📋

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.

Shasta County Grand Jury • 2020-2021

The 2020-2021 Shasta County Grand Jury commends the Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility staff for: • Assisting youth to

Published: November 30, 2021 94 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.

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F14

Findings 14 findings

F1 Page 28

The DA's office caseload is large and the lack of Shasta County The District Attorney concurs with this finding. more financial resources is resulting in a loss of experi- District Attorney enced attorneys and increased difficulty in hiring qualified replacements.

F2 Page 28

AB109 and Props 47, 57, and SB1437 have caused Shasta County The District Attorney concurs with this finding. major workload increases in the DA's office resulting in District Attorney burn-out and difficulty in hiring new attorneys.

F3 Page 28

Rural Shasta County is not competitive with wages Shasta County The District Attorney concurs with this finding. in the private sector or some other counties, leading to District Attorney difficulty in hiring new attorneys.

F4 Page 28

In the past, the DA's office relied on state and federal Shasta County The District Attorney concurs with this finding. grants to fund some of their needs but many grants have District Attorney been discontinued or have restrictions that hinder the functioning of the DA.'s office.

F5 Page 28

People committing misdemeanors and nonviolent Shasta County The District Attorney concurs with this finding. crimes are now booked and released within hours be- District Attorney cause of the lack of jail space. This impedes the DA's ability to prosecute because many offenders do not show up for their court hearing/arraignment and may continue to commit additional crimes.

F6 Page 28

Plea Bargaining is used in approximately 90% of the Shasta County The District Attorney concurs with this finding. cases which saves time, court costs and court space. District Attorney

F7 Page 28

Some prosecutors respond 24/7 to evaluate major Shasta County The District Attorney concurs with this finding. crimes, which can cause burn-out. District Attorney

F8 Page 28

The DA's office has done an outstanding job of keep- Shasta County The District Attorney appreciates this observation by ing morale high in spite of limited resources. District Attorney the grand jury. The high level of morale in the office is a testament to the office’s excellent staff, who daily work hard to ensure justice is done.

F9 Page 33

Inmates have the opportunity, while incarcerated, to Shasta County The Sheriff’s Office agrees with this finding as in- further their education. Sheriff mates have access to education programming to earn their high school diploma and work toward earning an associate degree via the Step-up Pro- gram.

F10 Page 33

The jail is understaffed leading to excessive over- Shasta County The Shasta County Sheriff’s Office disagrees par- time and low morale. Sheriff tially with the finding. While it is widely agreed that the jail is understaffed and employees have worked excessive overtime, the jail administration has worked with employee groups to implement changes with the overall goal to enhance workplace satisfaction. Those changes have been received well and include a stronger jail training program. Morale has noticeably improved in the recent months and our personnel shortages have been waning.

F11 Page 33

The Correctional Officers are underpaid based on Shasta County The Shasta County Sheriff’s Office disagrees par- state employment data. The lack of sufficient pay leads Sheriff tially with the finding in that the Grand Jury does not to issues with recruitment and retention of correctional cite their source information for the state employ- officers and exacerbates overtime. ment data and how Shasta County compares. In addition, it is unclear whether factors such as size of the County, cost of living, or other factors affecting the level of compensation were considered. “…are underpaid based on state employment data…” the report does not provide comparative data supporting this statement. While compensation is one factor in recruitment and retention, there are many other fac- 32 tors. The Board of Supervisors did recently negoti- ate compensatory raise package, which is competi- tive with surrounding counties. This included a $3.00 an hour stipend to most of the personnel as- signed to the jail. We believe the increase in com- pensation will assist in improving morale, retention of personnel, and recruiting new employees.

F12 Page 34

The Correctional Officers training and continuing Shasta County The Sheriff’s Office agrees with this finding and will education are above the STC requirements. Sheriff continue working to ensure personnel assigned to the correctional facility receive adequate training that complies with STC Guidelines.

