📋
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.
⚠️ 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 5 findings
F1
Page 100
The MCGJ finds that the Board of Supervisors committed nonfeasance by not taking appropriate action on a timely basis on the ongoing workplace harassment complaints and issues.
F2
Page 100
The MCGJ finds that the CAO’s $306,000 salary is excessive commensurate to the size of the County population and budget.
F3
Page 100
The MCGJ finds that the CAO’s severance of $113,168.34 was paid by county taxpayers.
F4
Page 100
The MCGJ finds that the Board of Supervisors negligent in failing to address the ten years of harassment thus allowing the unhealthy work environment to persist.
F5
Page 104
The MCGJ finds that private interests in leasing the airport facilities wererepeatedly ignored.
Recommendations 5
-
R1Page 100The MCGJ recommends that the Board of Supervisors immediately address, review,and curtailall abuses of power in the county workplace by working with the County Human Resources Director to ensure that adopted Policies and Procedure protocols are enforced.
-
R2Page 100The MCGJ recommends that the County Director of Human Resources immediately conduct compensation research and salary review forthe CAO position as it relates to counties and budgets similar in size to Madera County.
-
R3Page 100The MCGJ recommends that the Board of Supervisors immediately document and provide a rationale for the severance package and payout made to the CAO.
-
R4Page 100The MCGJ recommends that immediately changes are made to Resolution No. 2019-128 “Policy and Guidelines on Discrimination and Harassment,” adopted by Madera County Board of Supervisors August 20, 2019, to enable employees to report issues to the Human Resources Department without fear of retribution or retaliation. PART II Coarsegold Rezoning: The complaints were failure by the BOS to listen to impacted constituents. SUMMARY: The Madera County Grand Jury (MCGJ) responded to complaints regarding the ongoing request to rezone a Coarsegold neighborhood from residential rural to light industrial. Residents of the area in question presented to the Board of Supervisors’ objections to this rezone, provided a signed petition by all neighbors and continue to oppose this rezoning. This issue has come before the Board of Supervisors and County Planning Department numerous times beginning in 2002 and continuing through 2018. BACKGROUND: Over the past 17 years, a property owner in the Meadow Springs Ranch neighborhood has repeatedly requested the rezoning of a30-acre parcel from Residential Mountain Single Family (RMS) to Industrial, Urban or Rural, Light LI. The request also includedan amendment to the General Plan and Coarsegold Area Plan designations from Rural Residential (RR) to Light Industrial (LI). The property is located on the West Side of Highway 41, between Veater Ranch Road and Stone Creek Drive. The parcel was split into two lots in 2014 (APN #054-090-095 and APN #095-090-096)and is surrounded entirely by residential homes. A petition signed on June 12, 2018 by 121 residents, has continually opposed the rezoning citing noise, traffic flow issues, and environmental impacts. Additionally, reviews completed and recommendations by the County Planning Department, Cal Trans, and the Regional Water Control Board also recommended denial of this rezoning and filed a negative environmental impact report. This report addresses the ongoing requests and opposition presented to the Board of Supervisors by the various agencies and concerned property owners.
-
R5Page 104TheMCGJ recommends that immediately the City of Madera and the County of Madera entertain the financial investment interests of private entities. 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116