City of Ukiah Police Department The Ukiah Police Department (upd) is the law enforcement agency serving the city

R90-93

% of the other counties surveyed (testimony revealed the Board of Supervisors {BOS} are considering the Slavin Report proposals to improve salaries). k. 18.3% thought MCDSS Human Resources Division was helpful in resolving personnel matters. l. 47.5% thought their training was sufficient. A review of documentation and testimony from several former and current employees from the Fort Bragg FARs units, including management personnel resulted in the findings listed below: Response (Social Services): Agree, with clarification. This first finding is a selective listing of information from a management audit conducted in late 1998. 66 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with clarification. This finding represents a selective listing of information from a management audit conducted in late 1998. Since that time, many of the recommendations contained in that report have been implemented. Findings 2. Testimony supports most of the Audit findings. The MCDSS has developed a Multi-Faceted Action Plan, which has been approved by the BOS, to address the issues raised by the Audit. Response (Social Services): The Board agrees that a Multi-Faceted Action Plan has been approved and implemented, but is unable to confirm or deny the testimony referred to by the Grand Jury. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees that a Multi-Faceted Action Plan has been approved and implemented, but is unable to confirm or deny the testimony referred to by the Grand Jury. 3. The MCDSS management did not accept the finding by the Audit that favoritism played a part in promotions of employees. Staff reported occasions of favoritism practiced in promotions toward certain staff members, plus subtle favoritism or discrimination against men. MCDSS denies that favoritism is practiced in the MCDSS, stating this is only a “... perception of favoritism held by some people.” Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Audit did not make a finding that favoritism played a part in promotions of employees. The Audit stated: “Although recruitment for supervisory positions in the Department follows general Merit Service Systems guidelines, the perception exists among some staff that employees are promoted to supervisory positions based upon favoritism and loyalty to management rather than merit.” The Department’s response to the Audit was: “It is accepted that the perception of favoritism is held by some people; the reality is that promotions follow personnel guidelines and are based on a determination of who appears to be able to best perform the job.” The Department follows standard government personnel practices in its adherence to Civil Service and Merit System regulations in the recruitment, testing, and selection of employees. There is no discrimination against men. The individual filing the complaint with the Grand Jury also filed an EEOC complaint regarding not getting a promotion. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing conducted an investigation and found no evidence of discrimination by the Department. This outcome was communicated to the Grand Jury prior to the completion of their report. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 67 An ability to work well with (not loyalty to) one’s supervisor, i.e. management, is one factor, among several, in selecting a new supervisor. The Department provided staff with additional information on criteria for promotion in response to the Audit, and will continue to provide clarification of the values placed on the interpersonal skills and job experience needed for supervisor positions. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board does not agree with this finding. The Audit, on , refers to a “perception of favoritism” which exists among “some employees”. Recommendation The Grand Jury maintains that even if it is only a perception, it is indicative of an underlying mistrust of MCDSS management. Therefore, MCDSS should make it clear to all managers, supervisors and employees that, by actions and deeds, favoritism of any kind will not be tolerated and all allegations of favoritism will be independently investigated. Response (Social Services): Agree. The Department is very concerned about perceptions, especially if, they are not in line with actual practice. We are making it clear that everyone in the Department is to understand and adhere to fair and legal personnel practices and that even the appearance of favoritism is to be avoided. We are identifying the parts of the personnel process that may not be clear so that we can provide more education in the next 6 months. All allegations of favoritism have been and continue to be investigated. Depending on the level of the complaint, options include explanation and/or investigation by Staff Resources, by Merit System Services, by County Human Resources, or by the State Department Fair Employment and Housing. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with the recommendation and share the Grand Jury’s concern about employee perceptions. The Department follows standard government personnel practices in its adherence to Civil Service and Merit System regulations in the recruitment, testing, and selection of employees. It should be noted that the individual filing the complaint with the Grand Jury also filed an EEOC complaint regarding not getting a promotion. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing conducted an investigation and found no evidence of discrimination by the Department. This outcome was communicated to the Grand Jury prior to the completion of their report. 68 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Time Frame for Implementation: Training on personnel process to be implemented January-December 2001. Findings 4. The Audit found “the Department did not systematically collect or track the key human resource measures such as vacancy and turnover rates or measures of changes in employee morale.” The MCDSS response was that they had collected vacancy and turnover data, through employee surveys in 1992, 1995, and 1998. Response (Social Services): Agree, with clarification. The Department’s actual response to the Audit finding was: “The Department has collected vacancy and turnover data on a periodic basis. The Department has conducted employee surveys in 1992, 1995, and 1998.” The Department has been collecting vacancy and turnover data on an ongoing basis for the past two years. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with clarification. Employee surveys were conducted as a method to measure employee morale in the three years listed. The Department has been collecting vacancy and turnover data on an ongoing basis for the last two years. 5. Case load assignments were not fairly distributed in the past, but have improved in the last year after new procedures were instituted. Counter to MCDSS Case Load Assignment Guidelines, testimony revealed that complexity is still not always considered. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Department has not been informed by staff about any concerns with the policy or the implementation of the Case Load Assignment Guidelines. Follow-up has not identified any concerns among the staff presently working here. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board can not agree or disagree since it did not receive information about the specific testimony. The Department reports that it has not received any concerns from employees regarding the Case Load Assignment guidelines. Recommendation MCDSS should include case complexity in all case load assignments. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 69 Response (Social Services): Agree. The Case Load Assignment Guidelines already address case complexity. In addition, the Department is adding a section on how to appeal a case load assignment, so staff are encouraged to bring any concerns to their supervisor. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree that the Case Load Assignment Guidelines include consideration of case complexity. The Department is adding an appeal process to this guideline to offer another avenue for concerned employees. Time Frame for Implementation: Revision of caseload assignment guidelines to be completed by February 2001. Finding 6. The existing Merit System used for hiring and promotion is based on test scores which allows management the choice of selecting one of the top five qualified applicants, which creates the opportunity for favoritism. