📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 10 findings
F1
Page 9
The current procedure is the Grand Jury issues its report, findings and recommendations on or about June 30'. The BOS or the agency involved then has 90 days in which to file a written response. That response is during a new Grand Jury term, when most of the members are not familiar with the findings and recommendations of the prior Grand Jury.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 9
The BOS, on the last two Grand Jury reports for Plumas County, has failed to acknowledge and address all of the findings and recommendations with regard to fire protection issues. On the 2002/2003 report the BOS did file a supplemental response after they were reminded they had not responded to the initial report.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 9
The BOS, on numerous occasions during the past five years, has responded that it agreed with the Grand Jury's findings and/or recommendations and set an action date for implementation, which on many occasions, they failed to keep. (See examples in Appendix A)
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 9
The 1999/2000 Grand Jury made findings and recommendations for annual evaluations of Department Heads. The BOS responded there was an existing performance review procedure. The 2003/2004 Grand Jury found, although the procedure does exist, not all Department Heads are evaluated annually. (See Finding #3, Department of Human Resources section.)
F4
Page 9
The 1999/2000 Grand Jury made findings and recommendations for annual evaluations of Department Heads. The BOS responded there was an existing performance review procedure. The 2003/2004 Grand Jury found, although the procedure does exist, not all Department Heads are evaluated annually. (See Finding #3, Department of Human Resources section.)
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 9
California Government Code Section 87300 requires every County to adopt and promulgate a conflict of interest code.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Page 10
California's Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Section 87 1 00 et seq.) prohibits public officials from making, participate in making, or in any way seeking to influence government decisions in which they have a financial interest.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 10
In conducting interviews of the five members of the BOS, each member had a slightly different view of what constituted a "conflict of interest" while serving on the Board.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Page 10
The former county counsel verbally advised some board members that in order for a conflict to exist it must be shown that the Supervisor in question must receive "financial gain."
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Page 10
Currently each Board member annually completes a Statement of Economic Interests (California Fair Political Practices Commission form 700), a public document disclosing personal financial interests.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Page 10
The BOS rejected the Grand Jury's recommendation last year to re-establish the Plumas County Planning Commission.
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 9
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R1Page 9The BOS authorize the County Administrative Officer (CAO) to place Grand Jury Recommendation items on the BOS agenda to follow up on recommendations in which the BOS has already agreed to take action.
-
R2Page 9The BOS, on the last two Grand Jury reports for Plumas County, has failed to acknowledge and address all of the findings and recommendations with regard to fire protection issues. On the 2002/2003 report the BOS did file a supplemental response after they were reminded they had not responded to the initial report.
-
R3Page 9The BOS, on numerous occasions during the past five years, has responded that it agreed with the Grand Jury's findings and/or recommendations and set an action date for implementation, which on many occasions, they failed to keep. (See examples in
-
R5Page 9California Government Code Section 87300 requires every County to adopt and promulgate a conflict of interest code.
-
R6Page 9California's Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Section 87 1 00 et seq.) prohibits public officials from making, participate in making, or in any way seeking to influence government decisions in which they have a financial interest.
-
R7Page 9In conducting interviews of the five members of the BOS, each member had a slightly different view of what constituted a "conflict of interest" while serving on the Board.
-
R8Page 9The former county counsel verbally advised some board members that in order for a conflict to exist it must be shown that the Supervisor in question must receive "financial gain."
-
R9Page 9Currently each Board member annually completes a Statement of Economic Interests (California Fair Political Practices Commission form 700), a public document disclosing personal financial interests.
-
R10Page 9The BOS rejected the Grand Jury's recommendation last year to re-establish the Plumas County Planning Commission.