West Sacramento City Council Response to Grand Jury Report - Inspecting the Inspectors:

Management failed to conduct an adequate background check and failed to properly vet the SOTC to ensure all qualifications for the position were met, as specified by the City of West Sacramento’s personnel rules. The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. The screening process conducted by Human Resources upon submission by the SOTC of their application for employment included evaluation and verification of the candidate meeting the Minimum Qualifications (MQs) for the position per the job description. MQs include education, experience, and required licenses/certificate. The SOTC met the MQs and was placed on an Eligibility List and selected for interview by the department hiring manager/subject matter expert. The first interview panel, comprised of subject matter experts from outside agencies/municipalities, conducted candidate interviews. Subsequent to the panel interview, the panel evaluated the candidates and made the recommendation to the department hiring manager/subject matter expert that the SOTC move to the final interview process. After the final interview was completed, the SOTC was conditionally offered the position. Once the candidate completed the interview processes and was selected, the department hiring manager/subject matter expert contacted and vetted the employee provided job references and communicated to Human Resources that a Conditional Offer of Employment should be extended. 1110 West Capitol Avenue West Sacramento, CA 95691 (916) 617-4500 www.cityofwestsacramento.org DocuSign Envelope ID: C3A1611D-1EE3-4ED1-B442-4B5C962C9F72 Grand Jury Response Letter August 17, 2022 Non-safety personnel are subject to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Background check, which the SOTC passed. The Building Inspector I/II job description contains the following language: Possession of, or ability to obtain and maintain a Building Inspector’s Certificate as issued by the I.C.C. within one (1) year of employment. The Grand Jury Report stated, “Public records obtained from the ICC reflect that the SOTC did obtain a certification as a California Residential Building Inspector on or about October 2020. While the above requirements outline the expectation that an inspector in this position would be certified within one year of their employment, the SOTC took more than 18 months to attain this one certification.” The SOTC had until the end of their 12-month probationary period, April 22, 2020, to obtain the required ICC certification. The SOTC was scheduled to take the exam for the ICC certification in March 2020 and was notified by the ICC the exam was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic with no new exam date scheduled. The SOTC’s supervisor at the time exercised the option to extend the SOTC’s 1-year probationary period by 6-months per Personnel Rule 3.9.2 Length of Probation. The SOTC’s probationary period was extended until October 22, 2020 and an ICC certificate was obtained on October 14, 2020, within the 18-month period and complying with the requirements of the Building Inspector I/II job description.

Management failed to verify timely completion of certifications necessary for the SOTC to independently inspect construction projects to which the SOTC was assigned during the SOTC’s employment. The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The SOTC was hired and supervised by the former Chief Building Official (CBO), who retired in December 2021. Until August 2021, the former CBO was supervised by the former Community Development Director, who retired in December of 2019, and an interim Community Development Director from December 2019 to August 2021. Thus, the current Building Division management staff cannot expressly confirm whether management that hired and supervised SOTC failed to verify timely completion of certifications necessary for the SOTC to independently inspect construction projects. Upon review of the SOTC’s personnel file, it does contain a Memo from the CBO to the SOTC dated April 8, 2020 extending his probationary period to obtain the ICC Residential Building Inspector Certificate and also a Status Change Form with verification of the SOTC obtaining the CA Residential Building Inspector Certificate on October 14, 2020.

For over two years, supervisory and management staff failed to address the pattern of community complaints regarding the SOTC’s work. The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Prior to August 2, 2021, the respondent is unable to confirm if supervisory and management staff addressed the pattern of community complaints regarding SOTC’s work; and if complaints were received, how they were addressed. However, with the arrival of the new Community Development Director in August 2021, any complaints about the SOTC’s work elevated to the Director’s level were addressed directly with the SOTC and/or with the SOTC’s supervisor and documented in writing. As mentioned previously in Finding F-2, numerous leadership changes occurred in the Building Division during the SOTC’s tenure, culminating in the retirement of both the Permit Services Supervisor and the Chief Building Official in December 2021. With new leadership in the Department and Division, the level of accountability and written feedback increased significantly until the SOTC resigned from the organization on February 16, 2022.

The grand jury was not given access to the HR file of the SOTC or to the electronic tracking system, Acela, despite formal and lawful grand jury requests. The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. Human Resources provided all of the documentation that was requested by Santos Cervantes, Chair, Detention & Public Safety Committee for the Grand Jury, including current and former employee contact information; current 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: C3A1611D-1EE3-4ED1-B442-4B5C962C9F72 Grand Jury Response Letter August 17, 2022 and former employee hire dates; former employee dates of resignation; Harassment and Sexual Harassment Policy; 60 Administrative Policies specific to Human Resources; specifics regarding interview panels; information regarding employee hired to replace a retired building inspector; names of employees who were building inspectors when COVID-19 restrictions/lockdown began; and, names of individuals who acted as temporary building inspectors. Human Resources never received a request from Mr. Cervantes, or from any other person on behalf of the Grand Jury, to provide the SOTC, or any other employees’ HR (Personnel) File. Community Development is not aware of a request from Mr. Cervantes or from any other person on behalf of the Grand Jury, to provide the access to the Accela electronic permit tracking system. Please know that the Chief Building Official, the Permit Services Manager and the Senior Plans Examiner in place at the time of the initial request from Mr. Cervantes are no longer with the organization and requests to, and responses by, those staff members cannot be verified. GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS