📋

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.

Lassen County Grand Jury • 2013-2014

Ralph M. Brown Act, Emergency Agenda Item

27 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

Regulations, specifically the Acting Appointments section for all Acting CPO's. The acting appointment allowable term did expire prior to the amendment to the Personnel Rules and Regulations. The Acting Chief Probation Officer has been paid as an experienced and qualified Chief Probation Officer even though the employee's original experience and qualifications failed to meet the standard. The Acting Chief Probation Officer should have only received a 5% pay increase upon

Lassen County Personnel Department should develop and implement a written procedure to ensure that the Lassen County Personnel Rules and Regulations are updated and posted to the website in a timely manner. Response/Comment: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. The Board of Supervisors agrees that annual review of the County Personnel Rules and Regulations is in order. This review will begin this year.

Former Planning Commission Member.

Former Susanville City Councilman.

Former County Sheriff.

Former County Clerk/Recorder.

Current City Attorney 8. ì The most striking example is from this most recent Grand Jury year. The foreman of the 2013-2014 Grand Jury is the sitting Susanville City Attorney. This person has also recently served as the Attorney for the Honey Lake RCD, the subject of one of this year's reports. This year, the Grand Jury received twenty-two complaints. They chose to file a total of fourteen reports which make up its year-end report (the Grand Jurors Association considers and teaches that each topic is its own report). Of the fourteen published reports, four were of detention facilities in our community, and were generated likely as a result of the Grand Jury's obligation to look into these facilities. The manner in which the remaining ten were selected is of most interest to the Board of Supervisors. Nine out of the ten deal with general County functions. There were no published reports that dealt with any City functions. The one report that did not deal with a general County function related to the Honey Lake Valley RCD, the foreman's prior client. That report appeared superficial and did not find any fault on the part of the Honey Lake RCD, despite considerable public criticism of their activities. The individual relied upon for a real estate "appraisal" referenced in the Herlong Property Sale report was the chair of the RCD board during the time the foreman of this jury was their attorney, and this person continues to serve on that board. The point to be made is simple. The Board of Supervisors wants Lassen County Government to be as efficient and effective as possible. The Board believes that the Grand Jury, by and large, does too. Nevertheless, an incomplete report, presented by individuals that do not present with the independence that Grand Jury service contemplates, does not further the mission of the Grand Jury. Over the next pages the Lassen County Board of Supervisors will be presenting its response to this year's Grand Jury report. Contrary to past years where the Board has been fairly quiet, this year the Board will actively point out inaccuracies and misperceptions. This year, the Board of Supervisors will highlight the fact that the Grand Jury sometimes is composed of people who are not infallible, not always properly informed, and not always motivated to come to the proper conclusions. ii

ì The most striking example is from this most recent Grand Jury year. The foreman of the 2013-2014 Grand Jury is the sitting Susanville City Attorney. This person has also recently served as the Attorney for the Honey Lake RCD, the subject of one of this year's reports. This year, the Grand Jury received twenty-two complaints. They chose to file a total of fourteen reports which make up its year-end report (the Grand Jurors Association considers and teaches that each topic is its own report). Of the fourteen published reports, four were of detention facilities in our community, and were generated likely as a result of the Grand Jury's obligation to look into these facilities. The manner in which the remaining ten were selected is of most interest to the Board of Supervisors. Nine out of the ten deal with general County functions. There were no published reports that dealt with any City functions. The one report that did not deal with a general County function related to the Honey Lake Valley RCD, the foreman's prior client. That report appeared superficial and did not find any fault on the part of the Honey Lake RCD, despite considerable public criticism of their activities. The individual relied upon for a real estate "appraisal" referenced in the Herlong Property Sale report was the chair of the RCD board during the time the foreman of this jury was their attorney, and this person continues to serve on that board. The point to be made is simple. The Board of Supervisors wants Lassen County Government to be as efficient and effective as possible. The Board believes that the Grand Jury, by and large, does too. Nevertheless, an incomplete report, presented by individuals that do not present with the independence that Grand Jury service contemplates, does not further the mission of the Grand Jury. Over the next pages the Lassen County Board of Supervisors will be presenting its response to this year's Grand Jury report. Contrary to past years where the Board has been fairly quiet, this year the Board will actively point out inaccuracies and misperceptions. This year, the Board of Supervisors will highlight the fact that the Grand Jury sometimes is composed of people who are not infallible, not always properly informed, and not always motivated to come to the proper conclusions. ii

Recommendations 8

R1

Regulations, specifically the Acting Appointments section for all Acting CPO's. The acting appointment allowable term did expire prior to the amendment to the Personnel Rules and Regulations. The Acting Chief Probation Officer has been paid as an experienced and qualified Chief Probation Officer even though the employee's original experience and qualifications failed to meet the standard. The Acting Chief Probation Officer should have only received a 5% pay increase upon
R2

Lassen County Personnel Department should develop and implement a written procedure to ensure that the Lassen County Personnel Rules and Regulations are updated and posted to the website in a timely manner. Response/Comment: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. The Board of Supervisors agrees that annual review of the County Personnel Rules and Regulations is in order. This review will begin this year. Recommendation:
R3

Former Planning Commission Member.
R4

Former Susanville City Councilman.
R5

Former County Sheriff.
R6

Former County Clerk/Recorder.
R7

Current City Attorney
R8

ì The most striking example is from this most recent Grand Jury year. The foreman of the 2013-2014 Grand Jury is the sitting Susanville City Attorney. This person has also recently served as the Attorney for the Honey Lake RCD, the subject of one of this year's reports. This year, the Grand Jury received twenty-two complaints. They chose to file a total of fourteen reports which make up its year-end report (the Grand Jurors Association considers and teaches that each topic is its own report). Of the fourteen published reports, four were of detention facilities in our community, and were generated likely as a result of the Grand Jury's obligation to look into these facilities. The manner in which the remaining ten were selected is of most interest to the Board of Supervisors. Nine out of the ten deal with general County functions. There were no published reports that dealt with any City functions. The one report that did not deal with a general County function related to the Honey Lake Valley RCD, the foreman's prior client. That report appeared superficial and did not find any fault on the part of the Honey Lake RCD, despite considerable public criticism of their activities. The individual relied upon for a real estate "appraisal" referenced in the Herlong Property Sale report was the chair of the RCD board during the time the foreman of this jury was their attorney, and this person continues to serve on that board. The point to be made is simple. The Board of Supervisors wants Lassen County Government to be as efficient and effective as possible. The Board believes that the Grand Jury, by and large, does too. Nevertheless, an incomplete report, presented by individuals that do not present with the independence that Grand Jury service contemplates, does not further the mission of the Grand Jury. Over the next pages the Lassen County Board of Supervisors will be presenting its response to this year's Grand Jury report. Contrary to past years where the Board has been fairly quiet, this year the Board will actively point out inaccuracies and misperceptions. This year, the Board of Supervisors will highlight the fact that the Grand Jury sometimes is composed of people who are not infallible, not always properly informed, and not always motivated to come to the proper conclusions. ii Grand Jury Report: Herlong Property Sale