📋

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.

Yuba County Grand Jury • 1992-1993

Yuba County Grand Jury Challenge Brownsville Dobbins Loma Rica Browns Valley Marysville Linda Beale AIR Force Base

Published: June 30, 1993 6 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.

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F8, F10, F11, F12, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18, F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24, F25, F26, F27, F28, F29, F30, F31, F32, F33, F34, F35, F36, F37, F38, F39

Findings 10 findings

There are only five public points of access to the Yuba River, between the Marysville "E" street bridge and Parks Bar bridge, for the general public; however, there are no points of access to the Yuba River south shoreline on or around public lands. and the contract the property of the contract of Charles and Committee of the Committee of the Committee of the Committee of the Committee of the Committee of the Committee of the Committee of the Committee of the Committee of the Committee of the Committee of the Commit CONCLUSIONS: A SECTION OF THE CONTRACT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE Deputy of the Contract of the Contract of the Contract of the Contract of the Contract of the Contract of the Contract of the Contract of the Contract of the Contract of the Contract of the Contract of the Contract of the The Grand Jury can only conclude that the lack of public access has limited the use of public. lands to a select few, and the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the cont

Gathered and studied related county materials 1 : (a) job descriptions : (b) budgets ÷ 1992-93 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report (c) Capital Improvement Project records - i.e. bids, financial records, change orders, contracts, blue prints, related Board of Supervisor meeting minutes

Conducted extensive interviews with county personnel and with selected, involved contractors Appropriate to the second DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: Related Sections of County Policy and of the Law General Services Director The General Services Director job description states that he/she: 铁经统一经工作的人名马克斯人名马克斯 "UNDER POLICY DIRECTION, PLANS, COORDINATES, ADMINISTERS, AND DIRECTS THE GENERAL SERVICES PROGRAM WHICH INCLUDES PURCHASING; BUILDING AND GROUNDS; MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR; FACILITY PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT; INFORMATION SERVICES MANAGEMENT; CENTRAL DUPLICATING, PRINTING, AND MESSENGER SERVICE; A FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROGRAM, AND DOES OTHER RELATED WORK AS REQUIRED." A NEW YORK WAS A Examples of Duties, states in parts agency for a contract of "....CONFERS WITH COUNTY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES RELATIVE TO PURCHASING PROCEDURES AND BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE... PREPARES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGETS AND PROGRAMS... COORDINATES COUNTY'S CONTRACT PROGRAM AND DEVELOPS BID PROCEDURES WHERE REQUIRED...," et also typical such County Administrator 55 A 15 A was the second of the second Yuba County Ordinance, Chapter 2.47.050 (i) states: "THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SHALL EVALUATE THE ON-THE-JOB PERFORMANCE OF EACH DEPARTMENT HEAD AS DIRECTED BY BOARD POLICY. THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SHALL DISCUSS THE DRAFT EVALUATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT HEAD. IF THE FINAL REPORT INDICATES UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, THE REPORT SHALL BE DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD AND THE DEPARTMENT HEADS. THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SHALL MAKE

Some members of the Board of Supervisors have stated that they are still unclear about the financial reporting procedure on Capital Improvement Projects although proper records are now being made available from the Department of General Services. CONCLUSIONS:

On election day a voter walked into the Election Official's office asked for and was given an absence ballot, went out to his car, marked and returned the ballot to the clerk. See Section 1014. ateria protesti, esperial traversi de la comunicación de la comunicación de la comunicación de la comunicación

Some persons who returned voted ballots to the elections office were not asked to show identification to prove they were the person who had voted the ballot or authorized to return the ballot by the person who had voted the ballot. See Section 1013. may be ready and a superior of the contract of the contract of CONCLUSIONS: Language Lagrange and a language of the language conclusions and the language conclusions. ayay ya baga gibi andaribi milanbar maga filipida sa asa atau bata bibinta bibinta sa maga mara a The Grand Jury members did not observe any instance where the confidentiality of any absent voter ballot was compromised. However, there was ample opportunity for any person having access to the office where ballots were stored, to learn how any of those ballots were voted and by whom. Members of the Grand Jury are confident that the type of envelopes presently used are adequate. In the interest of cost effectiveness, the procedures for processing absent voter ballots can be revised to ensure the confidentiality of the voted ballots. 57 ... 1992-93 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report . . . . . . .