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Merit System testing and selection process is identical to that used in every department in Mendocino County, as well as in most counties in California. The testing is focused on experience, skills, and knowledge. The purpose of testing and ranking applicants is to ensure that selection is made from among the most qualified, as determined by an independent panel. It is standard government hiring practice to conduct a testing process, either oral or written or both, which yields a ranked list of qualified candidates, from which the hiring authority may select from the top five. The selection process always involves making a choice of one person instead of others. That choice cannot be made based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, age, or disability, but it is made based on job skills, work experience, temperament and demeanor, past work performance, people and relationship skills, program knowledge, and fit with the program and people needs of the particular job. Favoritism is the selection of an individual based on a personal relationship with the decision-maker, rather than on job- related factors. While favoritism is not illegal in the way that discrimination is, the Department’s policy is that it is never advisable to select a person for any reason other than the expectation that s/he could do the best job. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department do not agree with this finding. Reference is made to Department response. 70 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Recommendation If the Merit System procedure is continued, final selection should be made by independent evaluators in the County. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. As stated above, the Merit System procedure is identical to the Civil Service procedure used in all other County departments. Independent evaluation occurs as part of the testing process, and explicitly does not include people who will be in the line of supervision for the position being filled. Final selection is made by department heads who are designated by the County as the appointing authority for their respective departments. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department do not agree. As stated above, the Merit System selection procedure mirrors the County’s Civil Service procedure and is the standard practice in governmental agencies. Time Frame for Implementation: Not applicable. Findings 7. Response to many problems by management is frequently ineffective and many employees feel management pays “lip service” only. Employees think many problems are not dealt with by management, or too much time passes before being addressed. Management views this differently, asserting that changes must be made slowly and carefully to avoid making mistakes. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. Opinions and perceptions are being stated here as fact. It is not clear what responses to which problems are considered ineffective. Some problems are beyond the authority of Department management. Many solutions are effective, and forgotten. Some problems are lower priority due to resource limitations and are not dealt with. Some solutions take longer than anyone would like because of the complexity of the programs we administer and competing demands. Not all changes must be made slowly, but most must be done carefully as they have an impact on a lot of clients and people in crisis. Maintaining operations serving thousands of people countywide each month is challenging for all. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board can neither agree nor disagree with this finding, as there is not enough information. It appears that this finding may be based on the opinion and perception of some employee(s). 8. On at least one occasion, an employee’s evaluation forwarded to MCDSS Human Resources was not the same evaluation shown to the employee. It 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 71 was later changed to a third version after the employee complained to various levels of management. A study of the evaluation indicated the performance criteria marked as sub-standard by the supervisor, and approved by the next level of management, seemed to contradict the other areas which were marked “Standard” (average). Indications were there was some form of “reprisal” involved. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. In the situation referred to, the employee’s supervisor forwarded an earlier unsigned draft of the evaluation to the Department’s Staff Resources Division, instead of the final copy which had been discussed with and signed by the staff person. When the mistake was discovered, the wrong version was discarded and the correct copy was filed. The situation was explained to the employee, with an apology for the mix-up. The Department does not agree that any form of reprisal was involved. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this finding. Reference is made to Department response. 9. MCDSS policies and procedures are not consistently followed by management and supervisors. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. The Department is striving for consistency and is working on mechanisms for monitoring compliance with external and internal policies and procedures at all levels. There are occasions when staff, supervisors, and managers make mistakes. These do not occur on a regular basis, and every attempt is made to remedy errors and discrepancies as they are found and to prevent their reoccurrence. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department agree in part as referenced in the Department’s response. Recommendation All managers and supervisors should clearly demonstrate their ability and willingness to address existing problems between staff and management. Lack of this commitment could raise serious questions concerning an individual’s ability to effectively carry out the responsibilities of management. Response (Social Services): Agree fully. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this recommendation. Time Frame for Implementation: Training for mangers and supervisors to be implemented January-December 2001. 72 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Findings 10. Managers and supervisors are not trained to deal with many employee problems. As a result of the Audit, the MCDSS developed a Multi-Faceted Action Plan, to have managers and supervisors receive training in staff support, communication, involvement with staff and leadership to try and solve these serious problems. Results are not available as to the effectiveness of this initiative, which began in the fall of 1999. Response (Social Services): Do not agree in part/agree in part. This finding implies that all managers and supervisors are not trained and are ineffective at dealing with employee problems. The County and the Department provide training to managers and supervisors every year. Even in Fort Bragg, there have been times when employee problems were handled well. The Multi-Faceted Action Plan, or MAP, addresses a total of eight elements, of which manager and supervisor training is a key, but not sole, objective. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department both agree and disagree with this finding. The Department provides training to managers and supervisors and the Board is following this as part of the Department’s Multi-Faceted Action Plan. The Grand Jury does not appear to have analyzed the many employee problems which were handled well. 11. Testimony shows that confidentiality concerning both clients and staff has been treated carelessly by some staff, supervisors, and trainers. Considering that Fort Bragg is a relatively small town, the seriousness of this problem is accentuated. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. The Department does not know the particular testimony received, but is aware of a few incidents involving breaches of confidentiality. These incidents were investigated and appropriate actions were taken. Staff at all levels are aware of and trained on the grave importance of confidentiality. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board is unable to either agree or disagree with this finding since it has not received the testimony. However, the Department acknowledges that the few incidents involving breech of confidentiality have been investigated and appropriate action taken. Training on confidentiality laws is mandatory for all employees. 12. Testimony showed that “inadequate management, favoritism, burnout, and lack of recognition for achievement” were more important than low pay in creating frustration and job dissatisfaction. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 73 Response (Social Services): Agree in part. Perceptions of those factors, as well as the possible existence of those factors, can be elements in frustration and job dissatisfaction. However, low pay has a significant negative impact across the board on the levels of skill and experience that the Department is able to hire and to retain, in addition to contributing to individual job dissatisfaction. The Department has actively advocated for increased pay for staff. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board is unable to either agree or disagree with this finding since it has not received the testimony. The Action Plan approved by the Board and the pay raises going into effect in November 2000 should help address the perceptions listed above. 