The Honorable John T. Feeney, Presiding Judge Superior Court of California County of Humboldt

Recommendations 6

• R1

  Page 11
  Review, reword or modify the Builder Bill of Rights. Grand Jury Report #2007-LJ-05 Christopher Burgess Who shall respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2007-LJ-05 shall be provided as follows: • No response is required. Report: Following recent Eureka Police Department fatal shootings, the Grand Jury received many requests from private citizens and one public advocacy agency to investigate. The Grand Jury does not investigate or otherwise interfere in any matter under litigation. However, the Grand Jury examined two areas of inquiry that would not conflict with other court processes. The Jury examined the use of lethal and less-than-lethal force by police agencies. That report, 2007-LJ-02, Police Use of Force, is published in this report. The Jury examined the life of Christopher Burgess, from the time he first came to the notice of county agencies up to his death. The questions the Jury asked itself were: • Were the County resources adequate and available? • Is there anything that could have been done in the County’s interaction with Christopher Burgess that might reasonably have been expected to result in a different outcome? In the course of the investigation, the Grand Jury conducted numerous interviews with those familiar with the particulars. The Jury was also granted, by court order, complete access the Burgess’s confidential juvenile records. The Grand Jury found that County resources were aggressively and appropriately made available to the Burgess family. Numerous interventions were made over almost a decade of agency involvement. In the end, there was insufficient family strength to take advantage of what public agencies offered. Hindsight is an unfair critic. After reviewing Burgess’s history, the Grand Jury came to the conclusion that the only course that might have altered the outcome would have been the removal of Christopher from his home at an early age. The Grand Jury found that the public agencies involved with Burgess tried to help, but were unsuccessful. Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-16 Coroners Office Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-16 shall be provided as follows: • The Board of Supervisors and the County Coroner will respond to the Finding and Recommendation. Report: The Grand Jury met with the coroner on December 18, 2006 to view the coroner’s office and facilities. The County Coroner went over his responsibilities and conducted a tour of the facilities. The coroner is an elected official having both law enforcement and civil administration duties. The coroner performs approximately 100 autopsies per year. Generally the coroner determines cause and method of death. Over 1,400 deaths occur in the county every year. About 700 of those cases are referred to the coroner; about 200 cases may require a coroner’s investigation. There is a morgue with facilities to perform autopsies. Autopsies are occasionally contracted to coroners in other counties, to speed the results. The Coroners staff includes three assistant coroners and an office assistant. Temporary help is needed from time to time. Since all autopsies must be performed by a certified pathologist and the current contract pathologist plans to retire soon, the coroner’s office will be unable to perform autopsies. The coroner has instituted a search for another pathologist. Adequate office space is a pressing problem for the coroner. Because of space limitations at least one staff member must work at the end hallway alongside an area where incoming bodies arrive. This is an environmental and safety hazard. In some cases bio-hazard and other environmental hazards cannot be isolated from the deputy’s work space. Further compounding the problem, the workspace in the hallway is so cramped that the deputy coroner has to move to allow others to enter the bathroom. Modification of an available space currently occupied by Mental Health adjacent office could alleviate the problem. The facility has a lock down area for storage of contraband and other evidence. The entire building has a security system. The coroner’s office and staff are on 24 hour call. The coroner’s office contracts for overflow storage of materials and records, mostly from the estate portion of the coroners duties. Estate administration consumes about 25% of office time. At the request of the family of the deceased, or if the deceased has no family to arrange settlement of the estate, the public administrator will provide the necessary services. The fee charged for this service goes to the county general fund. The team toured the facilities including the autopsy room and morgue. The area was clean, neat and well arranged but cramped. We are fortunate to have the coroner’s office housed in the old general hospital facilities which provide a well ventilated and lighted space to perform autopsies and provide secure storage as required. Coroner deputies have had training in their duties as well as police officers service training (POST), including the use of firearms. Periodic update and retraining is required.