Under recent legislation, local bodies may have their actions taken in violation of the 1; open meeting laws declared null and void by a court. Suits may be initiated by interested : : persons within limited time frames...." The publication on ., states in part: " .... Open meeting laws represent the Legislature's determination of how the balance should be struck between public access to the activities of a public body on the one hand and the need for secret candor, debate, and information gathering on the other. As the rest of this pamphlet will indicate, the balance has been struck in Javor of public access.... The purpose of the open meeting laws,... is to require that all aspects of the decision-making process by ... local legislative bodies be conducted in public. These laws have been interpreted to awan that all of the deliberative processes by multi-member bodies, including discussion, debate and the acquisition of information, be open and available for public scrutiny. (Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Suprs. (1968) 263 Cal, App. 2d41; 42 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 61, 63 (1963); 32 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 240 (1958).) These laws only apply to multi-member bodies such as councils, boards, commissions, etc., since, unlike individual decision makers, such bodies are supposed to arrive at collaborative decisions through public discussion and debate...." (Emphasis added) 1992-93 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report Current practice is for governing bodies (Boards-Councils) and elected officials to refer the Grand Jury Final Report to staff or appointed officials for report back. The staff or appointed officials use up the 60 or 90 day time period creating a deadline constraint. The governing bodies, because of a pinch for time, adopt the staff report as their own comments and approve them as a consent agenda item, and transmit the report to the Presiding Judge. The Court makes no comment. The responses are filed as received. The public knows little if anything of the substance or dynamics of the final report or the responses. The Presiding Judge of the Yuba County Superior Court, effective September 1, 1989, as provided by Govt. Code Section 69898, separated the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court from the office of the County Clerk. By its action the Yuba County Superior Court assigned the responsibility to keep on file Grand Jury reports and responses to the Superior Court Clerk and not to the "county clerk" referred to in Penal Code Section 933.(c). and the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the street of the stre FINDINGS: All findings have been validated and substantiated by current documentation, and by interviews or observations conducted by no less than two members of the Grand Jury as required by Ponal Code Section 916.

Child Protective Services (CPS) Operation of the above programs normally requires 228 management and clerical positions. Due to current budget constraints the county has eliminated more than 30 positions while the case load continues to grow at a rate of 2 to 3% per year. The total cost of personnel is approximately 8 million annually, therefore, over 30 million is distributed in cash or services to eligible Yuba County residents. In an effort to reduce costs Yuba County initiated a four-day work week (four 10-hour days), which has resulted in a 25% increase to the daily case load. The current caseload is 135 cases per worker for AFDC and Food Stamp, and 280 cases per worker for Medi-cal. The 17 current GR cases must requalify monthly and are counted for under the AFDC caseload. Eligibility for AFDC does not require a permanent address. The case workers, eligibility workers and assistants are now helping one another as needed in order to provide the required services. Current budget reductions have resulted in the following: A. In home services have been reduced by 12%. AFDC funds have been reduced by approximately 10%. B, The Social Services Department averages approximately 13 to 14% employee attrition rate which is reflective of the high job stresses and mobility of the area residents. Historically, employee morale has been a problem which has been addressed through various avenues. The department at large has an average attrition rate of approximately 30 employees per year. Surveys from outside agencies (procedures section item 3.P and 3.S), formation of the House Committee (procedure section item 2), expanded employee training and various types of personnel management procedures have all contributed to minimizing the issue of employee morale while improving the overall efficiency of the department. Compliance with all of the federal, state, and county regulations requires constant monitoring and updating as changes occur. The Yuba County Social Services Department has done an exemplary job in keeping abreast of all changes and maintaining ongoing compliance as shown by the latest State audit in which Yuba Co. and only one other county passed, out of the thirteen counties that were audited. All regulatory information is recorded, existing information updated, and issued to relevant personnel for follow up. Reports and audits from a variety of outside agencies have confirmed the high standards maintained by this department. The latest audit report from the State Department of Social Services Civil Rights revealed two infractions: (1) There is a shortage of bi-lingual staff available to serve the public and there was a lack of forms and literature available in the required languages, and (2) the main building complex did not have an external sign identifying it to be the Offices of the Public Welfare Department, Employee and clients safety is also considered a priority item by the department staff. A minimum of two fire alarm drills are conducted annually and all employees are encouraged to report any safety related issues as soon as they are noticed. 'The last Fire Marshall's inspection was . completed in February of 1992; another inspection has been requested and is being scheduled by the Fire Marshall. During one of the State audits, it was noted that there was no fire alarm in place for 1992-93 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report the hearing impaired. A strobe light type of alarm was immediately ordered but as yet it has not been installed. An examination of the General Relief Program, and the regulations which govern it, revealed that it was established via County Resolution 1976-131 in 1976 and that all rules and regulations which govern its operation, eligibility requirements, fee schedule, etc. are contained therein. In 1983 the County passed a new Resolution (1983-18) which updated all elements of the program and established new eligibility criteria. Since that time several amendments have been adopted; however, they are all referenced to the original 1976 Resolution (1976-131) and are therefore non-applicable to the current program. The County administration acknowledged the error and explained that there was no procedure to identify resolutions that had been superseded. The Grand Jury was assured in February that the County administration would correct the oversight but as yet the Grand Jury has not been informed about any action on this issue. Analysis of Program Operations . . . AFOC EAROR RATE