13. Testimony has shown that there have been problems concerning office politics, favoritism, confidentiality, and unprofessionalism in the Fort Bragg office for many years. Response (Social Services): Do not agree in part. The issues that led to this report occurred over two years ago. Though they remain issues for some individuals who were directly involved, they are not of concern to other staff who were not directly involved, or who have been hired more recently. As a group, the Fort Bragg EFAS staff are very committed to client service, have been successful in meeting and maintaining mandated time frames, and came together to present a well-received open house to the community in October 1999. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board is unable to either agree or disagree with this finding since it has not received the testimony. However, the incidents referred to in this finding are over two years old. The Department reports that the Fort Bragg EFAS staff are very committed to client service and have been successful in meeting and maintaining mandated time frames. Recommendations 1. MCDSS should ensure that managers and supervisors of all levels receive training and counseling in the areas of favoritism, confidentiality of personnel and clients, leadership techniques, avoiding burnout, and recognizing achievements. The existing training courses in the County Training Institute are mostly eight-hour sessions and there is doubt that one session will have a lasting effect. This training should be mandatory and should include mandatory periodic refresher courses. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. Training is important. Just as important, however, is monitoring follow-through on an ongoing 74 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report basis, dealing with problems as they arise, and holding managers and supervisors accountable in their areas of responsibility. Response (Board of Supervisors): Agree in part. The Board has been both philosophically and fiscally supportive of continuous employee training. The Board further agrees with the Department that “holding managers and supervisors accountable in their areas of responsibility” is also a critical factor. Time Frame for Implementation: Training and follow-up for supervisors and managers to be implemented January-December 2001. 2. The Grand Jury recommends that the MCDSS continues to take the Multi- faceted Action Plan of August 17, 1999 seriously, maintaining the letter and the spirit of the Plan. Response (Social Services): Agree in the intent and the actuality. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this recommendation. Time Frame for Implementation: The MAP is being progressively implemented from September 1999 – December 2001. 3. Employee surveys should be conducted with no names, or identification of employees, to ensure that there is no animosity or reprisal, directed toward individuals. Response (Social Services): Agree. All employee surveys in the Department have been and will be conducted with complete anonymity. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this recommendation and note that all employee surveys have been and will continue to be conducted with complete anonymity. Time Frame for Implementation: Anonymity in employee surveys was implemented in 1992 and will be continued. Finding 14. Many employees stated that they do not feel free to speak up about issues without suffering reprisals. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Department does not know the number that constitutes “many employees” and does not 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 75 know if the employees cited evidence on which they based their feelings. It is the Department’s policy to maintain open, honest, direct and respectful communication at all levels of discourse. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board was not provided with enough information by the Grand Jury to either agree or disagree with this. It is unknown how many employees were individually interviewed, how much was based on hearsay or perception, and what constitutes “many”. Recommendation MCDSS should implement an effective, realistic, nonself-serving evaluation of supervisors and managers, to include employee morale issues and concerns. In order to prevent reprisals, this should include a means of determining employee morale without identifying individual employees by their questionnaire. Response (Social Services): Agree. MCDSS has committed in the Multi-faceted Action Plan to the development of some sort of multi- level evaluation of supervisors and managers. The concern about reprisals actually goes both ways. Supervisees and their supervisors are leery of the opportunity for retaliation in either direction. A staff advisory group is working on the issue of evaluations of line staff, as well as of supervisors and managers. Ultimately, open, honest, direct, respectful and appropriate communication in all directions on an ongoing basis is the best means of providing supervision and support, addressing concerns, and preventing problems. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation and reminds the Grand Jury that the Management Audit was conducted by an outside consultant and that all employee surveys have been conducted anonymously. Further, the Multi-faceted Action Plan commits to developing a multi-level evaluation of supervisors and managers, and a staff advisory group is working on the issue of evaluation for all levels of staff. Time Frame for Implementation: Revision of supervisor and manager evaluation process to be implemented by December 2001. Finding 15. Training is not always sufficient, due to the ineffectiveness of some trainers and lack of proper supervision. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The County and the Department provide a great deal of training on a wide variety of topics. 76 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report It is unclear what specific training sessions this statement refers to. Training is evaluated after it is given and ineffective presenters or topics are not repeated. Response (Board of Supervisors): Do not agree. The Department and the County use recognized training professionals and all classes are evaluated by the participants for effectiveness. Recommendation Management should ensure that trainers are competent, qualified, and properly supervised. Response (Social Services): Agree. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees. Time Frame for Implementation: Review of trainers to be implemented on an ongoing basis. Finding 16. The FARs are entry level positions for MCDSS. It is apparent that not all new hires come to the job adequately prepared for the workplace. Job expectations often are neither explained to nor understood by new employees. Response (Social Services): Agree in part/do not agree in part. FAR positions do require experience in providing basic public service, clerical or accounting work. They are filled many times by external applicants. Not all new hires are adequately prepared for this workplace by their previous jobs. A job specification is provided to all applicants. A complete job description is given to new employees. FARs are oriented and trained to the job of eligibility determination in groups in a classroom setting for 2-3 months, and then for 6-9 months is a training transition unit. Job expectations are thoroughly explained. It is possible that expectations may not be truly understood by new employees until they are able to experience the workload directly. It is very detail-oriented, regimented, regulated, computer-based, people- interactive work that is challenging to master. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department both agree and disagree in part with this finding as referenced in the Department’s response. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 77 Recommendation Shortly after being hired, new employees should receive instruction in job expectations including work ethics, teamwork, mutual respect, and recognition of the problems and concerns of MCDSS. In addition, existing employees should receive regular refresher training. Response (Social Services): Agree. The FAR Training Program curriculum currently includes all of the above. Refresher training on a variety of topics is provided on an ongoing basis. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this recommendation and note that the FAR Training Program curriculum includes all of the above. Refresher training on a variety of topics is also provided on an on-going basis. Time Frame for Implementation: Revised and expanded new employee orientation to be implemented by July 2001. Refresher training for existing employees to be implemented by December 2001. Finding 17. Managers and supervisors spend too much time at meetings out of the office. Response (Social Services): Do not agree in part. The basis for this statement is unclear. The Department strives to limit the number of meetings for managers and supervisors, while supporting teamwork, group decision-making, and information-sharing. Back-up coverage is arranged when off-site meetings or training sessions are necessary. Response (Board of Supervisors): Do not agree with this finding as the basis is unclear. Recommendation Fewer meetings for supervisors would enable them to spend more time on-site. Use of teleconferencing to save time should be explored. Response (Social Services): Agree. This fiscal year, the Department was allowed to budget for complete video-conferencing stations to link our three main offices to allow for long distance participation. We expect that this will be of great assistance to staff in Fort Bragg. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with this recommendation. It should be noted that the Board approved the Department’s request for complete video-conferencing stations to link their three main offices in Ukiah, Willits, and Ft. Bragg. 78 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Time Frame for Implementation: Video-conferencing stations to be implemented by July 2001. Findings 18. A review of the Turnover Data from July 1,1995 through March 31,1999 (pre- Audit) provides the number of “Voluntary Resignations” but states no reasons for leaving. Consequently, even if there was a desire to correct this serious problem, management had no idea what specifically was creating the high turnover. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. March 31, 1999 is post- audit. The turnover data provided does include a count of promotions, which are a large part of the turnover, and separately identifies retirements, as well as involuntary terminations. The reasons for voluntary resignations are identified through letters of resignation and exit interviews and, although they were not on the particular chart that was reviewed, they are known to management. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department do not agree with this finding. Reference is made to the Department’s response. 19. In January 1999, MCDSS began conducting exit interviews. However, the summary report of these interviews would be improved if the number of respondents were shown after each stated reason for leaving. Furthermore, the MCDSS response to the BOS stated that exit interviews would be handled by a “Human Resources Manager or Training Specialist,” which raises the question as to who would be the most objective interviewer. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. The Department conducts exit interviews. The format is currently being reviewed. It is important to maintain confidentiality. Interviewing is done by staff in the Staff Resources Division, who are not part of any of the other divisions. The questions have been determined in advance. The interviewer simply documents the responses in the person’s own words, so the interviewer’s objectivity is not at issue. Response (Board of Supervisors): Agree in part. Exit interviews consist of pre-determined questions that are asked by human resources staff within the Department. The responses are documented in the employee’s own words so the interviewer’s objectivity is not an issue. Recommendation The Grand Jury strongly recommends that departing employees continue to be given exit interviews. These interviews should be conducted by the County Human Resources Department instead of the MCDSS internal Human 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 79 Resources Unit. This would give the employees a chance to give their reasons for leaving without feeling intimidated thereby providing valid information. The reasons should be identified for each employee. The employee's name should be withheld. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. The Department will continue to conduct exit interviews. The format will be revised to identify a reason for leaving for every employee who leaves, without any names attached. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees in part with this recommendation and will ask the new Human Resources Director to analyze and make a recommendation on the issue of centralized exit interviews on a countywide basis. In the meantime, the Department of Social Services will continue to conduct its own exit interviews and revise its format to identify a reason for every employee who leaves, without any names attached. Time Frame for Implementation: Revised exit interview format to be implemented by February 2001. Comment While it appears that the Department is taking steps to correct the problems noted, it is too early to tell if there is the will and capability to permanently turn the Fort Bragg office into a professional work place. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Department appreciates the recognition of the steps it has taken to address the concerns noted, and affirms the will and capability of all of the EFAS staff at all levels in Fort Bragg to continue to build a professional work place. With three surveys taken over a six-year period (see Finding 4), MCDSS still has been unable to correct these problems regardless of how much information it has. The MCDSS cannot be blamed for low pay, nor is the BOS to be blamed for this problem as they have limited funds, but all the other issues are within the parameters of the MCDSS mission to correct. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. Three employee surveys have been conducted approximately every three years. Over that time period, several massive projects have occurred, including automation of financial assistance, relocation of all offices, and implementation of welfare reform. In spite of the stress and effort associated with these conversions, there has been positive movement in a number of areas, particularly client service. Certain areas have been harder to improve. A number of areas yield results not significantly different from the 80 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report responses found in standardized national employee surveys. Low pay cannot be dismissed as insignificant in the dynamics of this organization. Not all other issues are within the parameters of the MCDSS mission or authority, for example the functionality of statewide computer systems, or the rapidity of regulation changes, both of which affect supervisor and manager time and effectiveness and staff job satisfaction. Nevertheless, many issues are within the scope of the MCDSS mission and are being addressed through the Multi-faceted Action Plan. It is incumbent on management to set clear and unambiguous standards, exemplified by their own professional actions, and to fairly enforce these standards. Response (Social Services): Agree wholeheartedly. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Department of Social Services 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 81 MENDOCINO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION The District Attorney Family Support Division (FSD) is responsible for collecting child support payments from absent parents. It has investigators, collection officers, legal secretaries, aides and other staff who are charged with collecting all payments due. Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury received a citizen's complaint. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the complainant, two members of the FSD, and a member of the District Attorney's staff. Documents, including summons and a court order were examined. Site visits to the Offices of the FSD, Fort Bragg Ten Mile Court District Attorney and Clerk of the Ten Mile Court. Relevant Law California Family Code Section 5246 and Title 15 U.S. Code Section 1673(b) allow up to 65% of net wages for assignment to dependent(s). The size of a second family as well as other factors can influence this maximum. The California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 685.010 regulates interest on arrears at 10%. The Formula for Statewide Uniform Guideline for Determining Child Support, California Family Code Section 4055, and the Rebuttable Presumption that Amount Established by Formula is Correct Amount, California Family Code Section 4057, are the determining factors in setting financial responsibility. Findings 1. The FSD must seek to collect reimbursement from absent parents for payments expended by the State for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which replaced Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), in the support of dependent children. Response (District Attorney): Agree with the finding in part, but want to add that the Family Support Division collects child support for children regardless of the aid or non-aid status of the child, upon request of any party to the case. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 2. Dependent children or their custodial parent may request the FSD to collect payment of court-ordered support from an absent parent. 