F13 Page 34

Excessive use of force by Correctional Officers is Shasta County The Sheriff’s Office agrees with this finding and does not used as a form of punishment against inmates. If un- Sheriff not condone the use-of-force as a form of punitive authorized excessive force is used, jail staff are disci- action. Use-of-force by correctional officers are re- plined and held accountable. viewed and evaluated to determine whether the use was consistent with Jail’s policies and procedures.

F15 Page 38

Although the deadline was September 30, 2019 for Shasta County The Board of Supervisors disagrees partially with CGL to issue a final report on Jail Operations to the BOS, Board of Supervi- this finding in that it is premised on the statement this Grand Jury has found no evidence of a final report sors that there was a deadline to issue a final report on being submitted to the BOS. “Jail Operations to the BOS [Board of Supervisors]” by September 30, 2019. The agreement did not re- quire CGL Companies, LLC (CGL) to provide a final report to the Board of Supervisors by September 30, 2019. Rather, the agreement provided that CGL was to provide the final report to the “County.” In accordance with the agreement, the final report was provided to the County via County Administrative Of- fice Staff on August 16, 2019. Prior to that report being received by the County, CGL made a presen- tation to the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on August 13, 2019. The County was advised by CGL that the only change to the report delivered to the county on August 16, 2019, was to remove the word “draft” from the report. In addition, Supervisor Moty, as the Board of Supervisors’ designated liaison to 37 CGL during the preparation of CGL’s report, re- ceived a copy of the final version of the report on August 19, 2019.

Recommendations 15

R1
Page 28

No recommendation is given for F1. It has long been recognized that additional re- sources were needed to address the challenges faced by the DA’s office. Measure A was placed on to the March 2020 ballot in the hopes that voters would approve additional funding for public safety agencies. Measure A did not pass, and the lack of funding remains. Continued changes in the law along with new challenges created by the COVID-19 27 pandemic will likely worsen the financial situation. Several clerical support staff positions were added in the FY 2020/2021 budget. While these new posi- tions will help, further attorney and investigator po- sitions are needed to most efficiently address the challenges we face.
R2
Page 29

By November 1, 2020, the DA's office will develop a Shasta County The District Attorney recognizes that the prosecu- program to recognize the prosecutors, acknowledging District Attorney tors in this office are extremely hard working and that they are appreciated. dedicated to their important work in serving the citi- zens of Shasta County. The DA seeks to notice and recognize (both publicly and privately) the excellent work of the DA team. Additionally, the DA’s office has already taken steps toward implementing a for- mal system of recognition for those employees most worthy of recognition.
R3
Page 29

By November 1, 2020, the DA's office will develop a Shasta County Over the last several hiring cycles, the District Attor- recruitment program that emphasizes the quality of life in District Attorney ney has attempted to broaden recruitment efforts by Shasta County. drafting a new recruitment flier and exploring placing the job posting in new forums. We will continue to look to creatively recruit and retain the best talent possible. During the hiring process, the majority of candidates tell us that they will be taking a pay cut if they decide to work in our office. Also, several at- torneys who have left our office have indicated that they are able to make more money in civil firms while working fewer hours. Finally, during our recent or- ganizational health survey it was raised by current deputy district attorneys the issue that they feel un- derpaid especially given the long hours they work to manage their large caseloads. The District Attorney believes that an increase to salary for deputy district attorneys would go far toward increasing both the quality and quantity of job applicants. A pay in- crease would also help to retain the quality prosecu- tors already working in the office.
R4
Page 29

The DA's office will continue to be on the look-out Shasta County Grants can be a useful tool to supplement existing and apply for any new grants that might help with the District Attorney programs or implement new ones. The DA’s office budget shortfall. will continue to research and apply for those grants that would best assist us in achieving our mission. We will also seek training opportunities for staff in the areas of grant research and application.
R5
Page 29

By November 1, 2020, the DA's office will negotiate Shasta County The Chronic Offender Accountability Program has to increase the allocation of beds in the Chronic Offender District Attorney been a useful tool to hold accountable those criminal Program (COP) from 9 beds to at least 15 beds. The defendants most responsible for draining law en- increase in the number of beds for COP will emphasize forcement resources. We will continue to work with accountability to repeat offenders. our law enforcement partners in the program to iden- tify more chronic offenders and dedicate additional resources towards holding them accountable. Re- taining offenders in custody will likely be an increas- ingly difficult goal as the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in sentenced state prison 28 inmates remaining in local custody as state prisons are not receiving new inmates.
R6
Page 30