F13

There is no external sign marking the building as the offices of the Public Welfare Department, which is a violation of DHHS Code Part 5 Section 4563.

F40

$ 15.00/Hrg $ 15.00/lnv* $ 15.00/Mtg* $ 15.00/Mtg Round Trip NEVADA 0.28/Mi TRAINING Yes ≥ ಷ Exhibit A 딿 FEES ÇΑ $ 10.00/Hrg $ 10,00/Jav $ 10,00/Mig $ 10.00/Mtg One Way SUTTER 0.23/Mi ĕ g 4 49 $ 10,00/Hrg $ 10,00/Inv $ 10.00/Mtg $ 10.00/Mtg One Way OYOYO 0.21/Mi Ύes ಹ 2 $ 13.75/Hrg $ 13.75/Inv $ 13.75/Mtg $ 13.75/Mtg AVERAGE for the new Grand Jury. per month. will allow. What budget $ 0.28/Mi $ 10.00/H/g AU(00'0 $ $ 0.00/Mtg $ 10.00/Mtg One Way Yes*** ** YBUY ٠: Exhibit B BENCH-MARK COUNTIES BUDGET COMPARISON ACTUAL APPROVED POPULA- PER PER COUNTY EXPENDITURES BUDGETS TION CAPITA JUROR 1990-91 1990-91 1991-92 1991-92 ÷ 182,085 $ 0.26 BUTTE $ 36,575 $ 46,483 $2,446 NEVADA $ 62,460 82,950 $0.62 $ 51,765 $2,724 $ 0.36 SUTTER $ 24,858 $ 23,000 64.666 $1,211 : : YOLO $ 13,367 $ 0.10 $ 703 $ 13,350 139,176

Recommendations 11

R1

The Grand Jury suggests that the failure to conduct job performance evaluations in a timely manner directly contributed to the cost overruns. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RECOMMENDATIONS: A section of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of t Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of t Penal Code Section 916, provides in part: "...all problems identified in a final report are accompanied by suggested means for their resolution, including financial, when applicable." 1.00 many product of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control
R2

present system on an unnual basis as per the Board's response to the 1990-91 Grand Jury Final Report." A CONTRACT OF STREET Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R3

Costs for the 14th Street Annex Project were severely underestimated as the county did not avail itself of the services of a professional estimator or architect.
R4

Some members of the Board of Supervisors have stated that they are still unclear about the financial reporting procedure on Capital Improvement Projects although proper records are now being made available from the Department of General Services. CONCLUSIONS:
R5

On election day a voter walked into the Election Official's office asked for and was given an absence ballot, went out to his car, marked and returned the ballot to the clerk. See Section 1014. ateria protesti, esperial traversi de la comunicación de la comunicación de la comunicación de la comunicación
R6

