And Responses

Conclusions 13

• CL1 Page 14
  C-1 The evidence room is understaffed. C-2 The area is hazardous to the health of all the employees because the ventilation system does not circulate the air out of the evidence room. C-3 The evidence room does not have water available to flush toxic materials from the employees’ face and hands.
• CL2 Page 17
  C-1 Understaffing creates a security problem. C-2 Low pay creates a high turnover rate and understaffing in personnel.
• CL3 Page 19
  C-1 These facilities are adequate and the grand jury has no recommendations. HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S HOOPA SUBSTATION: F-1: The substation has two jail cells that hold four people to a cell and one cell that is used as a drunk tank. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-1: Agree. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-1: Agree in part. The operational capacity of the jail is determined by the Sheriff. F-2: There are four deputies, one correctional officer, one sergeant, and one senior legal office assistant assigned to the substation. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-2: Agree. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-2: Administrative Services is not familiar with Sheriff staffing. 17 Report 02-02 HUMBOLDT COUNTY JAIL FACILITIES F-3: The Hoopa Sheriff’s Substation does not have any custodial service; this work is done by office personnel. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-3: Agree. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-3: This was probably true when the Grand Jury wrote it. Since the Hoopa Tribal Council and Board of Supervisors signed a building use agreement, custodial services are the responsibility of the Council. F-4: The custodial duties are performed by the senior legal office assistance; the duties are not part of her job description; SHERIFF DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-4: Agree. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-4: Administrative Services is not familiar with Sheriff staffing. F-5: The Hoopa jail cell toilets are forty-six years old; due to their deteriorated condition, they cannot be cleaned. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-5: Agree. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-5: Agree that the toilets are aged and their condition has deteriorated. They can be cleaned. F-6: The Hoopa Sheriff’s Substation is not wheelchair accessible and does not comply with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). SHERIFF DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-6: Agree. 18 Report 02-02 HUMBOLDT COUNTY JAIL FACILITIES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-6: The building was part of the County’s facility review for ADA and Title 24 compliance. Discrepancies from the ADA and Title 24 were identified. F-7: The county built the Hoopa Justice Facility where the Sheriff’s Substation is located on tribal land and is currently negotiating the terms for an acceptable lease agreement between Humboldt County and the Hoopa Tribal Council. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-7: Agree. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-7: This was probably true when the Grand Jury wrote it. F-8: The building has been recently painted on the interior and exterior. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-8: Agree. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-8: Agree in part. The Tribal Court painted the exterior of the building. Administrative Services is not familiar with any recent interior painting. F-9: The outside area is secure with a fence and locks on the gate and garage. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-9: Agree. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-9: Agree in part. The exterior area controlled by the Sheriff is secure. Access to the front of the building and the rear of the area controlled by the Tribal Court is not secure. F-10: The jail and office areas are clean. 19 Report 02-02 HUMBOLDT COUNTY JAIL FACILITIES SHERIFF DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-10: Agree. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO F-10: Agree. C-1 The job description for the Hoopa sheriff’s substation senior legal office assistant does not include custodial duties. C-2 Hoopa cell toilets may be a health hazard. C-3 A wheelchair cannot enter the Hoopa sheriff’s substation. C-4 A lease agreement is needed for the building.
• CL4 Page 25
  C-1 Humboldt County Sheriff’s Garberville substation is inadequate both in size and manpower to service this community. C-2 The floor drains in the building create a health hazard.
• CL5 Page 31
  C-1 Because the hall is currently understaffed, personnel are required to work extra shifts. PROBATION DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO C-1: Agree. See response to F-4. C-2 Because the hall does not have enough bed space, some new juvenile offenders who should be detained are released. PROBATION DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO C-2: Agree. See response to F-3. C-3 Juvenile Hall must rely on outside help to handle emergencies. PROBATION DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO C-3: Agree. Other than the assistance from the Probation Officers during normal business hours we can call upon the on-call P.O., the Regional Facility staff, and local law enforcement when needed. Requests for outside assistance are based upon the scope and severity of the emergency situation. C-4 Overcrowding can cause safety issues for the staff and inmates. PROBATION DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO C-4: Agree. Exceeding rated capacity in a secure setting creates safety issues. These issues are exacerbated in jails and juvenile halls since the occupants are not free to leave.
• CL6 Page 34
  C-1 The sheriff’s farm is a good program that provides food for the Humboldt County Jail, saves the county money, and is a well-run operation.
