📋
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 10 findings
F1
Page 72
The BOS meetings are a cause for concern due to the inability of the Board to operate as a cohesive team.
F2
Page 72
Animosity between several of the BOS inhibits the ability to get county work done in a timely manner.
F3
Page 72
There are members of the public that continually make unsubstantiated allegations instead of focusing on the County business which slows down the BOS from getting county business done in a timely manner.
F4
Page 72
A member of the BOS has expressed intent to remove the CA, Personnel Director, and County Counsel. This has caused unnecessary tension within County Administration.
F5
Page 72
One of the BOS thinks the CA intimidates the DHPMs. Our interviews pointed out that 22 out of 24 DHPMs feel supported and work well with the CA. This discrepancy suggests a significant gap between the perception of one supervisor and the experiences of the majority of DHPMs.
F6
Page 72
Although paid by the county, BOS members are not county employees and are not bound by county personnel rules. This lack of enforceable standards for elected officials appears to reduce accountability and encourage poor behavior, undermining a respectful workplace. 69
F7
Page 73
All of the current BOS agreed that a Code of Conduct for the BOS would be beneficial. Implementing a Code of Conduct could enhance public trust, improve working relationships within the BOS, and set consistent expectations that support a respectful and effective governing environment.
F8
Page 73
There is confusion among Tehama County officials over which personnel rules should apply to whom. This ambiguity has led to questions about whether elected, appointed, and hired individuals are being treated consistently and fairly under county policies, highlighting the need for clearer definitions and uniform application of rules.
F9
Page 73
All of Department heads noticed the conflict between the Sheriff and the CA which has created an uncomfortable and challenging work environment. This tension has negatively impacted the effectiveness of county operations and must be resolved.
F10
Page 73
The TCGJ observed that the BOS sometimes goes beyond its policy-making role by micromanaging the CA, making it difficult for the CA to effectively carry out his responsibilities.
Recommendations 7
-
R1Page 73The BOS shall hire an outside mediator to resolve differences between the Sheriff and the CA
-
R2Page 73County Counsel will define clearly the job descriptions of the BOS and the CA at a BOS meeting with the public present
-
R3Page 73The BOS shall adopt and sign the TCGJ’s suggested Code of Conduct, or institute their own version, by October 1, 2025. This Code of Conduct shall be reviewed and revised as needed and shall be signed annually by the serving BOS.
-
R4Page 73The BOS shall adopt the Public Code of Conduct suggested by the TCGJ, or write one of their own, by October 1, 2025. The Code shall be placed on the front of the BOS agenda that is available to the public. TCGJ also suggests it be projected on the screen prior to the official start of the BOS meeting.
-
R5Page 74TCGJ recommends the Public Comment period be moved from the beginning of the BOS meetings to the end of the meetings
-
R6Page 74The TCGJ recommends that the BOS develop and use a speaker’s card system to better organize the public input during agenda items at BOS meetings. If no card is submitted, the individual should not be permitted to speak. This process will help ensure orderly, timely, and relevant public participation in Board proceedings. The system should be in place
-
R7Page 74TCGJ recommends that the Personnel Director work with an Ad Hoc committee to clearly explain which personnel rules apply to hired, elected, and appointed county staff in the Tehama County Personnel Rules Handbook. Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the following response is required: • Board of Supervisors of the County of Tehama shall respond to: o Findings: F1, F2, F4, F6, F7, F10 o Recommendations: R1, R3, R4, R5 • Tehama County Counsel shall respond to: o Finding: F10 o Recommendation: R2 • Tehama County Personnel Director shall respond to: o Finding: F8 o Recommendation: R7 In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933.06, five members of the Tehama County Grand Jury have recused themselves from participating in the inquiry, deliberation, and preparation of this report due to a potential conflict of interest or other disqualifying circumstances. 71