Some persons who returned voted ballots to the elections office were not asked to show identification to prove they were the person who had voted the ballot or authorized to return the ballot by the person who had voted the ballot. See Section 1013. may be ready and a superior of the contract of the contract of CONCLUSIONS: Language Lagrange and a language of the language conclusions and the language conclusions. ayay ya baga gibi andaribi milanbar maga filipida sa asa atau bata bibinta bibinta sa maga mara a The Grand Jury members did not observe any instance where the confidentiality of any absent voter ballot was compromised. However, there was ample opportunity for any person having access to the office where ballots were stored, to learn how any of those ballots were voted and by whom. Members of the Grand Jury are confident that the type of envelopes presently used are adequate. In the interest of cost effectiveness, the procedures for processing absent voter ballots can be revised to ensure the confidentiality of the voted ballots. 57 ... 1992-93 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report . . . . . . . RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Election Official review and if necessary revise existing procedures for processing
R7

Under recent legislation, local bodies may have their actions taken in violation of the 1; open meeting laws declared null and void by a court. Suits may be initiated by interested : : persons within limited time frames...." The publication on ., states in part: " .... Open meeting laws represent the Legislature's determination of how the balance should be struck between public access to the activities of a public body on the one hand and the need for secret candor, debate, and information gathering on the other. As the rest of this pamphlet will indicate, the balance has been struck in Javor of public access.... The purpose of the open meeting laws,... is to require that all aspects of the decision-making process by ... local legislative bodies be conducted in public. These laws have been interpreted to awan that all of the deliberative processes by multi-member bodies, including discussion, debate and the acquisition of information, be open and available for public scrutiny. (Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Suprs. (1968) 263 Cal, App. 2d41; 42 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 61, 63 (1963); 32 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 240 (1958).) These laws only apply to multi-member bodies such as councils, boards, commissions, etc., since, unlike individual decision makers, such bodies are supposed to arrive at collaborative decisions through public
R9

Child Protective Services (CPS) Operation of the above programs normally requires 228 management and clerical positions. Due to current budget constraints the county has eliminated more than 30 positions while the case load continues to grow at a rate of 2 to 3% per year. The total cost of personnel is approximately 8 million annually, therefore, over 30 million is distributed in cash or services to eligible Yuba County residents. In an effort to reduce costs Yuba County initiated a four-day work week (four 10-hour days), which has resulted in a 25% increase to the daily case load. The current caseload is 135 cases per worker for AFDC and Food Stamp, and 280 cases per worker for Medi-cal. The 17 current GR cases must requalify monthly and are counted for under the AFDC caseload. Eligibility for AFDC does not require a permanent address. The case workers, eligibility workers and assistants are now helping one another as needed in order to provide the required services. Current budget reductions have resulted in the following: A. In home services have been reduced by 12%. AFDC funds have been reduced by approximately 10%. B, The Social Services Department averages approximately 13 to 14% employee attrition rate which is reflective of the high job stresses and mobility of the area residents. Historically, employee morale has been a problem which has been addressed through various avenues. The department at large has an average attrition rate of approximately 30 employees per year. Surveys from outside agencies (procedures section item 3.P and 3.S), formation of the House Committee (procedure section item 2), expanded employee training and various types of personnel management procedures have all contributed to minimizing the issue of employee morale while improving the overall efficiency of the department. Compliance with all of the federal, state, and county regulations requires constant monitoring and updating as changes occur. The Yuba County Social Services Department has done an exemplary job in keeping abreast of all changes and maintaining ongoing compliance as shown by the latest State audit in which Yuba Co. and only one other county passed, out of the thirteen counties that were audited. All regulatory information is recorded, existing information updated, and issued to relevant personnel for follow up. Reports and audits from a variety of outside agencies have confirmed the high standards maintained by this department. The latest audit report from the State Department of Social Services Civil Rights revealed two infractions: (1) There is a shortage of bi-lingual staff available to serve the public and there was a lack of forms and literature available in the required languages, and (2) the main building complex did not have an external sign identifying it to be the Offices of the Public Welfare Department, Employee and clients safety is also considered a priority item by the department staff. A minimum of two fire alarm drills are conducted annually and all employees are encouraged to report any safety related issues as soon as they are noticed. 'The last Fire Marshall's inspection was . completed in February of 1992; another inspection has been requested and is being scheduled by the Fire Marshall. During one of the State audits, it was noted that there was no fire alarm in place for 1992-93 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report the hearing impaired. A strobe light type of alarm was immediately ordered but as yet it has not been installed. An examination of the General Relief Program, and the regulations which govern it, revealed that it was established via County Resolution 1976-131 in 1976 and that all rules and regulations which govern its operation, eligibility requirements, fee schedule, etc. are contained therein. In 1983 the County passed a new Resolution (1983-18) which updated all elements of the program and established new eligibility criteria. Since that time several amendments have been adopted; however, they are all referenced to the original 1976 Resolution (1976-131) and are therefore non-applicable to the current program. The County administration acknowledged the error and explained that there was no procedure to identify resolutions that had been superseded. The Grand Jury was assured in February that the County administration would correct the oversight but as yet the Grand Jury has not been informed about any action on this issue. Analysis of Program Operations . . . AFOC EAROR RATE
R11

