Trinity County Grand Jury
• 2016-2017
to know what is going on in local government, even if it is not pretty
⚠️ 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 16 findings
F2
During the calendar year 2016, the CC was also employed by contract to perform certain duties of the CAO, receiving $5,000.00 each month for that work.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
During the calendar year 2016, the BOS evaluated only one other County department head, and that person only once. BOS minutes, for each meeting held during the calendar year 2016, where an evaluation
No recommendations for this finding
F4
of the CC was scheduled, indicate, "Evaluation was held," except the meeting on March 1, 2016, where the minutes report, "Direction was given to staff." Evaluation of employees in closed session under Government Code section 54957(b)(1)
No recommendations for this finding
F5
are limited to frank evaluation of that employee's performance. The contract between the BOS and the CC called for creation of criteria and standards for
No recommendations for this finding
F6
evaluating the CC's performance. Under the contract, performance reviews are to be conducted annually. The BOS and CC have not created such criteria and standards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The BOS and CC promptly develop and adopt criteria for evaluation of the CC as the employment agreement for the CC requires.
F7
The County has a form for department head performance review that applies to all
No recommendations for this finding
F8
County department heads. It is called "Trinity County Department Head Performance Review". That form has established the questions and issues suitable and useful for evaluation of County employees, including the CC and the CAO. During the evaluation sessions named in previous Findings, the BOS and the CC did not
No recommendations for this finding
F9
use or discuss the agreed upon criteria or standards for CC's performance (because none existed) and did not use or discuss the performance review form named in previous Findings. The duties and obligations of the CAO, CC, and BOS are many, varied, complex, and
No recommendations for this finding
F10
difficult. Interviews with persons present at the agendized evaluations of the CC revealed that the
No recommendations for this finding
F11
BOS and CC discussed the performance of other County employees, including department heads. Interviews with persons present at the agendized evaluations of the CC revealed that the
No recommendations for this finding
F12
BOS and CC discussed advice and counsel the BOS thought helpful to the CC in her dual role of interim or acting CAO because, the BOS suggested to the Grand Jury, the dual role presented problems too complex for a person without previous CAO experience to handle without BOS assistance. Interviews with persons present at the agendized evaluations of the CC revealed that the
No recommendations for this finding
F13
BOS and CC discussed advice on legal matters affecting the County that was not a proper subject in a closed session. Interviews with persons present at the agendized evaluations of the CC revealed that the
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The BOS and CC discuss and act on in closed session only those matters clearly within the Government Code section cited on the BOS agenda to justify the closed session.
F14
BOS and CC discussed advice regarding drafting an urgency ordinance affecting cannabis cultivation in the County that was not a proper subject in a closed session. The BOS and CC used Government Code section 54957(b)(1) to disguise as employee
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
The BOS and CC discuss and act on in closed session only those matters clearly within the Government Code section cited on the BOS agenda to justify the closed session.
R3
The BOS and CC and CAO acknowledge by their actions in future that the Brown Act requires them to conduct the public's business in the open.
F15
performance review what was really wide-ranging discussions of County issues and County business. There are important, inherent, and unavoidable conflicts between the responsibilities of
No recommendations for this finding
F16
the CC and the CAO. The BOS has failed its responsibility to employ a CAO who has the knowledge and
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The BOS should promptly hire and maintain a competent and qualified CAO.
F17
experience to run the county with a professional understanding of how all county functions operate together to their best effect. The CAO is a position of leadership.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The BOS should promptly hire and maintain a competent and qualified CAO.