📋

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.

Plumas County Grand Jury • 2007-2008

Inal Eport Lake Almanor/Chester Greenville/Indian Valley Sierra Valley Portola Quincy Graeagle/Blairsden Plumas County

Published: July 02, 2008 40 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ 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 8 findings

F1 Page 16

– The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) The Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) dated April 10, 2001 is poorly drawn and is a primary cause of the disagreements and tensions that currently exist between the Plumas-Sierra Fair Board and the Plumas County Board of Supervisors. There are concerns with the following:  There is no clear chain of command with regard to the operation of the facilities or the supervision of the Fair Manager.  Confusion exists with regard to who is responsible for personnel issues at the fairgrounds. This is particularly evident in association with personnel policies involving the Fair Manager. This confusion also affects the fair users, who stated in interviews that they did not know who was in charge of the decision making processes associated with the management of facilities.  The authority to negotiate and execute contracts is not clearly defined.  There is confusion as to the relationship between the two boards. At times the Fair Board has operated as a managerial body and at other times they have functioned as an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors.  The Board of Supervisors, by virtue of Section 7 of the current Memorandum of Understanding, “assumes no responsibility in connection with the fair” while at the same time they claim control over most, if not all aspects of the operation of the fairgrounds.  The Policy and Procedures Manual being used by the Fair has never been approved and accepted by the Board of Supervisors.

F2 Page 17

– Communication Consistent and reliable communication among the Fair Board, the Fair Manager and the Board of Supervisors is lacking.  Consistent and reliable communications are the cornerstone of good management practice. Ill feelings among some members of The Board of Supervisors, The Fair Board, and the Fair Manager exist. A culture of mistrust has developed that tends to exacerbate an existing communications gap between them. This has had an adverse effect on the operation of the fairgrounds.  The Fair Manager has not communicated effectively with the Fair Board and the Board of Supervisors. All significant information should be equally shared among all parties. Several members of the Fair Board complained of learning about significant Fair issues in the local newspaper, not from the Board of Supervisors or the Fair Manager. This problem is directly related to the poorly defined chain of command as outlined in Finding No. 1.

F3 Page 18

– Facilities Planning and Maintenance There is no evidence of a Facilities and Maintenance Master Planning Document associated with the future development of facilities at the fairgrounds.  The only document presented to the Grand Jury was an aerial photograph that had been provided by the Plumas County Museum in conjunction with a proposed historical project to be housed at the fairgrounds.  There are signs of disrepair associated with many of the facilities observed during a tour of the fairgrounds by members of the Grand Jury. Buildings need repair and repainting (with the exception of the Tulsa Scott building and the Mineral Building). One member of the jury leaned against a metal railing at the racetrack grandstands and the railing gave way due to deterioration of the concrete holding the support post.  The Plumas County Fairgrounds’ yearly operational budget is not sufficient for the maintenance operation to proceed at more than a minimal level.  An active fundraising mechanism is listed as a goal in the existing Policy Manual. This would be accomplished through grants and charitable donations. There is no evidence that an active effort exists in this area.

F4 Page 18

– Equipment and Supplies No consistent system for tracking of equipment and supplies purchased by the fairgrounds exists. 18  Having no consistent system for the inventory and tracking of equipment and supplies, creates an atmosphere with the potential for misuse of public funds.  Previous fair managers established a verbal policy that stated, items purchased, having a value of less than $100 dollars were classified as consumables.

F5 Page 19

– Management Practices The yearly audit of the County’s finance and management practices, conducted by the Accounting Firm of Smith and Newell revealed numerous deficiencies associated with the Fairgrounds accounting practices. Some of these items have been recurrent issues that were not dealt with by previous managers. The five (5) general areas identified were; Statement of Operations, Accounting for Capital Assets, Admission Revenue, Bank Reconciliation, and Cash On Hand.  The Statement of Operations is a report required by the State of California Department of Agriculture, supplying information about the state of the County Fair. It is necessary to file this report on time in order to receive State funds.  The fairgrounds accounting technician is in the process of developing a financial tracking system to bring the fairgrounds into compliance with requirements of the Audit Report. No such system was in place prior to the hiring of the new management staff.

F6 Page 44

The Director of Emergency Services has not sought reimbursement from the state and federal governments for Hazardous Spills, Fire Fighting efforts by the Special District responders, or for the Claremont Dynamite incident in Quincy.

F7 Page 44

The Director of Emergency Services has left the grant seeking process to individual departments.