82 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (District Attorney): Agree with the finding in part, but feel compelled to add that child support collection by this department may be preceded by a court order, as in the case of a dissolution order which includes support, or it may be the consequence of one of the parties contacting this department for service. Services may include the location of the non-custodial party, the establishment of paternity, and the establishment of an order for support by way of summons, complaint, stipulation, contested hearing or other means, and then the enforcement of the resulting order. A great many of our cases are direct referrals from the Department of Social Services, where the custodial party collecting welfare has little discretion not to co-operate with our office in the establishment and enforcement of a case. When the case comes in from that office, it is treated just the same as any other. We do not discriminate in the servicing of cases depending on where or how the case originated. We treat everyone equally under the law. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and the response provided by the District Attorney – Family Support Division. 3. The FSD is mandated to collect monetary reimbursements and other assets from absent parents. Response (District Attorney): Agree with finding 3 in general, but the collection of money and interception of assets is just one of the thousands of mandated functions that we have. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 4. With a lawful judgment against the absent parent, the FSD may: a. attach wages, b. take federal and state income tax refunds, c. take drivers license, and d. initiate bad credit statements against the absent parent's name. Response (District Attorney): Agree with the finding in part, but the finding lists just a fraction of the economic remedies we can use against a recalcitrant non-custodial party. The available remedies encompass any collection vehicle available in the Civil Code and within judgment debtor law. In addition, for those non-custodial parties who are resistant to the best practices we can employ in the civil arena, there is the possibility of criminal prosecution for non-support or child abandonment. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 83 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding but notes that the District Attorney – Family Support Division has numerous other means to seek payments. 5. The FSD may collect funds from the absent parent of one child in a home and all biological children of the same mother living in that home. Response (District Attorney): Disagree with this finding because the FSD must collect funds from the absent parent if legally possible. The amount collected mostly depends on the income of the absent parent, the income of the custodial parent and the percentage of custody of that child they share. The amount paid may be more in proportion to the pro-rata share of welfare for that particular non-custodial party’s child who may be living in a welfare home with the custodial parent. To that extent, the non-custodial party may be contributing to welfare reimbursement for other biological children of the same mother who is the custodial parent. However, unless there is a biological connection between the non-custodial parent and the other children or unless there is a judicially recognized parental relationship between the non- custodial parent and the other children, there is no direct legal obligation for support. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the District Attorney – Family Support Division. They must collect funds from the absent parent if legally possible. 6. It has been reported to the Grand Jury that absent parents often appear in court without adequate knowledge of their rights, privileges and duties. Response (District Attorney): Agree with this finding, for the reasons stated below under Recommendation. Response (Board of Supervisors): Local government can always do more to educate our citizens in the processes we employ. The Board believes every effort is done within reason by District Attorney – Family Support to notify and educate the parties of their rights and procedures. The parties must make the effort to educate themselves given the resources available to them. Recommendation The FSD should develop a better procedure to keep absent parents informed about what is necessary to preserve their rights, privileges and duties, so that they may petition the court in a timely manner. 84 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (District Attorney): Agree and disagree with this recommendation. Public offices can always do more to inform the public about their functions. The FSD has a Public Outreach mandated effort, whose purpose is to disseminate information to the general public about our mission. For example, we recently had a booth at the Redwood Empire Fair Exhibition Hall, where our literature was available for the taking. Unfortunately, it was not as popular as the balloons and other hand-outs we had available. The only limits on our being able to get the message out to everyone within our jurisdiction are human, technological and budgetary limitations. Within those limitations, we do a good job. For example, when we initiate a case, before the summons and complaint go out, we send the Non-Custodial Party a case opening letter. The summons and complaint then follow, which contain detailed explanations about how the Non-Custodial Party should respond. There is a Notice to Other Parent and there is a Notice to Both Parents on page four. On page five there is a detailed Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and a Notice to Parent Asked to Pay Support (Obligor) which gives that person information about how to respond and what his or her rights are with respect to paternity and support. In this same packet of forms is a Notice of Rights and Responsibilities--Health Care Costs and Reimbursement Procedures which explains the responsibilities of the person to reimburse health care costs not covered by insurance. Also as part of the packet, there is an information sheet on changing a child support order, which gives step- by-step procedures to accomplish this. As part of the summons and complaint packet, there is also a letter given to the Non-Custodial Party explaining how to respond to the Summons and Complaint, including Procedure to file an Answer and Have a Court Hearing, Procedure to Settle Out of Court, and the advice section of the letter entitled If you fail to do one of the two procedures listed above, this will happen. This is called a Dear Defendant Letter. An answer is provided in the packet as is the required Income and Expense Declaration. Finally, a thirty four page Handbook produced by the State of California is also served on the Non-Custodial Party, explaining in excruciating detail what the child support system is all about. This includes Chapters on The Child Support Process, How the Family Support Division Can Help You, Opening a Child Support Case, Non-Custodial Parents and the Child Support Process, Locating the Non-custodial Parent, Establishing Paternity, Establishing a Support Order, How Child Support is Enforced, Collecting Support from Out-of- State Parents, and a Glossary of Child Support Terms. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 85 All of the above materials are personally served on the non-custodial party before they are required to respond to the lawsuit for support. About 30% of the non-custodial parents respond and become involved with the system by taking an active part. The Department would venture to say that none of them read all of the material. A safe estimate would be about 50% don’t get past the summons and complaint, because an inordinate amount of those who do respond fail to file and serve their papers correctly, something which is explained in detail in the Dear Defendant Letter. About 70 % of the non-custodial parents do not respond at all and we take a default against them. A safe assumption is that none of them read the material presented to them. They are resistant to working within the system, and it is very difficult to educate them, much less change their orientation toward their children. For the past few years the Office of the Family Law Facilitator has been in operation in Mendocino County. This office is occupied by Deborah DeMarchi, a very capable Family Law attorney. Her job is to assist unrepresented parties in support cases to navigate the maze of forms required to get their cases heard. She represents neither, but gives procedural advice to both. Her office supplements our efforts to give the parties as much information as they can digest regarding their rights and privileges, as well as their legal duties to their children. The bottom line is that there is a lot of information and assistance available, but many of the Non-Custodial Parties do not take advantage of it or even read the material provided. It has been suggested in a meeting with the Facilitator and the Commissioner that videotapes be provided to explain the same information. This might present it in a little bit more familiar form for the average legal consumer, but of course no statutory guidelines or budgets have been approved for this to happen. In the particular case which became the subject