• CL7 Page 35
  C-1 The facility is well managed and student discipline works well. C-2 The program is effective and provides a "bridge" for teens entering the community after treatment.
• CL8 Page 43
  Conclusion #1 (C-1) Because the park brochure is incomplete, it has resulted in confusion and difficulty in finding some of the county parks. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO C-1: Agree. C-2 Lack of inventory control could result in some loss of park equipment and purchase of equipment the County does not need. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO C-2: Disagree in part. All of the equipment in the maintenance shop and the three other facilities are listed annually on an inventory. Picnic tables and park fire rings are not listed on an inventory. C-3 If the County could collect all its revenue from the use of the county parks, it could help the parks be self-supporting. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO C-3: Agree. C-4 If the County had a roaming park ranger similar to the Arcata Park Ranger Program, the presence of a park ranger at anytime has the potential for the County to enforce all their ordinances and collect all their fees. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO C-4: Agree. C-5 Lack of enforcement of collection of fees has resulted in a loss of revenue to county parks. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO C-5: Agree. C-6 The lack of enforcement of county park ordinances allows for violations of park uses. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO C-6: Agree. C-7 Due to the lack of entry control points, the County has no control of when and how someone enters county parks. 41 Report 02-06 COUNTY PARKS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO C-7: Agree. C-8 Without a master plan for parks the County shows little vision for future development of the park system. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT’S TO C-8: Disagree in part. The overall improvement plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors consists of an overall plan for each of the ten parks consisting of many improvements to the infrastructure such as water supply, restrooms with showers, landscaping, paving of dirt roads and so on. C-9 The decrease in budget for services and maintenance in county parks has resulted in a loss of quality of life for those who choose to use the parks. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO C-9: Agree. C-10 Without the approval of a fish ladder at Freshwater Park there will be no seasonal swimming pool. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO C-10: Agree. C-11 The County has been slow in obtaining the necessary permits for the completion of the Hammond Trail. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO C-11: Agree.
• CL9 Page 50
  C-1 The grand jury determined there were no improprieties in county procedures to obtain property. C-2 Due to time delays, hazards found, and a lack of a proper inspection of the house on H Street, remodeling costs escalated. C-3 Because of an inadequate inspection, final remodeling costs were three and half times original estimate. C-4 The issue over the relocation of the HMP is the resistance of local residents to have such a facility in their neighborhood. C-5 The value of the program overrides any geographical considerations or concerns. C-6 Women in the HMP are constantly monitored and case-managed, and therefore their presence would not degrade the neighborhood. C-7 Designated parking spaces for staff at the new location will result in fewer parking problems. C-8 It is important that the HMP be at a place with easy access to bus lines because this is how the majority of women get to the site. 48 Report 02-07 HEALTHY MOMS' PROGRAM (HMP) C-9 A facility like this should not be housed in a location with other county offices to protect the confidentiality of women in the program. C-10 The HMP is a successful, cost-effective program and provides an important service to the community.
• CL10 Page 57
  C-1 Parking availability has not kept up with new developments in the City of Eureka. C-2 some revenue expended on studies could have paid for upgrading parking lots to ADA standards. C-3 Inadequate planning on new projects has resulted in a shortage of parking spaces in the City of Eureka. C-4 The moving of vehicles at least 3 times a day results in loss of employer's time and money. C-5 Since the City of Eureka does not assess the business owners for on street parking, this results in free parking for business owners. C-6 Since shoppers are inconvenienced, they have to walk long distances to shop or shop at local malls.
