Trinity County Grand Jury
• 2011-2012
• Agency Response
Response to:
2011 to 2012 Grand Jury Final Report
Response Problems CAO Response tor They year of allow up*
⚠️ 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.
Findings and Recommendations 3 findings
F1
"As of the writing of this report, two (2) responses were received 90 days past their due date, two (2) were received 280 days past their due date and five (5) responses have not been received at all (45%), which is non-compliant with the Penal Code Section previously cited." The vagueness of this finding prohibits County Administration from Response: providing a response that is in compliance with Penal Code Section 933.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
"Identify and correct the reasons the reports are not being responded to in a timely manner by the Penal Code mandated time frame." Response: Will be implemented. Once given the specifics of the late and/or missing reports, County Administration will identify and correct the problem.
F2
Copies of report responses are not being provided to the Grand Jury as required in the County's Policy Statement 3-90(P) per Item Three(3). Response: I agree with this finding. Until having the Grand Jury bring this item to my attention, I was unaware such a policy existed. It should be noted that the instruction letter from the Court Secretary indicates: "Your original response should be addressed to James P. Woodward, Presiding Judge of Trinity Superior Court with a copy to the County Administrative Office 'Clerk of the Board'". There is no mention of providing additional copies to the Grand Jury. Apparently, the Court was also unaware of this Policy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
"Provide copies of the response to the Grand Jury as set forth in the identified Item Three (3) of the County Policy Statement." Response: Will be implemented commencing with responses to the 2011-12 Grand Jury Reports to the extent that County Administration is aware of responses being submitted.
F3
"An interconnected tracking system that meets the needs of the primary entities is non-existent. This adds to the County's inability to comply with the law as stated in the Penal Code Section 933(c)." Response: I agree in part and disagree in part. There is no interconnected tracking system. Such a tracking system could assist in providing reminders when a particular response is due and from whom, however the system is only as good as the data that is input into the system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
"The Court Services, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, and the CAO, working in conjunction should create a (sic) interconnected tracking system that will facilitate the time frame requirements of the law." Response: Requires further analysis prior to implementation. Prior to creating such a system, it should be clear who is responsible for the entry of data, tracking of due dates, and follow up with non-conforming agencies. Thank you for the opportunity to address these findings and recommendations.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.