F8 Page 44

The new communication system at the Sheriff’s Office is truly state of the art. The system is hooked up to all agencies in California so that help can be requested 44 quickly. The Communication Center is fully staffed with eight operators. They have two people on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Currently they are working on: • The reverse 911 system • Voting receivers that will select the strongest receiver signal automatically • Wireless broadband communications

Recommendations 9

R1
Page 36

- Plumas LAFCo Cost Structure It is recommended that the Commission, independent of the Executive Officer, review alternative approaches to the operation of Plumas LAFCo to reduce the operating costs to a level that can be funded without significant reliance on application and other fees. Government Code Section 56380 states that, “the commission may choose to contract with any public agency or private party for personnel and facilities.” Since the problem of properly funding LAFCo is not limited to Plumas County, it is suggested that the Commission take the initiative to contact other rural counties to determine the feasibility of jointly contracting with a provider to operate several county LAFCos in a geographically manageable area.
R2
Page 37

- Plumas LAFCo - Relationships with Constituent Agencies The Commissioners should immediately establish a schedule to meet with officials of the City of Portola and with board members of a representative cross-section of the special services districts in Plumas County, without the presence of the Executive Officer, to listen to candid feedback regarding their relationship with Plumas LAFCo and the Executive Officer. Based upon this feedback, the Commissioners should determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the relationship between Plumas LAFCo and its constituents can be satisfactorily mended under the present Executive Officer. If so, a specific plan of action to resolve the matter should be undertaken and should become a key part of the Executive Officer’s performance evaluation going forward. If not, the Commission should take appropriate action to resolve the issue.
R3
Page 37

-Plumas LAFCo Financial Audit It is recommended that the Commissioners publish a Request for Proposal to be sent to Certified Public Accounting firms in Northern California to initiate steps to obtain an independent financial audit.
R4
Page 38

Special Districts and Plumas LAFCo While it is recognized that the board members of the special districts are primarily volunteers and have numerous commitments for their time, it is imperative that the various districts, perhaps through the Plumas Special Districts Association, make the effort to better understand the purposes, powers, limitations and mission of Plumas LAFCo as they affect the ability of the districts to effectively and efficiently deliver services to their constituents. The Plumas County Special Districts Association and the Boards of the individual Special Districts in Plumas County need to become much more pro-active with Plumas LAFCo, whether, or not, they decide to join and appoint 2 Commissioners.
R5
Page 19

– Management Practices 1. Finish the development of a reliable fiscal tracking program. 2. Ensure that all issues identified with the audit management report be corrected. 3. The Board of Supervisors should ensure the timely filing of the Statement of Operations with the State Department of Agriculture. 19
R6
Page 44

The Director of Emergency Services should seek reimbursement through the State and Federal Governments and follow the procedures set forth in the document that was adopted by the Plumas County Board of Supervisors on September 13, 2005 by Resolution No. 05-7200.
R7
Page 44

The Director should also be responsible for the coordination of grant writing activities for the different departments to insure that all needs are being addressed.
R95-96
Page 51

X Guardian Treasurer/Tax Collector 98-99 Veteran's Services 95-96 X Key F/U Follow up Inc. Incomplete 51
R98-99

X X X X X X X X Juvenile Hall

Conclusions 15

CL1

Four separate user groups of fairgrounds facilities. Members of the Grand Jury attended multiple sessions of the Board Of Supervisors and the Fair Board meetings. Research was conducted concerning the legislation that governs the operation of county fairs in California and the recent financial history of the Plumas-Sierra County Fair as reported in the Plumas County Budget Book. The findings contained in this report are a direct result of the correlation of evidence obtained through the interviews, research and first-hand observations by members of the Grand Jury. 12
CL2

The Chairperson of the Plumas County Board of Supervisors (BOS).
CL3

A member of the Plumas County Board of Supervisors.
CL4

The Chairman of the Plumas/Sierra County Fair Board.
CL5

A past member of the Plumas/Sierra County Fair Board.
CL6

The Fair Manager/CEO.
CL7

The fairgrounds Maintenance Supervisor.
CL8

The Plumas County Chief Administrative Officer.
CL9

Plumas County Counsel.
CL10

Chapter V – The elimination of all community residents’ names and comments opposing the establishment of a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility “was a form of viewpoint discrimination...”
CL11