• CL11 Page 77
  C-1 Furlough excesses were overlooked by the county counsel's office for 10 years. COUNTY COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO C-1: Disagrees wholly. The furlough taken by the employees of the County Counsel is not, and has never been considered as excessive by the County Governing Body (the Board of Supervisors), and said furlough was reviewed and approved by the County Administrative Office and the Board of Supervisors every year for the 10-year period in question. For this 10-year period there were several County Administrative Office and County Counsel administrations, all of whom have approved this historical use of furlough by the County Counsel office. In fact, the previous County Counsel who thought of and initiated voluntary furlough for the Office of the County Counsel was highly praised by County management for his creativity in difficult financial times. C-2 Excessive and continual use of furlough time results in additional benefit expense to the county. COUNTY COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO C-2: Disagrees wholly. The furlough taken by the employees of the County Counsel is not, and has never been considered as excessive by the County Governing Body (the Board of Supervisors), and said furlough was reviewed and approved by the County Administrative Office and the Board of Supervisors every year that the furlough was used by said employees. These benefits for furloughing employees have been budgeted and considered and approved by the Board of Supervisors each year. Furlough hours reduce the County General Fund cost by the salary savings resulting from said furlough. C-3 Excessive and continual use of furlough time causes delays and additional work in the operation of other county departments. COUNTY COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO C-3: Disagrees wholly. The furlough taken is not, and has never been considered as excessive by the County Governing Body (the Board of Supervisors), and said furlough was reviewed and approved by the County Administrative Office and the Board of Supervisors each year furlough was used to balance the County Counsel's budget. Every department that has chosen to communicate staffing issues directly to the County Counsel has had their concerns addressed by the County Counsel. 76 REPORT 02-09 COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE There are time delays and additional work for some county department work requests due to: inadequate information provided by the requesting department to the County Counsel's Office; some departments losing County Counsel responses; some departments not following County Counsel's advice; some departments waiting until a day before a legal deadline to request advice or waiting to request advice after a legal deadline has already passed; some departments missing the County Counsel deadline for the agenda by one week, barely providing the agenda item to the Office of the County Counsel for final review in order for that item to be timely for the County Administrative Office's deadline for the agenda, and at times barely making it to our office for review before the Brown Act deadline for the agenda; as well as other circumstances which are too numerous to list in this response. If suggested changes have not been made by a department and that work is resubmitted to the Office of the County Counsel that work is returned to the client-department which could be described by the client-department as additional work. C-4 Since some county counsel's employees use furlough time daily, the office appears to be over staffed. COUNTY COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO C-4: Disagrees wholly. Of the 6 furloughing employees, only one employee furlough hours daily, and does not furlough in large blocks of ½ to 1 day. It is at the insistence of the County Counsel that the Assistant County Counsel does not take whole days off, due to the fact that there are two office locations and the Assistant serves as the manager housed in the annex office. It should be noted that with the State of California having a 30 billion-dollar deficit which appears to be causing the State to look to California Counties to make up a great deal of this deficit, while at the same time adding new programs for which California Counties are to be responsible for, the workload of the Office of the County Counsel is going to rise more dramatically than it ever has before. If ever the employees of the County Counsel have needed tools to prevent "burnout," it is now, and this will continue to be true in the next few years to come. C-5 Since some of the county counsel's staff work reduced hours, not all work is completed in a timely manner. COUNTY COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO C-5: Disagrees wholly. If departmental employees communicate a priority or a deadline of a work request to the Office of the County Counsel, that time line is met, if that work request is in fact provided to the County Counsel's office before the deadline has occurred. If all the County Counsel employees worked full time with no furlough, layoffs would occur, and as work loads increase, the number of available employee hours would remain the same as those hours available with the furlough program in place, but without the flexibility of increasing work hours due to a spikes the work load, thereby increasing the probability of "burnout." 77 REPORT 02-09 COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE C-6 There is a financial impact when a county counsel employee works part-time and receives full benefits. COUNTY COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO C-6: Disagrees Wholly. All County Counsel employees are considered as full time employees who are voluntarily furloughing hours, and are not considered as part time employees by the county. C-7 Job-sharing creates delays and additional work for county offices that use the county counsel's services. COUNTY COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO C-7: Disagrees wholly. If there is a need, there is an overlap of staffing during which both job sharing attorneys are in the office for the transition period. All departments having issues about the job sharing that were addressed to the County Counsel directly have been responded to, and the evaluation response from those departments using the job share attorney listed no category that there was a need for improvement in. C-8 Since the work-request case log needs improvement, it is giving an incorrect number of cases in justification of the county counsel's budget because it is numbering total inquiries rather than actual cases. COUNTY COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO C-8: Disagrees wholly. As previously stated the vast majority of the work load of the County Counsel's office General Services Unit is not