11. .. Yuba County Board of Supervisors: Finding L. The state of the control of the second state of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the second of the se COMMENTS REQUIRED ON RECOMMENDATIONS: Yuba County Board of Supervisors: Recommendation 1. and the contract of the second of the Survey of Albert 4 of 12 and the standards and the second second . Burger of the part of the control of the control of the second fifther and the property of the control of the first of the second section of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of th general contract to the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contra research of the degree of the content of the property of the engage of that is a death of the pit sagrangi ang agus sa na managan matalan ang kanagan pitang at titong at itong ang titong (Recovered the court of Alberta Architecture) YUBA COUNTY COUNTY BUDGET PROCEDURES COMMENTS REQUIRED ON FINDINGS: Yuba County Board of Supervisors: Findings 1, 2, & 3. COMMENTS REQUIRED ON RECOMMENDATIONS: Yuba County Board of Supervisors: Recommendations 1, 2, & 3. . . . and the second control of the second control of the second control of the second control of the second control of the second control of the second control of the second control of the second control of the second control o 1.8 1.1 73.00 (A_{i,j}) = (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{i,j}) \cdot (A_{ 33.13 医大型性神经性炎网络大腿麻木龙 randon en en presidente de la servició de la federal en ababe del 1992-93 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report COUNTY BUDGET PROCEDURES REASON FOR INVESTIGATION: The 1992-93 Proposed Budget submitted by the County Administrator (CA) for the Board of • • • • • Supervisors' (Board's) consideration and the Final Budget adopted by the Board did not include the estimated expenditures initially submitted by the Court nor did the budget provide sufficient monics to fund Grand Jury activities.
R13

There is no external sign marking the building as the offices of the Public Welfare Department, which is a violation of DHHS Code Part 5 Section 4563.
R40

$ 15.00/Hrg $ 15.00/lnv* $ 15.00/Mtg* $ 15.00/Mtg Round Trip NEVADA 0.28/Mi TRAINING Yes ≥ ಷ Exhibit A 딿 FEES ÇΑ $ 10.00/Hrg $ 10,00/Jav $ 10,00/Mig $ 10.00/Mtg One Way SUTTER 0.23/Mi ĕ g 4 49 $ 10,00/Hrg $ 10,00/Inv $ 10.00/Mtg $ 10.00/Mtg One Way OYOYO 0.21/Mi Ύes ಹ 2 $ 13.75/Hrg $ 13.75/Inv $ 13.75/Mtg $ 13.75/Mtg AVERAGE for the new Grand Jury. per month. will allow. What budget $ 0.28/Mi $ 10.00/H/g AU(00'0 $ $ 0.00/Mtg $ 10.00/Mtg One Way Yes*** ** YBUY ٠: Exhibit B BENCH-MARK COUNTIES BUDGET COMPARISON ACTUAL APPROVED POPULA- PER PER COUNTY EXPENDITURES BUDGETS TION CAPITA JUROR 1990-91 1990-91 1991-92 1991-92 ÷ 182,085 $ 0.26 BUTTE $ 36,575 $ 46,483 $2,446 NEVADA $ 62,460 82,950 $0.62 $ 51,765 $2,724 $ 0.36 SUTTER $ 24,858 $ 23,000 64.666 $1,211 : : YOLO $ 13,367 $ 0.10 $ 703 $ 13,350 139,176