• R2

  Page 17
  The Grand Jury recommends that the sheriff’s stated policy to “not hold evidence at the Garberville substation” be enforced. Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-18 Group Homes: Homes of Refuge Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-18 shall be provided as follows: • No response is required. Report: Humboldt County contracts with a private, non-profit organization to provide safe shelter to juveniles referred from the Probation Department and Child Welfare Services. Homes of Refuge is a group home licensed by the state and defined as a facility providing 24-hour care to juveniles in a structured environment. The Homes of Refuge is owned and operated by the Bethel Church on church property. Religious orientation is not a factor in evaluation or acceptance of residents. Placement is not mandatory, as a referred juvenile may not be accepted, based on the needs of the juvenile and the capabilities of the staff to provide effective treatment. Referral to the Homes of Refuge is an option for children with significant emotional or behavioral problems requiring restrictive environments. The goal is behavior modification, development of social skills, and drug and alcohol awareness. Placement is from one to ten months. Capacity is 12 residents in two houses: six boys in one house and six girls in the other. Meals are prepared in the girl’s kitchen for all residents and delivered to the boy’s house. A minimum of eight residents is needed to meet base costs. When occupancy is not at capacity, subsidizes from the church are required. Placement at the Homes of Refuge can be a positive influence for troubled youth, allowing them to develop skills to be a responsible adult. It is providing much needed service to the youth of the county. Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-07 High Rock Conservation Camp #32 Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.5, responses to the Finding and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-07 shall be provided as follows: • No response is required. Report: On September 27, 2006, the Jail Committee of the Grand Jury inspected High Rock Conservation Camp #32, located just south of Redcrest on the Avenue of the Giants. The camp is operated under a joint agency agreement. The California Department of Forestry and Fire is responsible for the physical facility and the equipment located at the camp. The California Department of Corrections is responsible for the inmate personnel and camp security. The camp can accommodate up to 110 inmates. The mission of the camp is to provide crews for fire suppression anywhere in California. During the last fire season, to date of inspection, the camp had provided 1,500 man hours on the fire lines. Secondarily, the camp provides community support services including trail development, after storm clean-up, tree removal, roadside brush removal, and the making of wooden products for state and county facilities. In the three months before the last fire season, the camp provided local communities with an estimated $102,000 in services (calculated at $7.50 per inmate hour). During a review of numerous camp inspection reports by various departments and agencies, the Grand Jury noted that all instances of non-compliance appeared to have been corrected or scheduled for correction. Direct observation during a subsequent tour supported the conclusion of corrective response on the part of camp personnel. Inmate interviews revealed no dissatisfaction with conditions. It is generally seen as a privilege to be assigned to the camp. Any significant misbehavior results in the inmate’s immediate return to the state prison at Susanville. The general feeling among inmates is that they can talk about problems with most of the Correctional Officers, and other supervisory personnel; they are aware of camp grievance procedures available to them. The camp was clean and orderly with only the occasional unmade bed where an inmate had been turned out in a hurry. At the time of the inspection, most inmates were on the fire lines. The living facilities consist of low-walled cubicles within a large, open, well lighted and ventilated room. Each cubicle contains two single cots with lockers and locks. The living areas, restrooms and showers all appeared clean and in order. Recreational facilities appeared adequate and well used. The hobby shop was crowded with projects in various stages of completion. Movies are 18 shown periodically. In the television room, channel selection is up to the inmates, who claim to know what programs were acceptable. In summary, the High Rock Conservation Camp appears to be a well supervised facility, competently operated to the economic and societal benefit of the state and local communities. Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-12 Hoopa Sheriff’s Substation and Holding Facility Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-12 shall be provided as follows: • No response is required. Report: The Grand Jury visited the Hoopa Substation and Holding Facility on November 13, 2006. The Hoopa facility has two holding cells for use by the law enforcement agencies operating in the area. Suspects are held briefly either before release or transport to the Humboldt County Correctional Facility (HCCF) in Eureka. Transportation to Eureka results in the absence of one deputy for the duration of the round trip to Eureka. When a deputy is available in Eureka, he or she will meet the Hoopa deputy half-way to transport the suspect, thus reducing the time the Hoopa deputy is absent from the substation. While this problem was cited in the 2005-2006 Grand Jury report, the Sheriff believes that the transportation problem would be reduced by assigning additional deputies to the area. With reduced staffing at Hoopa, the