The DA's office will continue to bargain for rehabili- Shasta County In each case we prosecute, the goal of the DA’s of- tation programs and/or community service as a viable District Attorney fice is to achieve a just result. Often, this just result sentencing option. can be achieved in ways other than simply incarcer- ation. We will continue to evaluate every case and defendant on an individual basis, making efforts of rehabilitative programs as appropriate.
R7
Page 30

By November 1, 2020, the DA's office will encourage Shasta County The physical and mental well-being of all staff mem- first responders who are involved in major violent cases District Attorney bers is of the utmost importance to the District Attor- to make at least one visit to a trauma therapist. ney. We will look to implement this recommenda- tion, as well as any other options that would promote the health of our dedicated prosecutors. We are working on creating a peer support program to help prosecutors deal with the trauma and stress inherent in their jobs. Additionally, we have taken active steps to promote a positive working environment through a team oriented atmosphere and frequent opportunities for staff social events. Shasta County District Attorney – “Fighting the Good Fight” THE 2019-2020 SHASTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REQUIRED RESPONSES FOUND AND/OR RECOMMENDED: RESPONDENT
R8
Page 40

All future studies/reports commissioned by the BOS, Shasta County The recommendation will not be implemented be- utilizing taxpayer funds, shall be made more easily avail- Board of Supervi- cause it is not warranted. Studies and reports com- able to the public on the BOS website within five days of sors missioned by the Board of Supervisors are already the receipt by the board. This can be accomplished by made available to the public in the online agenda setting up a Reports link that contains just commissioned packet on the Board of Supervisors Meetings and reports without a user having to traverse a multi-layered Agendas webpage. This webpage displays materi- and cumbersome website to locate them. als in an organized manner and allows users to con- duct searches by keyword or date. The online 39 agenda packet also provides important context for studies and reports, such as the accompanying staff report and contact information for the appropriate County staff.
R9
Page 41

By December 31, 2020 the Board of Supervisors will Shasta County The recommendation will not be implemented be- ensure that the finalized copy of the CGL Report is re- Board of Supervi- cause it is not warranted in that the County of Shasta ceived and made available to the citizens of Shasta sors received the final CGL report on August 16, 2019 County. pursuant to the terms of the agreement. The Board of Supervisors heard a presentation from CGL re- garding the report at its meeting on August 13, 2019, and the final report received by the County on Au- gust 16, 2019 was to remove “draft” from the report. The final report has been and is available as a public document and there is a link to the document on the County’s home page at: https://www.co.shasta.ca- .us/index.aspx.
R10
Page 35

By December 31, 2020 the Board of Supervisors Shasta County The recommendation has been implemented. The will follow through with their request of August 13, 2019 Sheriff Sheriff has taken steps to implement recommenda- to have the Sheriff present to them an implementation tions contained in the CGL report where warranted plan that encompasses the recommendations of the CGL and feasible. In addition, the Sheriff will make a report. presentation to the Board of Supervisors regarding 34 those measures that have been implemented and- future plans for improvements in jail operations on September 15, 2020. Shasta County Adult Detention Facility Inspection – “It’s A Jail” THE 2019-2020 SHASTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REQUIRED RESPONSES FOUND AND/OR RECOMMENDED: RESPONDENT
R11
Page 47

The BOS shall identify other agencies and identify Shasta County The recommendation will not be implemented be- funding sources, such as grants, to further assist the at- Board of Supervi- cause it is not warranted or is not reasonable. risk community to maintain defensible space for their res- sors The Board is not aware of grant funding sources idences. available for private property owners for defensible space. There are several state, federal, tribal, and non-profit entities that may provide grant funding op- portunities; however, the Board of Supervisors does not endorse, track, or otherwise participate in pri- vate party’s grant funding. Private property owners are responsible for defensible space and the fund- ing source. Private property owners in communities should engage with their local Fire Safe Council to better understand grant opportunities and commu- nity fire issues.
R12
Page 49

