversation concerning the issue of roles and responsibilities. As a separate, additional response, Finding F.1.2
• R24
  The Court neither agrees nor dis~.grees. The Court was not involved in the prior settlement. Recommendations R.1. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County Superior Court should develop and adopt a formal agreement which • defines the roles and responsibilities of the Nevada County 130ard of Supervisors and the Nevada County Superior Court with respect to the supervision of the Chief Probation Otlicer, • establishes an effective communication process between the Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County Superior Cmlrt, related to the supervision of the Chief Probation Officer, • provides measurement of the job performance of the Chief Probation Officer against established job goals and objectives in armual performance reviews. (F.l.H I - 8) The Court agrees. Negotiation of an MOU is in process. R.2. The Nevada County Probation Department should implement a comprehensive policy anel procedures manual consistent with existing state and local laws and regulations. (F.l.# 9) The Court agrees.