substation is often closed. The facility does not have adequate janitorial service. It is not staffed on a twenty-four hour, seven-day a week basis. The Sheriff is aware of the deficiencies at the Hoopa substation. The deficiencies will most likely remain until sufficient funding for staff and equipment is available. Grand Jury Report #2007-CD-01 Humboldt Bay Harbor Recreation and Conservation District Executive Summary: In 1970 California State Legislature drafted legislation to create Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District for the regulation and economic development of Humboldt Bay. In their wisdom and foresight, they included promotion and protection of recreation and conservation as statutory requirements of the District’s functions. The reasoning was to preserve the rural uniqueness of Humboldt Bay, its tidelands and estuaries, while promoting economic development of the harbor. This legislation created a check-valve to keep heavy commercial marine shipping/harbor development from dominating or diminishing conservation and recreational activities in Humboldt Bay, as it did in the Ports of Oakland and Long Beach. In 1973 the voters of Humboldt County ratified the founding act. The District is a countywide public agency with specific boundaries of jurisdiction, governed by a board of five elected 19 commissioners. The Harbor District receives statutory authority from the California Harbors & Navigation Code, Appendix 2, which is the District’s enabling legislation (charter). The District has the additional right to pass ordinances and enforce regulations within its boundaries. The agency is funded by a combination of property taxes, grants, permit fees, tideland leases, enterprise funds (rents, leases, etc.), and harbor tariffs. The mission of the Harbor District is “to serve all the people of Humboldt County by promoting harbor use, enhancing recreational opportunities, and protecting bay and tidal environments.” An informative District overview can be found on the District’s website http://www.humboldtbay.org. Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 955.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of the Grand Jury Report #2007-CD-01 shall be as follows: • The Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District shall respond to
• R3

  Page 23
  The District review its business operation in an effort to curtail the loss of public funds. Additionally the District actively and aggressively make every effort to recruit a qualified private 23 operator to lease and run this facility. It is requested and recommended that the results of this review be submitted to the Grand Jury
• R4

  Page 24
  The Board of Commissioners exercise their fiduciary responsibility to the public to insure the charges on a non-bid contract and/or bills are competitive with others for the work, and/or services rendered.
• R5

  Page 24
  The Harbor District aggressively seek to return the properties acquired to a revenue producing status. If the properties cannot be returned to a positive status within a reasonable time (two to three years), the Grand Jury recommends that the District divest itself of these properties, thus enhancing property tax rolls. It is recommended and requested that the Harbor District report progress, or lack thereof, to the Grand Jury on or before the first day of January each year until the properties are either returned to profitability or sold. Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-17 Humboldt County Animal Shelter, McKinleyville Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-17 shall be provided as follows: • No Response is required. Report: The Animal Shelter inspection was conducted on October 25, 2006, by several members of the committee. The new center has a kennel capacity of 54 dogs and 120 cats. The staff of one supervisor, four kennel attendants, four front counter/office and three animal control officers is supplemented by trained volunteers and several supervised Sheriff’s Work Alternate Program (SWAP) members. Besides pick up of stray domestic animals within the county some animals are brought directly to the facility by cities and private citizens. There are approximately 200 calls per month, with the number increasing. The staff checks owner records and secures veterinarian care when required. Transport to medical facilities requires considerable resources and time. Studies are underway to suggest various methods of reducing medical care costs. The sheriff issues licenses, sets fee schedules, tracks offenders and issues citations for animal welfare offenses. The facility, about 90% full at time of inspection, was well maintained and clean. There are rooms for viewing by prospective new owners. The Sheriff’s office, management and staff is commended for a well run, inviting facility, that supports a progressive program of animal welfare. Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-19 Humboldt County Children’s Center Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-19 shall be provided as follows: • No response is required. Report: The Grand Jury inspected the county Children’s Center on February 5, 2007. The Center is a short-term residential shelter, with a capacity for six residents ranging in age from six to seventeen. The program focuses on assessing and then addressing problems that interfere with success at home or in foster home, to assure a successful transition back to the biological family, foster family or group home. The program’s services are designed and monitored by staff from the county offices of Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) and Mental Health. The residents are trained in social and communication skills, anger management, alcohol and drug prevention. The center provides comfortable, home-like surroundings for a structured program designed to bring stability and maturity to the residents. The kitchen area is clean and adequate. There are meeting rooms for individual and family counseling. The staff is capable and dedicated to the welfare of residents and their families. This is a small, yet valuable part of the services provided by the county for juveniles in need of behavior modification, mental health services or a safe, secure shelter. Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-06 Humboldt County Correctional Facility Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-06 shall be provided as follows: • The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 2. Report: Over a three day period in November 2006 several teams inspected the facilities and talked with staff and inmates. The correctional facility is in good condition. The interior of the building is clean, neat and in good order. There was little evidence of gang markings or graffiti on the walls. We were told that there is an ongoing maintenance program including painting and cleanup. There is a continuous need for plant maintenance personnel as occasional maintenance items may be neglected before county building maintenance can resolve the problem. We found that the east building heating-ventilating-air-conditioning (HVAC) vent and variable frequency drive system do not function because the dampers are rusted open. This allows outside air containing carbon monoxide and other contaminants to flow directly into the building. There is a proposal to repair the dampers at a cost of $60,000. A contract for repairs has not been let. On the east side of the jail building, next to a trash compactor, there is an open dumpster that could be a security concern. The dumpster is located alongside the building with no barriers or security fencing. Correctional officers have requested installation of security fencing in the area, but it is not at present being considered. We toured the facility including exercise areas, secure cells, inmate pods, bathrooms, and kitchen area. All areas inspected including cells, bathrooms, study, and recreation areas were in reasonable condition. The temperature was comfortable and the facility well lit. We inspected the security and fire alarm systems including various inspection schedules and reports. Two members of the Jails committee talked with several staff and inmates over several days to determine how the systems and procedures for staff and inmates were functioning. We found meals were sufficient and of good quality, served properly and usually on time. All activities were scheduled and clearly described to allow everyone to comply without problems. Personal belongings, although controlled, were generally safe and very little, if any, pilfering has been reported. Health problems are treated quickly. Correctional officers are involved with health issues and generally seem helpful in resolving problems. Grievance procedures are in place, but seldom used because most problems are resolved by direct action of the officer in charge of the ward. There is no evidence of gang activity. Violent offenders are separated from the general population. Personal problems between inmates are usually resolved by the officer in charge. There is plenty of opportunity for family and friends to visit. The same issues were discussed with male and female inmates. A female inmate indicated, there was a propensity for depression because there is very little to do during the day, except walk around. A lot of time is spent in lockdown or at her bunk sitting quietly. The female inmates would like an opportunity to work outside similar to the men. Both inmates had not received the “Indoctrination Booklet” which is invaluable for first time inmates.
• R6

  Page 4
  A California driver’s license and reliable personal transportation. If all of this sounds overwhelming, Grand Jury service probably is not for you. However, if it does not sound overwhelming, and if you would enjoy an interesting, stimulating experience, consider applying for Grand Jury service. In Humboldt County, citizens volunteer by writing Jury Commissioner, Superior Court Humboldt County Courthouse, 825 Fifth Street Eureka, CA 95501; or by calling 707-269-1270; or online at www.humboldt.ca.us/grandjury. Each spring, announcements are made calling for volunteers. People who have volunteered throughout the year are also notified. After a person volunteers to be in the pool, he is interviewed by the presiding judge. If accepted for the pool, he or she is invited to an orientation program. Soon after orientation, prospective jurors assemble in the judge’s courtroom. As many as nineteen jurors and at least three alternates are chosen at random, less any jurors holding over from the previous jury. The judge then swears in the new jurors and they retire to chambers and begin work. Grand Jurors meet two days a week at the County Court House: on one day from 9:00 to noon and on the next from 9:00 to 3:00. Sometimes committee work requires jurors to meet at other times to inspect a county facility, interview witnesses, or gather information. Grand Jurors are paid a stipend of $20.00 every seven hours they are in session or when conducting outside interviews. Grand Jurors are also paid mileage from home to the courthouse and back and while on Grand Jury business. The Grand Jury takes off the last two weeks of December but otherwise meets every week for the one year term. A Grand Juror must expect and be willing to devote at least 20 hours per week to jury work. Grand Jury service calls for diligence, impartiality, courage, and responsibility. Selection as a Grand Juror is an honor and a unique opportunity to learn about government while providing a valuable service to the community. The Grand Jury seeks to have members from