matter of the complaint to the Grand Jury, the order for support originated in Oregon and the Non-Custodial Party moved to Mendocino County at a time when he was owing current support and carrying a $ 12,000.00 balance for arrears. We have no knowledge of the information which was made available to him by Oregon at the time his order originated, and of course we would have no control over their program in any event. However, the reason our office got involved was because we are mandated to collect on what is called a Foreign Order. We sent out a packet to the Non-Custodial Party regarding the registration of this Foreign Order, and this includes two pages of information pertaining to requesting a hearing regarding registration of a California Support 86 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Order. No contest of the registration was requested, and as soon as we registered the order and located his current employer, we sent out an Order/Notice to Withhold Income For Child Support. This form contains Remittance Information, concerning the maximum amount our agency can withhold, along with a separate Information Sheet for Request for Hearing regarding Wage and Earnings Assignment. Effectively, instead of complaining to the Grand Jury about the amount of the wage assignment, the Non-Custodial Party’s better move would have been to request a hearing on the wage assignment. This was never done, but all the information concerning this hearing process was served upon him with the wage assignment. Educating people about child support is a little bit like educating them about birth control. With all the information available about the latter topic, and all the free services concerning family planning, why are there any unintended pregnancies? There are many reasons, but the main one is that many people are just not paying attention to the message. I don’t think there is anything this office or the Grand Jury can do about this situation, except to keep delivering the message and hope for the best. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the District Attorney – Family Support Division. The Board maintains we can always do more to educate our citizens and the District Attorney – Family Support Division will continue to examine other avenues to keep parents informed of their rights and duties in the Family Support system. Time Frame for Implementation: With mandated outreach efforts and working in conjunction with the Family Law Facilitator, the Department has in effect implemented this recommendation. Finding 7. The FSD is in the process of becoming a separate department of Mendocino County government. The Family Support Unit will be under the direct authority of the Board of Supervisors. It will no longer be a division of the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Mendocino County District Attorney Response Requested 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 87 Mendocino County Family Support Unit 88 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report MENDOCINO COUNTY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Domestic violence has long been a private matter, occurring behind closed doors in homes and treated confidentially by law enforcement and in emergency rooms. Family violence has now become a matter of deep public concern. Media coverage has brought this age old problem to the front page. A growing public awareness and understanding of the threats and effects of family violence has brought practices and policies for prosecuting and preventing family violence under public scrutiny. In the mid-1990’s the California legislature added new, stricter sections to the Penal Code that underscore the criminal nature of domestic violence. In 1996 they also added a provision that requires all persons convicted of a crime of domestic violence complete a one-year batterers counseling program as a condition of probation. In Mendocino County, it was alleged that the criminal justice system was not sensitive to the gravity of crimes of domestic violence and the prosecution and sentencing of family violence criminals was not rigorous. Reason for Review The Grand Jury received citizen complaints. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury researched the California Penal and Family Codes; the written domestic violence publications, policies, procedures and training programs of each law enforcement agency in the County; domestic violence calls and arrest records for the years 1998 and 1999 from each law enforcement agency; District Attorney domestic violence prosecution summary; the District Attorney’s Policy and Procedures Manual; California Attorney General publications including the Women’s Rights Handbook, Mendocino County Criminal Justice Trend Data, the California Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program and the Report on Arrests for Domestic Violence in California; Probation Department records and procedures; Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) Manuals for domestic violence, including the viewing of telecourses; The Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project; general literature on battering; Sonoma State University resource guide for batterer programs; San Diego Regional Training course on Domestic Violence for First Responders; and minutes of meetings of the Mendocino County Domestic Violence Council and the county’s Law Enforcement Administrators Association (LEAA). The Grand Jury also reviewed over sixty domestic violence arrest reports and court case files, as well as attending domestic violence courtroom proceedings in Ukiah and Willits. The Grand Jury interviewed the complainants, both past and present members of the District Attorney’s Office including Victim-Witness Assistance; past and present members of the Probation Department; officers and staff of Project Sanctuary; a 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 89 counseling program facilitator; victims and perpetrators of domestic violence; peace officers from the Ukiah Police Department and the Sheriff’s Office; concerned citizens and a representative of the Mendocino County Courts. Relevant Law The principal Penal Code Sections concerning crimes of domestic violence are 273.5 (domestic violence battery with trauma) and 243(e)(1) (domestic violence battery). However, violations of other Penal Code Sections may be crimes of domestic violence; among these are Sections 422 (terrorist threats), 646.9 (stalking), 236 (false imprisonment), 262 (spousal rape), and 273.6 (a) and (d) (violation of restraining or protective orders). Penal Code Section 13700 covers law enforcement response to domestic violence, including mandatory reporting of incidents. The probation requirements for crimes of domestic violence and the details of consequent batterers counseling programs are stipulated in Section 1203.097 of the Penal Code. Section 6211 of the Family Code defines the victims of domestic violence. The requirements for domestic violence training of peace officers is found in Section 13519 of the Penal Code. General Aspects of Domestic Violence Findings 1. California law includes in crimes of domestic violence, in addition to spousal relationships, former spouses, cohabitants and former cohabitants including (as of 1994) gay or lesbian relationships, any person who is the parent of his or her child, any person with whom there is a dating or engagement relationship, a child, or any other person related by consanguinity. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding, although the Sheriff would defer to the statutory definitions. California Penal Code §13700 defines “abuse” and “domestic violence” as follows: (1) “Abuse” means intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, or placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to himself, herself or another. (2) “Domestic violence” means abuse committed against an adult or a fully emancipated minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the suspect has had a child or is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship. For purposes of this subdivision, “cohabitant” means two unrelated adult persons living together for a substantial period of time, resulting in some permanency of relationship. Factors that may determine whether persons 90 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report are cohabiting include, but are not limited to, (1) sexual relations between the parties while sharing the same living quarters, (2) sharing of income or expenses, (3) joint use or ownership of property, (4) whether the parties hold themselves out as husband and wife, (5) the continuity of the relationship, and (6) the length of the relationship. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. 2. According to the California Attorney General, in over 75% of domestic violence cases either the batterer or the victim, or both, have been using alcohol or drugs. Mendocino County arrest reports indicate that weapons are involved more than 50% of the time. Response (Sheriff): Agree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board assumes this finding is accurate. 