Chapter VII – The BOS deprived “the public of information which the members knew or had reason to know the public was entitled to receive.” Response With regard to the complaint filed against the BOS, The Plumas County Grand Jury finds no violation of the provisions of Chapter V of the Ralph M. Brown Act as indicated in the complaint. Based on what was presented to the Grand Jury there is nothing to substantiate the necessity for recommending pursuit of criminal penalties as outlined in Chapter VII of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Complaint No. 07/08-5 Nature of Complaint The complainant alleged improper conduct and the unlawful seizure of property by Plumas County Animal Control Officers. Response The Grand Jury investigation revealed that under California Penal Code Section 597.1 (a)(b) the officers acted within the scope of their duties as defined by law. Complaint No. 07/08-6 Nature of Complaint The complainant alleged that the Eastern Plumas Health Care Board of Directors illegally ceded its power to one person, namely the CEO. The complainant also alleged irregularities with regard to the CEO’s disability claims. The complainant 47 also alleged that past Grand Juries were denied access to the CEO’s personnel files. Response The Grand Jury interviewed the complainant and consulted the District Attorney. The District Attorney had also received the complaint and had forwarded the allegations within this complaint to the Office of the State Attorney General for an opinion. No response has been received as of the writing of this report. Complaint No. 07/08-7 Nature of Complaint The complainant alleged negligence on the part of Union Pacific Railroad with regard to a derailment in the Feather River Canyon that affected the complainant’s property and business. Response The Grand Jury has no jurisdiction over private companies. Complaint No. 07/08-8 Nature of Complaint The complainant alleged that the Quincy Fire District has failed to keep the public informed regarding the use of funds generated by “measure A” on the July, 2006 ballot. Response The complaint was received too late for this year’s Grand Jury to accomplish a proper investigation. The complainant should re-file the complaint with the 2008- 2009 Grand Jury. Complaint No. 07/08-9 Nature of Complaint The complainant alleged a violation of his constitutional rights by Officials of Plumas County. Response This complaint does not fall under the jurisdiction of this Grand Jury. 48 Complaint No. 07/08-10 Nature of Complaint The complainant alleged confusion involved with the relocation of a county sponsored program. Response This complaint was received too late in the year for this Grand Jury to conduct a proper investigation. The complainant should re-file the complaint with the 2008- 2009 Grand Jury. 49 PLUMAS COUNTY GRAND JURY HISTORY OF INVESTIGATIONS Department, Agency, Earlier 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- Program Years 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Administrator/CAO 95-96 X Agriculture Commissioner Airport Operations Alcohol and Drug 95-96 Inc. Animal Services 95-96 X X X F/U X 95- Assessor 96,98-99 Auditor/Controller X Board Of Supervisors X X X X Building and Planning Services X X Clerk/Recorder Inc. Community Services Districts X County Counsel District Attorney 98-99 X Facility Services 99-00 X X Fair X X Farm Advisor Feather River College Inc. X Fire Departments X X X F/U Health Dept./Env. Health Hospital Districts X Housing and Comm. Development Human Resources 99-00 X Information Technology 99-00 Jail 98-99 X X X X X X X X Juvenile Hall X X Library 98-99 Local Agency Formation Comm. (LAFCo) X 95- Mental Health 96,99-00 Museum 98-99 Nutrition Program 95-96 Office of Emergency Services (OES) X Plumas Corporation X 50 Department, Agency, Earlier 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- Program Years 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Flood Control and Water X X Conservation Public Health Agency X Plumas Unified School X X X District Cemetery Districts Probation 98-99 X X Public Works 98-99 X Recreation Districts 95-96 Sheriff/Coroner 98-99 X X X Social Services/Public 95-96 X Guardian Treasurer/Tax Collector 98-99 Veteran's Services 95-96 X Key F/U Follow up Inc. Incomplete 51
CL12

The Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) dated April 10, 2001 is poorly drawn and is a primary cause of the disagreements and tensions that currently exist between the Plumas-Sierra Fair Board and the Plumas County Board of Supervisors. Consistent and reliable communication among the Fair Board, the Fair Manager and the Board of Supervisors is lacking. There is no evidence of a Facilities and Maintenance Master Planning Document associated with the future development of facilities at the fairgrounds. No consistent system for tracking of equipment and supplies purchased by the fairgrounds exists. The yearly audit of the County’s finance and management practices, conducted by the Accounting Firm of Smith and Newell revealed numerous deficiencies associated with the Fairgrounds accounting practices. The responsibility for correcting these issues lies with the Plumas County Board of Supervisors, the Plumas-Sierra County Fair Board of Directors and the Fair Manager. 20 PLUMAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE Reason For Investigation The Plumas County Sheriff’s Office provides for public safety and emergency services to the citizens of Plumas County. The Sheriff’s Office is experiencing difficulty in recruiting and retaining trained peace officers. The reason for this investigation is to provide insights and assistance to the Sheriff’s Office regarding this issue. Procedure The majority of Sheriff’s Deputies were interviewed as well as selected supervisory staff. The findings contained in this report reflect the opinions of those interviewed who expressed the reasons that they believe the County of Plumas has been unable to effectively recruit and attract new peace officers, as well as the loss of officers to other agencies.
CL13

