El Dorado County Grand Jury 2014-15 Placerville Outpatient Mental Health Facility Inspection Response Case Gj 14-04

The exterior stair way has been covered. Response: The respondent agrees with this finding.

There are new signs showing parking and the locations of various departments. Response: The respondent agrees with this finding.

There is ample ADA compliant parking. Response: The respondent agrees with this finding.

School curriculum is provided to all wards and attendance is mandatory. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.

The facility is well maintained. Response: Respondent agrees that both the Placerville and South Lake Tahoe Facilities are well maintained. 6. The Placerville south exercise area is in disrepair and no longer in use. Other outdoor areas provide sufficient exercise space. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.

The El Dorado County Zoning Ordinance imposes specific requirements for Special Use Permits. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. 7. Review of a business and its business practices can be initiated upon receipt of a complaint. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Staff provides a grievance form to address complaints. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.

At the present time the existing room capacity is adequate due to the low population of the wards. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Employees fear that a complaint submitted to the HR Department will not be kept confidential and they may be subject to retaliation. The HR Director acknowledged that this is a reasonable fear, based upon past behavior. Response: Respondent partially disagrees with this finding. When a complaint of discrimination, harassment or retaliation is made by an employee, an investigation is conducted to determine whether a violation of County policy has occurred. Investigations are innately not confidential due to the need to interview witnesses and the subject in order to determine if the allegation is substantiated or not. However, witnesses who are interviewed are advised to keep the matter confidential and as set forth in the County’s Policy Prohibiting Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation the “preservation of the confidentiality of the records [of an investigation] pursuant to applicable statutes shall apply.” 10. Inexperience causes the HR department to willingly defer handling of HR issues to County Counsel. This results in HR issues being handled from a defense oriented posture rather than in a proactive solution-seeking management effort. The Grand Jury observed that complaints filed with HR were investigated solely from the point of view of whether unlawful discrimination occurred while ignoring poor management practices. Response: Respondent partially disagrees with this finding. All of the staff in Human Resources are highly skilled, experienced and qualified for their positions. Given the complexity of employment law, it is the practice in local government for the Human Resource and County Counsel staff to work in tandem on personnel related matters. An example of the proactive approach taken under the present Human Resources Director is the creation of the Personnel Review Committee described above to address personnel matters as early in the process as possible. Since the date of hire, the newly appointed Director of Human Resources has been assessing investigative complaints and reports for both EEO violations and violations of County personnel rules and recommending action accordingly. Additionally, when poor management practices are discovered in the course of an investigation, follow up is conducted with the Department Head on such issues.

Investigations of discrimination or harassment complaints frequently reveal poor management practices or other employee misbehavior, but investigative reports are not shared with department directors. Managers are not informed of these issues when they are brought to light in the course of an investigation and, therefore, are unable to take remedial action. Response: Respondent wholly disagrees with this finding. Investigative reports are shared as necessary with Department Heads where a violation of County policy is found to have occurred. Respondent takes issue with the Grand Jury’s characterization of investigations “frequently” reveal poor management practices or other employee behavior. Occasionally management feedback is received as the result of a Human Resources investigation. That information is provided to the CAO. The CAO has the responsibility to discuss the information with appointed Department Heads to address such issues. Where employee misconduct which would constitute a violation of the County’s Personnel Rules, Part 12, Disciplinary Actions, is uncovered during an investigation, the Human Resources Department will provide the Department Head with the information necessary to address the issue.

Because County Counsel is acting as de facto HR Director, legal work that could be handled in house is contracted out. Complaints of discrimination or harassment are often submitted to private law firms for investigation at significant cost to the county. There is no policy setting forth criteria or procedures for when an investigation will be handled by county staff or contracted out. While it is reasonable that the investigation of certain sensitive complaints, such as those against the CAO or the HR Department itself, be contracted out, it is unreasonably expensive to contract out the investigation of most complaints. These should be handled by HR staff. Response: Respondent wholly disagrees with this finding. County Counsel is not acting as the de facto Human Resources Director. Given the complexities of employment law, Human Resources and County Counsel work closely on a variety of employment related matters including the determination of whether an outside investigator should be employed to conduct an investigation. Considerations of workload issues and the appearance of a bias or prejudice on the part of the investigator help to inform the decision. In the case of a complaint of discrimination, harassment or retaliation, the law requires a prompt, thorough, and fair investigation. The Human Resources Department will conduct an initial review of the matter to determine if the complaint states facts which if are proven to be true would be sufficient to constitute a violation of the County policy. If the complaint does state sufficient facts, then a determination as to whether an outside investigator will be employed is made. The industry standard is to employ the services of an impartial outside investigator to conduct the workplace investigation. The Human Resources Director is also the County’s Equal Employment Officer responsible for making a determination as to whether there was a violation of County policy. Since the County does not have a separate EEO officer, the County will routinely hire an outside investigator to conduct the EEO investigation to avoid the appearance that the investigator is biased or is under some undue influence to come to a certain result. Given the costs of litigation and the potential adverse outcomes if an investigation was found to be biased, the County has adopted a more conservative approach which is most commonly used by smaller counties. Investigations into employee misconduct to determine whether discipline should be imposed are routinely conducted by the department considering the disciplinary action in conjunction with the Human Resources Department. County Counsel may be consulted if a particular legal issue arises during the course of the investigation or to avoid potential legal pitfalls. The Personnel Review Committee described above is also available to the departments to assist in the process. In circumstances where there may be a conflict of interest in the department conducting the investigation or if the matter involves a Department Head, outside investigators have been employed, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