3. The California legislature passed in 1995 a “zero tolerance” statute on domestic violence that requires that all law enforcement agencies implement, by July 1, 1996, written policies that encourage the arrest of domestic violence offenders, if there is probable cause or if a protective order is violated. In the past both parties involved in a domestic violence dispute have, at times, been arrested. This statute discourages but does not prohibit dual arrests. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees partially with this finding, but only so far as the date. Pursuant to California Penal Code §13701, subsection (a), every law enforcement agency in the state was required to implement written policies and standards for officers’ responses to domestic violence calls by January 1, 1986. Subsequent amendments to this statute have addressed the issues of mandatory arrest, dual- arrests, and identification of the primary aggressor. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has not independently verified this finding. The Board does agree with the response provided by the Sheriff. Domestic Violence in Mendocino County Findings 4. The number of arrests in California for domestic violence, reported to the Attorney General, has risen steadily from 113.6 per 100,000 total population in 1988 to 169.9 in 1998, an increase of 49.6 %. However, in Mendocino County, during the same time frame, the domestic violence arrest rate rose 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 91 from 155.0 to 310.8, an increase of 100 %. This increase in reporting is in large part due to increased awareness and sensitivity to domestic disputes by both law enforcement and the public of Mendocino County. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees in part with this finding. The arrest rate per 100,000 population and the rate of increase appear to be incorrect. The following chart is based on domestic violence arrest data from the California Attorney General’s Office and population data from the demographic unit of the State of California Department of Finance. Mendocino County Domestic Violence Arrests Rate Per 100,000 Population 350 315 310 297 300 232 267 250 219 232 200 218 150 171 143 100 119 50 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Based on this data, the increase from 1988 to 1998 was 62.2%, not 100% as cited by the Grand Jury. However as the chart above shows, neither of these figures reflects the year-to-year fluctuations in arrest rates. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board has not independently verified this finding. The Board does agree with the response provided by the Sheriff. 5. Less than 50% of 9-1-1 domestic violence calls resulted in an arrest in Mendocino County during 1998 and 1999. The arrest rate varied among the four law enforcement agencies in the county. Response (Sheriff): Disagrees in part with this finding, because the statistic is misleading. The classification assigned to a call by dispatch is not an accurate indication of whether conduct at the scene should lead to an arrest. Dispatchers do not investigate the circumstances of the call; they gather basic information and relay it to responding patrol units. The verbal information provided to the dispatcher does not in itself establish probable cause to make an arrest. 92 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. Dispatchers do not investigate the circumstances of the calls they receive. The verbal information given to the dispatcher does not, in itself, establish probable cause to make an arrest. 6. The Law Enforcement Administrators Association (LEAA) of Mendocino County brings together the heads of all county agencies involved in law enforcement, including the District Attorney, the Sheriff, the Chiefs of the three city police departments, the Captain of the local branch of the California Highway Patrol, The Chief Probation Officer, the Major Crimes Task Force Commander and the Superintendent of the California State Parks. In 1996, the LEAA issued a domestic violence policy detailing arrest and evidence gathering procedures. In February 2000, the District Attorney distributed to all LEAA members a family violence checklist which stresses the importance of taped interviews. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. Recommendation As the chief law enforcement officer of the county, the District Attorney, in the context of the LEAA, should assume a proactive leadership role in developing county-wide domestic violence policies and procedures. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation is directed to the District Attorney. As Sheriff and a member of the Law Enforcement Administrator’s Association, I support the recommendation, but I would like to clarify that it is Sheriff, not the District Attorney, who is the chief law enforcement officer in the county. The District Attorney is the chief prosecutor in the county. The distinction is important. Although District Attorneys are not authorized or empowered to command peace officers employed by other agencies, by virtue of their prosecutorial discretion they exert significant influence on the manner in which crimes are investigated. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and encourages all members to fully participate in the Council. Time frame for implementation: On-going Finding 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 93 7. A Mendocino County Domestic Violence Council was formed in January 1995 and includes representatives from all law enforcement agencies, the District Attorney, Victim/Witness Assistance, the Court, all relevant county departments, concerned citizens, Project Sanctuary, E.S.C.A.P.E.S. (Emergency Sanctuary for Coastal Acts Providing Escape Services), and other community service agencies. The Council’s stated mission is to ensure that all those affected by domestic violence are treated fairly and with respect and to promote community awareness for the purpose of reducing the incidence of domestic violence in Mendocino County. Not all Council members are active participants. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. The Sheriff’s Office is an active member of this Council. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding but has not independently verified the statement on the number of calls. Recommendation All members of the criminal justice community should not only participate, but accept active roles in the Council on Domestic Violence. Advantage should be taken of the Media/Community Education Committee to inform the citizenry of the roles and accomplishments of law enforcement. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation has already been implemented. The Sheriff’s Office has played an active role in the Domestic Violence Council since its inception. The Sheriff fully supports use of the council’s Media/Community Education Committee to inform the citizenry of the roles and accomplishments of law enforcement. Responsibility for implementing this portion of this recommendation rests with the Council as a whole. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and encourages all members to fully participate in the Council. Time frame for implementation: On-going Findings 8. Project Sanctuary provides an important and diverse set of services for victims of domestic violence in Mendocino County. Important among these services is the providing of shelter and assistance in obtaining temporary restraining orders (TRO’s). Project Sanctuary receives approximately 1800 domestic violence calls each year. Some of these may be repeat calls involving the same victim. 94 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding but has not independently verified the statement on the number of calls. 9. The District Attorney and Project Sanctuary have begun a dialogue and domestic violence cross-training. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney and Project Sanctuary. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board assumes this statement is correct and urges the District Attorney and Project Sanctuary to continue the cross training. Recommendation The cross training between Project Sanctuary and the District Attorney should be expanded to include all Deputy District Attorneys who may prosecute domestic violence cases. This training program should be formalized and include regularly scheduled training sessions. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation is directed to the District Attorney and Project Sanctuary. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this recommendation but defers to the District Attorney for implementation. Findings 10. In October 1999, using Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) funding, the District Attorney hired a victim-witness domestic violence advocate and brought the part-time domestic violence victim advocate to almost full-time. These advocates now provide courtroom support and services to victims and their families. Response (Sheriff): This finding is directed to the District Attorney. