📋
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.

Mendocino County Grand Jury • 1998-1999

Citizen Complaint of the Environmental Health Division

6 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 7 findings

F1 Page 18
The EHD lacks written policies and procedures or guidelines for resolving citizen complaints. Without guidelines, each EHS interprets state and local statutes and department policy. This results in infrequent, inadequate, and unlawful conduct regarding complaint resolution in citizen complaints.
F2 Page 18
The EHD lacks written policies and procedures or guidelines for ongoing review of the citizen complaint process, thus perpetuating and exacerbating the current poor practices.
F3 Page 19
EHD states that its policy requires that the complainant conduct a follow up inspection within ten days and report back. If the complainant does not report in ten days the complaint is considered closed. Many of the specialists interviewed were unaware of or not clear regarding this "policy".
F4 Page 19
The Grand Jury's extensive review of complaint records revealed that of EHD does not adequately communicate with complainants.
F5 Page 19
Management review of complaints is cursory and inadequate. Complaints are left unresolved without adequate management attention being given to solve the problems satisfactorily. For example: A complaint was filed in 1988 regarding open sewage standing in and/or flowing through neighborhood front and back yards. It took the EHD approximately four years to respond and then only after repeated complaints by the citizens living in the neighborhood. As of April 1, 1999 the EHD has failed to mitigate this health hazard. The PHD made the following determinations on April 19, 1993 regarding this complaint: a. "At that time I put dye in your toilet and determined that there was evidence that the ponding in your back yard contained sewage." b. "The discharge of sewage to the surface of the ground is a threat to the health of visitors and neighbors." c. "You are directed to take such action as necessary to discontinue the practice." d. "The situation is worsened by the moderately heavy fly population. The flies can pick up the sewage on their bodies and transport to the foods of persons in the area" e. "I have scheduled this for review on 31 May, 1993. At that time you should have made progress in correcting this situation." The review on May 31, 1993 was not conducted and no further action was taken by the EHD until 1996. In April 1996, the complainants further complained and then again in December 1996. After the December complaint the Supervising EHS requested a report , from the EHS, on the status of the complaint. That request was not complied with, the Supervising EHS did not follow up. In January 1997, the following determination was made regarding the complaint. a. "After inspection of the septic system at referenced property it was determined by this department that the system is not working properly, allowing sewage to back up into the residence." b. "This constitutes a risk to health of the residents when this occurs." In October 1998 the EHD responded to the complainants, but only after an investigation was begun by the Grand Jury. In its response the division stated "However, the Division of Environmental Health will not take legal action to improve drainage because we have no legal recourse." In addition it was recommended to the neighborhood that "Children and adults should be advised to not enter or play in the ponded water...". On May 12, 1999, the Grand Jury requested a written response from the EHD to explain its failure to act, on this complaint, using enforcement authority under Penal Code Sections 370, 372, and 373a. On May 20, 1999, the EHD issued a Notice of Violation to the offending property owner citing Penal Code Sections 370, 372, and 373a as its legal authority. Testimony supports the fact that EHD failed to act because doing so may cause a hardship on the offending property owner. As a further example of inadequate complaint review, a complaint was filed in 1979 regarding sewage being discharged on the ground at a multi-family complex. A review of this complaint by the Grand Jury revealed that the complaint is still unresolved and that the engineering consulting firm engaged by the owner to design a septic system made misleading statements to both the EHD and the Community Housing Development Commission in an apparent attempt to gain favorable determinations by these two regulating agencies. A report stating the true condition of the septic system was, however, provided by the consultants to the property owner and the EHD. On May 14, 1999, the EHD conducted an inspection of the septic system and noted that repairs were being undertaken. The report failed to note that the required County permits had not been obtained for these repairs. The lack of policies and guidelines directly contributes to the inability of the EHD to correct this situation.
F6 Page 20
California Penal Code Section 370 provides the authority for the EHD to abate a public nuisance. Staff testified that they were unaware of their authority to abate public nuisances. Penal Code Section 372 states that "...anyone who willfully omits to perform any legal duty relating to the removal of a public nuisance, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
F7 Page 20
The EHD fails to complete and/or resolve 25% of citizen complaints. The EHD claims 16% are uncompleted but is unable to substantiate this claim. Whichever figure is accepted, 25% or 16%, that is unacceptable performance by any reasonable community standard. 8, The Public Resources Council has submitted recommendations regarding compliant response to department managers and the Board of Supervisors. These have not been implemented.

Recommendations 7