The County spends significant sums of money on outside consultants and attorneys for HR related issues. Response: Respondent partially agrees with this finding. Consultants and attorneys are utilized at the direction of the Board of Supervisors, the CAO and/or the recommendation of County Counsel and/or Human Resources for labor negotiations, training, legal research and/or investigations to comply with Federal and State law and unbiased feedback and findings. Various factors are considered in making the decision to employ outside consultants or attorneys including workload issues, specialized services, and cost.

The County has spent significant sums of money on private consultants identifying personnel issues but has taken only the initial steps towards resolving the issues identified. Response: Respondent partially disagrees with this finding. The Board of Supervisors is committed to improving the County culture. As such, the County has expended funds in an attempt to identify and address systemic or cultural issues affecting County employees. The Cultural Assessment Survey was the first step in identifying those issues. Such a broad based study is an extensive undertaking but it was necessary to obtain an impartial analysis of the cultural issues affecting the County. Any identified personnel issues have been or are currently being addressed in compliance with Federal and State law. Once the results of the Cultural Assessment Survey were known, the County employed a “special master” to address specific employee complaints related to any alleged violation of the County’s Respectful Workplace Policy (Personnel Rule 111). Additionally, the County employed outside investigators to address employee complaints alleging violations of the County’s Policy Prohibiting Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation. As with any attempt to change the culture of an organization, the change comes with sustained effort over time. This Board has been unwavering in its support of creating a healthier workplace for its employees and moving the County forward in a positive fashion, building on the findings of the Cultural Assessment Survey and the development of a County Strategic Plan.

Human Resources and Risk Management were separated to allow the HR Director to develop her skills in human resources management. The two functions are closely integrated and their separation is inefficient. Response: Respondent wholly disagrees with this finding. At the direction of the then CAO, Terri Daly, Risk Management was overseen by the former Assistant CAO, Kim Kerr, prior to the newly appointed Director of Human Resources being hired. CAO Terri Daly directed that Risk Management would remain under the control of the CAO’s office. The structure of having Risk Management under the CAO’s office was not effective and not in compliance with County Ordinance, therefore the Board of Supervisors directed the former CAO, Terri Daly, to assign the responsibility of Risk Management to the newly appointed Director of Human Resources in order to enhance efficiency and comply with County Ordinance. It should be further noted that no inquiry was made of the newly appointed Director of Human Resources during the Grand Jury interview regarding this allegation/representation.

The County does not have an organization chart accurately reflecting County organization. Response: Respondent wholly disagrees with this finding. The Chief Administrative Office oversees updates to the County organizational chart which can be found on the CAO department page within the annual recommended budget. Recommendations 1. The Board of Supervisors should renew its commitment to comply with the recommendations made by the 2006-07 Grand Jury. Response: This recommendation has been implemented as have many of the recommendations of the 2006-2007 Grand Jury. By way of example, the Board and Chief Administrative Officer have expressed a consistent message that Departments are to work in coordination with the Human Resources Department. The current Human Resources Director has reached out to Departments through the development of the Personnel Review Committee. Additionally, the County has improved its recruitment process to more timely address Departmental needs. The County has also developed and successfully conducted several Supervisor Academies in addition to the State mandated trainings. Rather than review and update the then existing El Dorado County Personnel Management Book, the County has adopted comprehensive Personnel Rules which can be found on the County website. The County is also in the process of adopting a Strategic Plan which will include various elements to help guide the County both in its internal relationships and external relationships as recommended by the 2006-2007 Grand Jury.