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 11. The Sheriff’s Department and other law enforcement agencies in the county possess excellent domestic violence training programs and materials. However, it is sometimes difficult, due to staffing shortages and overtime restrictions, to have officers taken off duty to attend training sessions. Penal Code Section 13519 requires all officers who respond to calls of domestic 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 95 violence to complete an updated course of instruction on domestic violence every two years. Response (Sheriff): Agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding and urges all law enforcement agencies in the County to continue their domestic violence training efforts. Recommendation Budgeting of overtime and staffing decisions should give fair and thorough consideration to the training of all peace officers in the county. Response (Sheriff): This recommendation has been implemented. In fact, the practice of using overtime to either accomplish training or back-fill vacancies created by officers in training has been an unfortunate reality for the Sheriff’s Office for many years. The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training (POST) allows law enforcement agencies to recoup the overtime costs of staffing a position vacated by an employee who is attending a course approved for reimbursement. The Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office is an active participant in this reimbursement program. The program reduces training costs, but it is not a substitute for adequate staffing. This is especially true now, when we are forced to use overtime just to provide minimum staffing for patrol. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response provided by the Sheriff. Timeframes for implementation: Has been implemented Finding 12. Stay away orders issued by the Court are entered by the Sheriff’s Department into the statewide CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) making this critical information available to all dispatchers. However, the paperwork must be carried to the Sheriff’s Office delaying entry into CLETS. Once entered, the dispatcher can then radio data to police vehicles

R6

The Personnel Manual needs updating and many employees were not sure there was one that was actually followed by management. Neither management nor employees were sufficiently familiar with the manual. Response (Community Development Commission): In 1996, the Personnel Manuel was substantially incorporated into and replaced by a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding between the CDC and the employees’ union which then represented and now represents most of the CDC employees. The CDC acknowledges that the Personnel Manual needs to be revised as a comprehensive document separate and apart from the MOU. The CDC will revise the Personnel Manual within the next year. Response (Board of Supervisors): Response: The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Recommendation The BOC should immediately insure that the Employee Manual is updated and that both management and staff are made aware of its existence. This manual should be used as a training tool for all staff. Response (CDC): Refer to response to Finding #6. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. 14 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: The CDC will revise the Personnel Manual within the next year (12 months).

R17

The BOC is charged with overseeing and making critical decisions concerning the administration of a highly complex housing program. They are further challenged to grasp the mass of regulations promulgated by HUD. In response to this need, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials sponsors a series of seminars and workshops, specifically designed for commissioners whose background is not in housing. Unfortunately, not all of the Commissioners have taken advantage of this important training. Response (Community Development Commission): The majority of the Commissioners have attended conferences and training sessions in an effort to remain current with the complex housing issues and seemingly ever changing policies and regulations. The executive director regularly circulates among Commissioners descriptions of available training sessions. 22 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Recommendation Training in HUD regulations and community development should be mandated for all members of the BOC. The BOC should be more aware of the business transactions conducted by the Commission and of personnel morale. Response (CDC): Refer to response to Finding #17. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: On-going.

R18

As required by HUD, personnel authorized to draw down money from their HUD account are issued an individual password code. No other person is authorized to use that code. The password code used to draw down money from HUD and restricted to specific users was reported by several employees to be loosely controlled. At this time, there is no authorized alternate person available. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 23 Response (Community Development Commission): Control over the HUD account password (LOCCS) is regulated by a designated Commissioner, currently Commissioner Henderson. The only person with authority to use the password is the executive director. The CDC will implement the recommendation of the Grand Jury and designate a second person with access authority. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Recommendation Necessary steps should be taken to insure that there is an authorized alternate and the control of password codes is strictly enforced. Response (CDC): Refer to response to Finding #18. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: Immediately.

R19

There were many reports of improper hiring and promotion practices. Job announcements were not always posted. Also, according to testimony, temporary employees were hired and then assigned to permanent jobs without posting. 24 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Community Development Commission): The CDC disagrees with this statement. All employment opportunities are posted internally so those interested employees may apply. All employment opportunities are advertised in the local newspaper. Since this finding is non-specific, the CDC is unable to provide specific information. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Recommendation If the BOC does not now have a formal procedure to critically evaluate the ED and staff morale; a comprehensive procedure should be developed. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Community Development Commission is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to administer state and federal programs available for low income housing development, purchase assistance, and renovation. The Commission, although appointed by the Board of Supervisors, functions independently in the management of said program responsibilities. Inasmuch, the Commission and its staff are responsible for the operational decisions, and compliance with laws and/or procedures that govern their activities. In granting program responsibilities to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors expects careful oversight over all administrative actions, and compliance with all laws and applicable regulations. Time Frame for Implementation: Not applicable. Recommendation of Grand Jury is not consistent with Finding #19 which is directly applicable to the hiring process and not the evaluation of Executive Director and staff morale.

R20

It was reported that the ED recommends to the BOS people to be appointed as commissioners to CDC. Response (Community Development Commission): All Commissioner appointments are made by the Board of Supervisors. The individual Commissioners, the executive director and employees may make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as can any member of the public. The CDC believes that the Board of Supervisors, both individually and collectively, have sufficient interest, intelligence and independence to make appointments that are in the best interests of the public, regardless of the recommendations received from the executive director and/or anyone else associated with the CDC. In any event, only a single Commissioner has been appointed during the term of the current executive director. Response (Board of Supervisors): The County Administrative Office is not aware of this practice. It is the practice of the County to properly notice vacancies to all boards and commissions. The Board of Supervisors then makes appointments based upon information included in the application. Recommendation The BOS should appoint commissioners without getting recommendations from the ED, which is allowing the “employee” to recommend who their “supervisor” should be. Response (CDC): Refer to response to Finding #20. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees. Time Frame for Implementation: Already implemented.