case driven, but instead is driven by work requests that are for review and/or opinions. If a department fails to adequately address the issues outlined after the initial review by the Office of the County Counsel, extra work is created for the County Counsel's Office and this additional work is reflected in the work request log. If a department successfully implements all suggested changes, there are no additional work requests logged. The current case log adequately reflects the unique work load of the County Counsel's office and cannot be compared with those in other county departments including other legal departments within the county. The number of work requests does not include all inquiries made to the Office of the County Counsel, but these numbers do adequately reflect how many requests are received for each larger or more complex project that is being processed by the County Counsel's Office. No matter how it is calculated, the work must be done, and whether work is tracked project by project, or case by case, the amount of time it takes to complete the work has no bearing on how the work load is tracked. Even in a case driven system, the number of cases in itself may not reflect how intense a load is, since not all cases take the same amount of time to process, and have different levels of complexity and difficulty. 78 REPORT 02-09 COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE C-9 Since the work-request case log needs improvement, it is hard to track a logged-in work request to a single case. COUNTY COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO C-9: Disagrees wholly. Other than the Child Welfare Services and Code Enforcement Units' case loads, in most circumstances in General Services Unit of the Office of the County Counsel, there is no "case" to relate a work request to. The current work request log allows employees to find out to whom a project is assigned to; where a project is in the process and whether, in fact, that project was received by the Office of the County Counsel and/or whether the project has already completed by someone in the office. For those departments which require a project-specific time record that information is specially tracked on the A-87 time logs. For general advice requests which cannot be billed to a specific party or entity, no project-specific log is needed to adequately provide services to county departments. C-10 Consolidating the 2 offices may improve morale. COUNTY COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO C-10: Agrees. C-11 The consolidation of the 2 offices with 1 supervisor may improve the management of the county counsel's office. COUNTY COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO C-11: Agrees. C-12 The budget process for the county counsel's office takes longer than other comparable county department. COUNTY COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO C-12: Disagrees wholly. Due to a misunderstanding by the Grand Jury Subcommittee, of the information provided, the Grand Jury Subcommittee concluded the yearly budget preparation took 300 hours rather than approximately 1 week of her time (approximately 30 hours). The 300-hour approximation included total time working with the budget throughout the year to ensure compliance with the budget and to accommodate the unexpected financial needs of the County Counsel in that budget year. The annual "spring" budget preparation time of approximately 30 hours is on the low end of the hours reported by other County Departments. Any comparison of the hours taken to process a spring budget must make sure that the departmental budget issues are similar, and not just line items. Many departments have more complexities in their budget that are lacking in other departmental budgets that may not be reflected by the existence of similar line items. C-13 Time sheets accepted without checks and balances increase the possibility of errors. 79 REPORT 02-09 COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE COUNTY COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO C-13: Agrees. C-14 The payroll time sheets inability to record accumulated furlough time has led to excessive use. COUNTY COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO C-14: Disagrees wholly. The furlough time taken by the employees of the County Counsel is not, and has never been excessive in the opinion of the County Governing Body (the Board of Supervisors) and has been reviewed and approved by the County Administrative Office and the Board of Supervisors every year that furlough was used by County Counsel employees.
• CL12 Page 84
  C-1 Responses to emergency referrals are not handled in a timely manner. C-2 Lines of communication between CWS and HTCDHS are inadequate. C-3 Pertinent information on current cases is not being shared with mandated reporters and HTCDHS.
• CL13 Page 86
  C-1 The Community Schools program is a tightly controlled school system that provides students with an opportunity to complete their education in a healthy environment.

Commendations 1

• CM1 Page 51
  The Humboldt County Grand Jury commends the staff of the Healthy Moms' Program for the vital service they are providing to the community and in addition commends the Board of Supervisors for their continuing support of the program. 49 REPORT 02-08 CITY OF EUREKA PUBLIC PARKING INTRODUCTION The 2001-2002 Humboldt County Grand Jury reviewed previous grand jury reports concerning public parking in the City of Eureka. In the 1997-1998 Humboldt County Grand Jury Report the grand jury concluded that the handicap parking around the county courthouse was inadequate. Since the 1997-1998 Humboldt County Grand Jury Report, handicap parking has remained the same. The 1997-1998 Humboldt County Grand Jury Report concluded that many expensive studies of parking had been done. The report also stated that the City of Eureka Parking Place Commission has 7 members appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. They are representatives of local businesses in the Downtown, Old Town, and Henderson Center areas, and parking issues are brought before them by the public. They study these issues and then present their findings to the city council. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted in 1992. The City of Eureka responded in the 2000-2001 Humboldt County Grand Jury Report that they were in compliance with current ADA regulations. The City of Eureka is going to conduct an ADA accessibility study again, surveying the cities programs and services which they did about 10 years ago. They never finished removing the barriers that they had identified on that accessibility survey. It should be noted that the City of Eureka public works staff stated the density of parking gives the appearance that the city is doing well.

No Responses Found 4

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