Beginning fiscal year 2021, the Shasta County Fire Shasta County The recommendation will be not implemented be- Department. shall look into training and utilizing off-sea- Fire Department cause it is not warranted or is not reasonable. son volunteer fire department personnel for the purpose The responsibility for defensible space enforcement of Defensible Space Ordinance Enforcement Inspector fall under CAL FIRE jurisdiction for the unincorpo- activities. This can be funded through existing grants. rated areas of Shasta County. CAL FIRE SHU cur- rently employs seasonal Defensible Space Inspec- 48 tors annually. SCFD does not have off-season vol- unteer fire department personnel. All SCFD profes- sional and volunteer fire department staff are uti- lized year around for the jurisdictional responsibility of improvement fires, traffic collisions, hazardous materials incidents and medical emergencies.
R13
Page 47

By November 1, 2020, the BOS shall consider Shasta County The recommendation will not be implemented be- amending their October 22, 2019, Defensible Space Or- Board of Supervi- cause it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Staff dinance to provide more compliance incentives through sors will analyze compliance of the Defensible Space Or- steeper fines, faster legal action, and property liens, dinance and should an amendment be deemed nec- which will be addressed and assessed in a timely man- essary, staff will present an amendment to the ner. Board of Supervisors for consideration.
R14
Page 50

By December 31, 2020, the SCFD shall prepare Shasta County The recommendation will be partially instituted. and initiate a comprehensive public education process to Fire Department CAL FIRE SHU currently provides an extensive increase awareness of fire prevention, defensible space public awareness program for fire prevention, de- and fire fuel management. The BOS shall make the pub- fensible space and fire furl management through lic aware of the positive effects of the Defensible Space their Fire Prevention office as well as the CAL FIRE Ordinance. The BOS can utilize social media platforms, Communications office. mass media and their existing website to accomplish this In October 2019, the Shasta County Board of Su- task. pervisors passed a Defensible Space Ordinance that furthers Public Resource Code 4291 by requir- ing clearance on vacant parcels under 5 acres as well as extending protections around structures to include neighboring land owners. The enforcement of this new ordinance is accomplished through the cooperative agreement with CAL FIRE SHU and their Defensible Space Inspectors. SCFD will begin reporting the statistics and overall effectiveness of the Shasta County Defensible Space Ordinance in the SCFD Annual Report. The SCFD will defer all decisions to report through social media platforms to the Shasta County Board of Su- pervisors. Fire Fuel Management – “The Summer of Fire” THE 2019-2020 SHASTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REQUIRED RESPONSES FOUND AND/OR RECOMMENDED: RESPONDENT
R15
Page 47

Beginning with the 2021 Spring Quarter and one Shasta County The recommendation will not be implemented be- week each year for ten years thereafter, in order to ease Board of Supervi- cause it is not warranted or is not reasonable. costs to private land owners, the City Councils of Red- sors Defensible space waste material (i.e.: green waste) ding, Anderson and Shasta Lake City, along with the does not belong in landfills. It belongs in cogenera- Shasta County Board of Supervisors, shall implement an tion facilities, which the County does not own or op- “Amnesty Day” plan to permit ‘no-or-low cost’ dumping of erate. California State Law, SB 1383 (Health & defensible space waste materials at each landfill located Safety Code section 39730.6) requires a 50 percent within each entity’s jurisdiction. reduction in organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2020, and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. In 46 addition, CalRecycle has proposed regulations im- plementing SB 1383 designed to reduce the dis- posal of green waste in landfills. The emphasis is on the recycling of such materials, instead of dispos- ing of them in a landfill. As an example of a successful program, the com- munity of Shingletown reportedly operates a dis- posal event at the Shingletown Transfer Station twice a month. Also reportedly, the cost of the haul allows the operation to financially break even. Fire Fuel Management – “The Summer of Fire” THE 2019-2020 SHASTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REQUIRED RESPONSES FOUND AND/OR RECOMMENDED: RESPONDENT