all over the county who have diverse backgrounds, skills, and interests to assist with the work of helping county and local governments perform effectively, efficiently, and ethically. This page intentionally left blank. GRAND JURY REPORTS Grand Jury Report #2007-LJ-01 Accusation against Blue Lake Police Chief Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2007-LJ-01 shall be provided as follows: • No response is required. Report: The Grand Jury received a complaint from a citizen of Blue Lake stating that the Chief of Police of that community had filed a false report about that citizen. As a result of the alleged false report, the citizen lost driving privileges for a period of about three months. The Grand Jury initiated a preliminary investigation. After all significant witnesses had been identified a closed hearing was held. Following this hearing, the Grand Jury handed up an accusation against the Blue Lake Chief of Police for willful misconduct in office. The matter was then referred to the Superior Court for adjudication. Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-01 Arcata Jail and Holding Facility Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2007-JL-01 shall be provided as follows: • No response is required. Report: The Arcata holding facility was inspected on September 25, 2006. The facility is used primarily for interviewing detainees. Those arrested are transported to the Humboldt County Correctional Facility as soon as practical. The holding facility is adequate. A follow up inspection was conducted on October 31, 2006, to review janitorial maintenance of the facility. The facility was found to be sufficiently clean and in good order. Grand Jury Report #2007-AF-02 Board of Supervisors Settlement and Release for Tamara Falor Who shall respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2007-AF-02 shall be provided as follows: • No response is required. Report: As a result of numerous citizen complaints, the Grand Jury undertook an investigation of the departure of County Counsel Tamara Falor. During this investigation the Grand Jury interviewed all five members of the Board of Supervisors (BOS), two members of the present county counsel’s office, and three other county officials. The Jury also reviewed numerous documents relating to this matter. As a result of this investigation, these facts came to light: • Tamara Falor was employed as an attorney, assistant county counsel, and then county counsel over a period of twenty years. • She was appointed to the post of county counsel effective 7/16/95 for a four-year term that was twice renewed. • If she had not resigned her position on February 13, 2007, her current term would have expired on July 15, 2007, approximately five months later. • Rather than let her term expire, the BOS awarded her $289,000 to settle a nonspecific claim she filed against Humboldt County. • The BOS voted 3-2 in favor of the $289,000 award. This settlement was decided upon secretly and quickly. • There was considerable written evidence and oral testimony to the effect that Ms. Falor’s job performance had been less than satisfactory for several years. • Written performance evaluations for county department heads are not being conducted on a regular and timely basis. Even though the Grand Jury operates in secret, no supervisor or anyone else with detailed knowledge of this incident would reveal the exact reason Ms. Falor was awarded $289,000. Consequently, the Jury was unable to answer these very important questions: • If Ms. Falor’s performance was unsatisfactory, why was she not discharged for cause? • Could the BOS have put her on paid leave at $10,240 monthly and let her term expire on July 15 and not renew? This would have resulted in a payout of approximately $51,000, not $289,000, a savings to the county of $238,000. • Why did the BOS agree so rapidly to the settlement demand? • Would the performance of the county counsel been improved if a thorough job evaluation had been performed? Because of time constraints, this Jury was unable to pursue this matter to conclusion. The Jury will ask the presiding judge to turn all records and evidence over to the 2007-2008 Jury which could petition the court to make the confidential BOS testimony available to the Jury. Grand Jury Report #2007-CD-02 Bond Measures S and T Executive Summary: The 2005-2006 Grand Jury began an investigation regarding the Eureka City Schools Bond Measures S and T. The investigative work was not completed by the end of the 2005-2006 Grand Jury term and was extended, by the presiding judge, into the 2006-2007 session. Overall, it appears the Eureka Unified Schools District Board of Directors and Administration efforts to provide a safe and efficient learning experience for Eureka children has been reasonably effective given the various constraints and demographics changes. Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2007-CD-02 shall be provided as follows: • No response is required. Report: On March 5, 2002, Eureka voters passed two school improvement bonds. Measure S for the high and middle schools and Measure T for elementary schools. Combined, the bonds provided approximately $43 million to modernize and make safe the classrooms and facilities of the Eureka Unified School District (EUSD) with an anticipated $16.5 million in state matching grants (proposition 55). Primarily the bonds were to address safety, class size reduction and updated information technology. The EUSD Board and Administration conducted extensive planning and discussion on the proposed improvements. At that time, in 2002, decisions were directed toward emphasizing the most important issues to assure bond passage. Not all the facility issues could be considered and thus priorities were developed. See exhibit A attachment. The bonds required: