Review of Past Grand Jury Reports and Board of Supervisors Response

Recommendations 84

• R1
  The Chief Administrative Officer
• R2
  The County Auditor Documents Reviewed
• R3
  The 2001-2002 Grand Jury Report and Responses by the Board of Supervisors including the report of the independent management audit titled “Analysis of El Dorado County’s Budget Process” dated May, 2002.
• R4
  The Grand Jury Reports for the two subsequent years, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.
• R5
  The County Budgets for 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.
• R6
  Director of Human Services • Supervisor Emergency
• R7
  Director of Child Protective Response, CPS Services • Supervisor Ongoing Services,
• R8
  Department of Community CPS Services • Supervisor Child Protective
• R9
  APS/IHSS Program Manager Services
• R10
  Department of Social Services • Several CPS and DSS Social
• R11
  Child support Services Workers
• R12
  Department of Mental Health • Recently resigned employees
• R13
  Department of Public Health of CPS
• R14
  Program Manager Children • Chief Administrative Officer Services • County Counsel
• R15
  Supervisor Adoptions, CPS • Human Resources Documents Reviewed
• R16
  A preliminary working manual • Board of Supervisors Response of current CPS policies to the Grand Jury Final Report
• R17
  Memos to Social Worker 1999-2000 Personnel from CPS • Board of Supervisors Response Department Heads to the Grand Jury Final Report
• R18
  Memos of Human Services 2000-2001 Personnel from HS Department • Board of Supervisors Response Heads to the Grand Jury Final Report
• R19
  Memos to Local #1 Union from 2001-2002 CPS personnel • Board of Supervisors Response
• R20
  Various articles from the to the Grand Jury Final Report Mountain Democrat 2002-2003
• R21
  Audit conducted by Harvey Rose, CPA, 2002 9 of 38
• R22
  Board of Supervisors Response • Audit conducted by John to the Grand Jury Final Report Warden, CPA, 2002 2003-2004
• R23
  Director of Information Technologies (IT) Department
• R24
  Various Department Directors and their information technology (IT) staff
• R25
  County Chief Administrative Officer Documents Reviewed
• R26
  El Dorado County Information Technologies Strategic Plan, updated July 2004
• R27
  El Dorado County Information Technologies Tactical Plans, updated October 2004
• R28
  El Dorado County computer and Network Resource Usage Policies and Standards Guide, revised June 2004
• R29
  County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors Policy A-10 Information Technology Steering Committee and Information Technology Acquisition Procedures, revised November 1999
• R30
  IT Department draft revision of County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors Policy A-10
• R31
  Draft report “The Future of El Dorado County Information Technologies and the Information Technologies Department” prepared by the Information Technologies Department dated November 1, 2003.
• R32
  Director of Information Technologies (IT) Department
• R33
  Various Department Directors and their information technology (IT) staff
• R34
  County Chief Administrative Officer Documents Reviewed
• R35
  El Dorado County Information Technologies Strategic Plan, updated July 2004
• R36
  El Dorado County Information Technologies Tactical Plans, updated October 2004
• R37
  El Dorado County computer and Network Resource Usage Policies and Standards Guide, revised June 2004
• R38
  County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors Policy A-10 Information Technology Steering Committee and Information Technology Acquisition Procedures, revised November 1999
• R39
  IT Department draft revision of County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors Policy A-10
• R40
  Draft report “The Future of El Dorado County Information Technologies and the Information Technologies Department” prepared by the Information Technologies Department dated November 1, 2003.
• R41
  Former member of EID engineering staff
• R42
  EID Ditch System Supervisor
• R43
  EID General Manager Documents Reviewed
• R44
  EID internal memos, e-mails, newspaper articles, other agency reports, personnel action records, transcribed interviews and employee personal journals
• R45
  EID prepared binder with maps, flow data, revenue data, Power Point presentation transcripts, legal briefs and historical data related to ditch systems and particularly the Crawford Ditch. Physical Inspection
• R46
  EID guided tour of Crawford Ditch showing diversion dam, typical delivery apparatus to end users and repairs following a major side wall failure.
• R47
  Fire Marshall – Placerville/South Lake Tahoe
• R48
  Interim Director General Services
• R49
  Program Coordinators
• R50
  Senior C.A.D.D. Technician, General Services
• R51
  Engineering Specialist, Public Works City of Placerville
• R52
  Engineering Technician, Public Works / Placerville Engineering Department
• R53
  Risk Manager, County Administrative Office
• R54
  Director Mental Health Department
• R55
  Nutrition Services Supervisor
• R56
  Engineers, Department of Transportation
• R57
  Field Supervisors, Animal Control
• R58
  Kitchen Staff, Placerville Senior Center Sites Visited
• R59
  Juvenile Hall – Placerville/South Lake Tahoe
• R60
  Growlersberg Conservation Camp
• R61
  Georgetown – Airport / Library
• R62
  Senior Center – Placerville
• R63
  Mental Health Buildings & Services – Placerville / South Lake Tahoe
• R64
  Animal Control – South Lake Tahoe
• R65
  Department of Transportation – South Lake Tahoe
• R66
  Placerville topographic map
• R67
  Risk Management Claim Register / Litigation Report
• R68
  Risk Management Facility Incident Report
• R69
  Property Lease Agreements
• R70
  Grand Jury Final Report / Responses for 2003-04; 2002-03; 2001-02; 2000-01 22 of 38
• R71
  The relatives elected to no longer care for their elderly parent with dementia and left him at the local hospital emergency room after they had changed the title to the parent’s home into their names.
• R72
  An attorney and later a neighbor became substantial beneficiaries of various revocable living trusts executed after an elderly woman with no children developed dementia.
• R73
  A demented person’s home was very cluttered and people came by offering to pay her $100,000 for her Tahoe lakefront property which was later valued at over $2,000,000. In all four cases reviewed the conservatorship resulted in better care for the elderly persons and the financial abuse was resolved thereby providing financial and physical security until death. The Public Guardian charges a nominal conservatorship fee, about $150 a month to manage the finances and oversee the caregivers. In some cases where extraordinary services by the Public Guardian are required, extra fees are charged to the estate. In cases of poverty, fees are adjusted downward and sometimes none are collected. Each of the three Deputy Public Guardians is assigned about 85 conservator cases to work. Some cases require only minimal accounting services, while others take considerable time. Response to Finding 1a.: The respondent agrees with the finding. 1b. Commendation: The Grand Jury commends the Public Guardian on the service they offer to the County. 2a. Finding: The Public Guardian has requested the Board of Supervisors authorize an increase in staffing of two more Deputies due to the heavy workloads and increasing referrals of elder abuse. Response to Finding 2a.: The respondent agrees with the finding. 2b. Recommendation: Due to the high current and projected case loads the Grand Jury recommends the staff increase as requested by the Public Guardian.
• R74
  Golden Sierra High School
• R75
  Ponderosa High School
• R76
  Shenandoah High School
• R77
  Union Mine High School
• R78
  Sierra Ridge Middle School
• R79
  Pine Ridge Elementary School
• R80
  Emigrant Trail Elementary School People Interviewed
• R81
  Superintendent of the County Office of Education
• R82
  Directors of the County Office of Education
• R83
  Principals of the various High Schools
• R84
  Maintenance Personnel