The majority of the Deputies in Plumas County believe that there is a lack of support from both the upper management of the Sheriff’s Office and the Board of Supervisors. There is a shortage of staff, no emergency vehicle replacement program, poor radio communications system and little interaction with the community. This has created a negative work environment that severely detracts from the ability of the Sheriff’s Office to serve the public and jeopardizes the safety of officers in the field. The potential for serious injury or loss of an officer due to lack of support places a tremendous liability both on the County of Plumas and its elected officials. It is the responsibility of the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors to work together to resolve these issues. 26 PLUMAS COUNTY JAIL Reason For Investigation The Plumas County Grand Jury is required to annually inspect any jail within the county in accordance with the California Penal Code. Procedure The Plumas County Grand Jury conducted an inspection of the Plumas County Jail. This included interviews with jail medical staff, Correctional Officers and supervisors.
CL14

The jail facility of Plumas County is old, outmoded and unsafe for both inmates and jail staff. The Board of Supervisors should immediately start the process of developing plans and funding sources for a new jail. The staffing of the jail has been determined by the State of California to be inadequate to operate the facility. This places tremendous liability on Plumas County, the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors if an incident occurs that causes the injury or death of an inmate or Correctional Officer because of inadequate staffing. 30 PLUMAS LOCAL AREA FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) Reason for Investigation Plumas LAFCo has not been investigated previously by the Grand Jury since becoming an independent commission in 2001. Also, since the governing legislation does not require LAFCOs to file annual financial statements, or to obtain outside audits, an independent review of Plumas LAFCo records was considered appropriate. In addition, the Grand Jury was aware of some resistance to the fees being charged to special service districts and the City of Portola by Plumas LAFCo. Given these facts, the 2007-2008 Plumas County Grand Jury voted to undertake this investigation. Procedure In conducting this investigation of Plumas LAFCo the Grand Jury employed the three key investigatory methods of observation, research, and interviews. A diligent effort was made to cross check information obtained from various sources. Grand Jury members observed Commission meetings and Special District meetings. The Grand Jury obtained and reviewed bookkeeping records maintained by the County Auditor/Controller’s Office. Budget records, Commission memoranda, the Plumas LAFCo Policy & Procedures Manual, and several municipal service reviews were requested and received from the Executive Officer. The Grand Jury also obtained numerous documents from various public Internet sources including the California Government Code, other county LAFCo websites and the California LAFCo Association web-site. Interviews were scheduled and completed with the following individuals:  Plumas LAFCo Executive Officer  Plumas LAFCo Commissioner representing the City of Portola  Several officers/directors of Plumas County special districts  President of the Plumas County Special Districts Association  City Manager of the City of Portola  Plumas County Auditor/Controller 31
CL15

The current operational costs of Plumas LAFCo substantially exceed the funding provided by Plumas County and the City of Portola. Grand Jury interviews and observations indicate that the current Executive Officer, in over six years on the job, has failed to establish a positive liaison and rapport with officials of the City of Portola and many of the special districts within Plumas County. LAFCO legislation contains no requirement for annual financial statements of actual operating results to be submitted to State or County authorities. Each year, the Executive Officer of Plumas LAFCo, as required by the CKH legislation, has provided, to each special district board in the county, a copy of the proposed preliminary and final proposed budget for Plumas LAFCo for the coming fiscal year. This provides an opportunity for the special districts to make their concerns and comments known. The Commissioners and Executive Officer of Plumas LAFCo, The Plumas County Board of Supervisors, the Plumas Special Districts Association, the boards of the Plumas County special services districts and the officials of the City of Portola have an obligation to the citizens of Plumas County to work together to find the most cost effective way to enable Plumas County LAFCo to deliver the services mandated by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. 38 THE PLUMAS COUNTY OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (OES) Reason for Investigation Since the events that occurred on September 11, 2001, the Federal Government and the State of California have enacted new laws and procedures to protect the public safety and property, to provide an organizational structure to guide emergency responders, and to provide for reimbursement to local responding agencies. The 2007-2008 Plumas County Grand Jury decided to inquire into Plumas OES as a result of these changes and in light of recent events in Plumas County that have been featured in the local news papers. We were aware of concerns with the processes and procedures being employed by the Plumas County OES. In addition, the Plumas County Grand Jury has not previously examined the Office of Emergency Services. Procedure We used three important investigatory methods to obtain our results; observations, research, and interviews. Observations were conducted at Quincy Fire Department/HAZMAT, Peninsula Fire Department, Plumas County Sheriffs Department Communications Center, and the railroad spill site at Storrie. Documents reviewed included Plumas County Emergency Operations Plan; Plumas County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan; Plumas County Hazardous Materials Response Plan; and California OES website. The Grand Jury interviewed: 1 Director of the Office of Emergency Services, 2 Assistant Director of the Office of Emergency Services, 3 Chief of the Quincy Fire Department 4 Director of Plumas County HAZMAT, 5 The Director of Environmental Health 6 Communications Specialists with the Sheriff’s Department 7 Plumas County Risk Management Director 8 County Auditor 9 Local Citizens 39