Conclusions 6

CL1 Page 58

The jury has concluded that the District 2 Supervisor did utilize the professional courtesy extended to him in an attempt to forestall loss of his personal perishable food items during the Carr Fire. That does not negate the fact that he did take additional tours of his district and make his constit- uency aware of the status of their homes. However, the District 2 Supervisor took advantage of the situation under the auspices of conduct- ing the business for which he was elected. While the jury determined that no laws were broken and proper escorts were provided, the act of bringing fuel on multiple occasions is a clear indicator that the intent of the tours of the district, on those days, was to fuel the supervisor’s personal generator.
CL2 Page 72

The 2020-2021 SCGJ would like to commend Redding’s Code Enforcement Division for working together with law enforcement to provide a safer living environment for the citizens of Redding. 63
CL3 Page 81

The 2020-2021 SCGJ discovered notable improvements at SHASCOM within the past 18 months. The investigation further revealed these efforts appear to be the result of a temporary change in leadership. A lack of long-term planning by SHASCOM’s Board of Directors causes the Grand Jury to be concerned about whether these changes will be sustained the next time management changes. A review of SHASCOM’s board meeting minutes shows the directors are more interested in shar- ing information about their own agencies or entities instead of gathering data or information rele- vant to operations at SHASCOM’s dispatch center Investigations and reports by Shasta County Grand Juries provide the only oversight this board and SHASCOM operations receive.
CL4 Page 90

The 2020-2021 Shasta County Grand Jury finds the Board of Supervisors fulfilled the requirements of California Penal Code Section 925 and Government Code Sections 25250 and 31000. From a contract pricing standpoint, the first five-year agreement – signed in 2015 – was for $434,215. The second five-year agreement – signed in December 2019 – was for $449,035. This difference rep- resents a 3.4% increase in price, representing an immaterial increase considering the fact it is spread over a five-year period from the initial contract. In conclusion, the outside professional services provided by a national accounting firm (CliftonLarsonAllen LLP) are serving the County of Shasta in a cost-efficient manner.
CL5 Page 99

The 2020-2021 Shasta County Grand Jury discovered and observed notable deficiencies in the Coroner’s office. Operations within this division are established by “word of mouth”, “ride along and watch what I do” and a “we have always done it this way and everyone knows that” approach. The complete lack of a written policy and procedures manual covering day-to-day operations does not allow for any type of consistency or accountability within the division. The Chief Deputy Coroner position is seen by some as an undesirable assignment, with little regard for training an individual to the level of knowledge required of the position. The Chief Deputy Coroner either retires or moves on after a relatively short period of time. The investigation revealed a lack of training for the supervising Chief Deputy Coroner, the lack of written training protocols and an unclean and unsafe working environment. Job classifications that reward continued and advanced training do not exist in the Coroner’s Of- fice. The lack of promotional opportunity has led to low morale within the Coroner’s Office. 86
CL6 Page 100

Additional job classifications and educational opportunities would encourage staff longevity. The current Coroners Facility is outdated, unsafe and no longer serves the needs of the residents of Shasta County. A larger building and state-of the-art facility would be the only avenue the Sher- iff’s Office has to correct this issue. A portion of the $24 million allocated for 2022 by the federal government, primarily for public health under the CARES Act 2022, could help bring Shasta County Coroner’s Office into the 21st century. The Coroner’s autopsy suite, at least, should be accredited by an appropriate agency chosen by the SCSO. This Grand Jury recognizes that a broad recommendation of accreditation for the entire Coroner’s Office is not feasible. The department has neither the man-power nor finances to start such a broad update. However, this jury’s investigation revealed that policies and procedures for day-to-day operations that address the deficiencies noted in this report can be taken from accredi- tation documents from NAME and the California Death Investigation templates found in the Ref- erence List of this report. These procedures can act as a template for establishing procedures where none exist with moderate effort by the SCSO. A lack of long-term planning by the Sheriff’s De- partment has shown that application of policies and procedures are limited to the leadership style of the current Deputy Chief Coroner and may not be sustained the next time management changes.