📋

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.

Placer County Grand Jury • 2014-2015

Placer County Grand Jury 2014-2015 Final Report • The average stay for detainees varies from days to weeks. However,

Published: June 26, 2015 135 pages Consolidated Report

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.

Findings 21 findings

The 2x2 meetings were held to disseminate information regarding the RJUHSD conditions of approval of the lunch contract in advance of the EUSD Board meeting.

EUSD understood that there would be no contract if there were any dissenting Board votes or any negative comments made at the EUSD public board meeting at which the EUSD-RJUHSD school lunch contract was considered.

The presence of a common Board member at all 2x2 briefing meetings between EUSD staff and one other Board member is a violation of the serial meeting provisions of the Brown Act. Conclusion Each informational meeting contained only two members of the five-member board. Therefore, there was no meeting as defined in Government Code § 54952.2(a). In other words, there was no majority. The Grand Jury finds that having a common Board member in all of the informational meetings is the type of serial meeting Government Code § 54952.2(b) addresses.

There is disagreement among some fire and water districts as to who actually owns the fire hydrants in some jurisdictions. Some water district personnel interviewed indicated that the hydrants are owned by the fire department, while some fire department personnel indicated that hydrants are owned by the water agencies.

Improperly functioning fire hydrants are a threat to public health and safety.

Despite the lack of standardization, the Grand Jury did not identify any area in which hydrants are not kept operational.

The local water and fire districts seem to work well together to see that hydrants are maintained.

Some water and fire districts serving a given geographic area have entered into formal written agreements.

In some areas, there are less formal agreements between the fire and water agencies’ respective management teams.

F10

Generally, the fire district does inspection and light maintenance and the water districts do the heavier maintenance and repairs. Staff seemed to think that that arrangement makes sense in that it takes advantage of the skills of each agency’s employees.

F11

The Grand Jury did not find any specific inadequacies in the operation of fire hydrants.

F12

All entities have adequate policies on contracting and bidding. Management and Administration of Policies Facts • Training policies and practices, both initial and recurring, vary. • All operational policies apply to elected officials as well as employees. • Not all policies were current and in writing. • Not all policies were organized and indexed. • Only Placer County has internal auditors on staff. • Roseville does not have an internal auditor but is considering adding this role. • Colfax has a policy and a complaint form for whistleblower reports. All others rely on Federal Law protecting whistleblowers but do not have a policy or form for written whistleblower reports. Findings

F13

Policies are not being updated in a timely fashion.

F14

Some, but not all, policies identified the original date of issue or date of review.

F15

Issuance dates, recurring reviews and approvals of operational policies were only completed by Placer County, Colfax and Roseville. Other entities revised policies on an “as necessary” basis.

F16

Complete standardized numbered policies were only available from Placer County and Roseville.

F17

Initial training on operational policies is completed for newly elected officials and new employees in a variety of ways.

F18

Recurring training policies can be improved.

F19

Management of technology innovations requires an inter-disciplinary approach.

F20

On-going internal auditing serves to monitor internal controls and minimize non- compliance and abuse. The addition of internal auditors would be valuable for the larger cities.

F21

Providing forms for employees to submit whistleblower reports in writing would be of value. Conclusions The Grand Jury’s review of the operating policies of the county and cities indicates they are appropriate. There are actions that the Grand Jury would consider best practices that should be instilled. Current policies apply equally to elected officials, appointed management and employees. Significant variability exists in the level of detail included in the operating policies of the county and various cities. As the size of the government entity and number of employees increases, more reliance is placed on managerial control.

Recommendations 14

R1

Informational 2x2 meetings between EUSD staff and Board of Trustee members should never include a common Board member present at all the meetings.
R2

The EUSD staff should arrange an annual training seminar on the Brown Act provisions for all Board members and executive staff.
R3

The CSEC develop human trafficking awareness programs to educate parents and children, with a special emphasis on foster parents and foster children.
R4

Cell phone policies be documented.
R5

Computer and internet policies be documented.
R6

Technology policies include computer, tablet, internet and email use.
R7

Consideration should be given to the development of a Technology Resources Policy including a schedule of reviews and employee acknowledgements.
R8

Consideration be given to procuring cyber security insurance.
R9

Require that employees on a recurring schedule verify that they understand and acknowledge, by signature, operational policies and any changes thereto.
R10

A whistleblower policy and reporting form be developed.
R11

Consideration be given to adding one or more internal auditors to staff. Table 1 – Recommendations Recommendations
R12

The Grand Jury recommends that the county make the following improvements: Assign responsibility for the cracks in the concrete flooring and repair them. South Placer Minimum Security Facility Recommendations:
R13

The Grand Jury recommends that the county make the following improvements: Provide more opportunity for work hours for the female inmates. Auburn Main Jail Recommendations:
R14

The Grand Jury recommends that the county make the following improvements: Repair the numerous, on-going ceiling water leak problems inside the facility. Request for Responses: Recommendations Requiring Response Response Due Date Mr. Edward Bonner R1-R14 August 24, 2015 Placer County Sheriff-Coroner-Marshal 2929 Richardson Drive Auburn, CA. 95603 Mr. David Boesch R1-R14 August 24, 2015 Placer County CEO 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Copies sent to: Placer County Board of Supervisors 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 PLACER COUNTY GRAND JURY Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility Annual Inspection Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility Annual Inspection